[Milton-L] Satan and Resentment

James Rovira jamesrovira at gmail.com
Sun Jan 30 16:46:48 EST 2011


Familiar controversy indeed.

So, my last response, only because I don't want to leave you thinking
that I'm calling you silly.  Though I know that you will regardless, I
feel obligated to try at least once.

Yes, as I said in my initial reply to you, and as I confirmed in my
previous reply to you, I did believe that "this conversation is in
danger of being silly."  I did not say that -you- were in danger of
being silly.  The word "conversation" was the subject of this
sentence.  That is my general feeling about all conversations about
metaphysics: they are continually on the verge of being silly.

I said later that the conversation was especially in danger of being
silly -- or perhaps I said that it crossed the line -- because a list
member invoked Hawking's ideas.  But you were not that list member, so
clearly I was not referring to you.  I consider Hawking to be a genius
whose most publicly visible career has been devoted to silliness in
both physics and philosophy, as he seems to consistently mistake
mathematical possibilities for physical realities -- or at least his
press does.

And then my conversation with Joel about blue cars seemed silly to me:
not that Joel seemed silly, just that the conversation did, because a
"blue car" does not exist.  It is a category.  A 1978 blue Ford
Mustang exists.  Many have and do.  But "blue car" as an existent
thing in itself does not exist.  It is part of a classification
scheme.  Only individual blue cars exist.  But this again was not a
reference to you, or even to one of your posts.

So I have yet to say that you, yourself, are or were being silly.

Moving on, I very much appreciate your advice to me, offered solely on
the basis of my appearance in a single picture and a blurb on a
website.  I understand that you are in earnest and that your insight
is much to be valued on this point.  So, I will quit my vocation, give
up reading in philosophy (and I may as well in literature as well --
surely the more indirect communication provided by literary works are
far more opaque than the directness and clarity of philosophy), and
find some other job.  I think that I will sell insurance.  Or,
perhaps, go into computer engineering.

Thank you. My debt to you is both lifelong and profound.

Jim R

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Terrance Lindall <tlindall at gmail.com> wrote:
> One more thing Jim:
> You DID indeed say that "...the conversation was in danger of being silly."
> So I am still absolutely CORRECT in saying that you used the word "silly."
> Those kinds of words are uncalled for in a discussion of the merits of a
> philosophical argument. Those words do not elevate any discussion. That is
> threat to use and in fact IS use of the ad bachulum fallacy in logic.
> I think if you took a few courses in logic and maybe went to finishing
> school you might become what you think you are.
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM, James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What I said was that the conversation was in danger of being silly.
>> If that is all you read, and not my reasoned argument (there's no
>> evidence possible of the nature of being) then, as I suspected, the
>> discussion began as a waste of time.
>> Jim R

More information about the Milton-L mailing list