🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <863@wrs.wrs.com>, hwajin@wrs.wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae) writes:
> In article <14352@s.ms.uky.edu> you write:
> >Hwa Jin Bae has written on Descartes; another and I have tried to correct
> >some of his misunderstandings.  This is my final contribution to the 
> >exchange.  M. Bae states that the discussion is becoming too philosophically
> >oriented for this group, if so, I apologize for wasting the readers' time.

Okay, I lied; I have a further comment, but it is not specific to Desartes.

> >The general problem is that M. Bae lacks an understanding of Descartes'
> >work and refuses to believe that others may be correct or have a better
> >grasp of his work.
> 
> i lack understanding of descartes' work but i do not refuse to believe
> that others may be correct or have a better grasp of descartes.  i'm
> perfectly willing to give you a chance to prove to me that you indeed
> possess better understanding of his work.  since you seem to think that
> you do, perhaps it is so.  i'm not yet convinced of that.  if you're
> to condemn someone of ignorance you're entitled to your opinion but please
> do not accuse me of refusing to believe that anyone else might have a
> that i have full understanding of descartes.  . . .  i was explaining what i
> undertood of him -- N.B. *my* understanding, as yours is *yours*, who
> is to say which is truly correct?  -- not condemning others' of ignorance
> or refusing to listen to me, as you've done here.  it saddens me to think
> that anyone who has read the meditation can bring himself down to doing 
> such things in public out of sheer misunderstanding.

Perhaps I've been rude; if so, I apoloze to all in the newsgroup because
one shouldn't be rude.  Perhaps also I am arrogant.  I do know that I
often become impatient in these discussions; I will explain why.

>                                                my opinions and 
> my interpretations of others' works are my own and who cannot force-
> feed me into taking your views without rigorous and convincing argument.
> we have not gone through that.  you've stated some facts which seemed
> very fragmented and inconsistent to me and i stated a few bits of 
> my understanding that was differently conceived/interpreted.
  [much deleted]
> hey.  i'm an amateur.  i read the stuff out of pure joy and interpret 
> it as i read them.  i do not study the damn things.  i just read to
> get the feel, the flow, and get my shit together, that's all.  

This is a general problem to which philosophy is often subjected.  People
make remarks along the line of, "I read it and get *my* *own* understanding/
interpretation".  What would be the response if, for example, I said, "I've
read Euclid's argument that there is no largest prime, I think he's saying
that after a certain point (in the sequence of integers) *all* larger
integers are prime"?  Surely this would not be tolerated.  It ought also
not be tolerated in regard to much of philosophy.  There *is* an
understanding of Descartes' work which stretches from Descartes to the
present, which does not mean that there are *no* points of controversy
concerning his work.  For example, the relationship to the Cogito to
action statements such as "Ambulo, ergo sum" ("I walk, therefore I am")
is unclear.  However, other points are simply *not* controversial.  It
is also the case that misunderstandings recur: having taught a few
courses in introductory philosophy will expose one to a set of 
misunderstandings which occur over and over in introductory courses.
I get quite impatient when I am told "*my* understanding, as yours is 
*yours*, who is to say which is truly correct?"  There *are* correct
and incorrect interpretations.  This may come as a surprise, but
philosophy is a discipline.

> Hwa Jin Bae (hwajin@wrs.com)
> Wind River Systems


-- 
Richard L. Shelby                    rshelby@ms.uky.edu
Department of Health Services        rshelby@ukma.BITNET
University of Kentucky               {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!rshelby