[Buddha-l] Bertrand Russell

[Richard Hayes]

On Monday 14 August 2006 02:12, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
 
> So you support all those hate preachers (christian, hindu or muslim)
> because they're fun and not dull? 

I don't support anyone. You should know that by now.

> Do you really think that it's fun to 
> watch a dialogue in which opponent arguments of are misrepresented all
> the time.

Yes, I do. I would not have said I find it amusing if I did not find it 
amusing. I (just barely) have enough integrity to say what I believe.

> I personally find this very boring and 'human all to human'. 
> That's why I don't bother to read Russell and prefer to read Coppleston.

I like reading both. My admiration for one does not require me to dismiss the 
other as boring.

> I find your arguments very poor indeed. 

Well, then, the remedy is very simple. Do not accept my conclusions.

> First of all your standard seems 
> to be pure amusement, which is not the standard raison d'être for
> discussions.

It depends entirely on the person and her mood what the purpose of discussion 
is. Speaking only for myself, I have discussions for a wide variety of 
purposes. One of them is amusement. But then I'm not Dutch. I realize you 
Dutchmen are capable only of being sober and serious. That's why there are no 
Dutch comedians.

> Secondly the structure of your argument is that 
> misprepresenting arguments is not bad because people do it all the time,

No, that is not the case at all. I did not make an argument of any sort. I was 
not trying to make an argument. I was trying to make an irresponsible an 
outrageous slur of philosophers. It was a sort of joke. Ask some French or 
English colleague to explain to you what jokes are.

> Thirdly you would have to misrepresent the arguments of your
> opponents as well, which means no dialogue but factual solepsism.
> Do you really think you're so funny? :-)

I love to misrepresent the arguments of others, espeically if I think there is 
any chance it might get their goat. (You don't have goats in the Netherlands, 
it being a land of sheep. But "get someone's goat" is an idiom for irritating 
them. I don't give a damn whether anyone else thinks it's funny to irritate 
others. It amuses me, and that is quite enough justification for me.

Dharmakirti