SUO: Re: Dominant In Their Own Mind Philosophers (DITOMP's)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Chris Menzel wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:02:25PM -0400, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > Welcome to the club of idiosyntactic thinkers.
>
> I'm sure John will be thrilled at the
> implication that he is a fellow pea
> in your pod.
Oh, I should have warned you, that was supposed to be ironical.
After all, when things as utterly standard in mathematics as
category theory, differential calculus, and definition up to
isomorphism are still received as illegimate novelties by
the received view in FO logic, then how could any humble
practitioner of the dark arts and light crafts of math
hope to have his or her terminolgical sine qua nons
received as anything but idiosyntactic by the
received-in-their-own-mind monadic viewers?
> While there are indeed distinctively idiosyncratic
> elements to John's approach, unlike you:
>
> * He provides genuine, well-informed arguments when
> he fulminates against received views in logic;
>
> * He provides genuine arguments for the advantages of
> the distinctive elements of his approach;
>
> * He goes to considerable lengths to show exactly the formal
> equivalence of his approach to more familiar frameworks.
The nice thing about being blessed with the
received view in logic, of course, is that
one does not have to give any arguments.
> > I can only be thankful that CM has decided to pick on somebody his own weight.
>
> Odd that you would see my challenging John -- with whom I've worked and
> argued for at least a dozen years, often to our mutual benefit -- on this
> rather trivial point of terminology as "picking on" him. I can assure you
> that would not be his own impression. It strikes me that it says something
> about how you process strongly reasoned challenges to your own views.
> It's not about winning, losing, or scoring points, Jon.
Please refer to my previous remark about irony.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o