From: zeleny@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Writing and Responsibility (was re: "revisiting"+false dichotomies)
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:38:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr17.123829.11218
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.

In article <owens.703192469@tartarus.uchicago.edu>
owens@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens) writes: 

>In <1992Apr13.011832.11030@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes: 

MZ:
>>You completely misunderstand the argument.  Try reading it again, using a
>>dictionary next time.  Good luck.

CO:
>Try writing it again, using a little decency toward someone who
>enthusiastically and respectfully seeks to discuss your ideas with
>you.  If some genuinely interested person misunderstands your
>argument, try meeting him halfway with an explanation of the sticky
>parts.

It so happens that I am sympathetic with the plight of an amateur reader,
insofar as I like to venture in my research outside of the area of my
primary expertise.  However, in this case I find your plea for "decency" to
be utterly misguided.  The least of my problems with complying with your
request involves my reader's character: I've yet to see any evidence of an
honest effort to comprehend the substance of my, or anybody else's
arguments (much less enthusiasm or respect) on Eric Silber's part; instead,
all I get is a barrage of discombobulated mumblings ostensibly intended to
express his sincere concern about the existence of the integers before the
Big Bang.  Of such stuff, no good arguments are ever made.  Having tried in
the past to remedy Eric's misapprehension of philosophical issues by
suggesting some introductory readings, I feel that I've gone far beyond the
call of duty in this particular case; the rest is up to him.  Worse, your
demand is that I accomodate every "genuinely interested person" who has the
misfortune to misunderstand my argument.  Now, that simply won't do.  As a
writer, I address myself only to those capable of understanding my
arguments; to do otherwise would be tantamount to pandering to the lowest
common denominator of the conceivable audience, and ipso facto undermining
the substance of my work.  To take an exotic example, when I want to
discuss the political sympathies of Charles Baudelaire during the Second
Republic, I have no interest in "meeting the prospective reader halfway"
with an explanation of the differences between the ideology of the XIXth
century French republicanism, and the program of the American Republican
Party, even though I am fully aware that "someone who enthusiastically and
respectfully seeks to discuss my ideas" is liable to confuse the former
with the latter.  Instead, I address my writings to the audience which may
not be entirely comprised of professionals in their field, but which at the
very least shares their willingness to approach the subject in a
professional manner.  End of this discourse.


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`