rapaport@buffalo.CSNET ("William J. Rapaport") (08/04/86)
Newsgroups: mod.ai Subject: Re: philosophy journals References: <8607211801.AA17444@ellie.SUNYAB> <8608010555.AA11229@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: William J. Rapaport (rapaport@buffalo.csnet) Reply-To: rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (William J. Rapaport) Followup-To: The Colonel's complaint Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science In article <8608010555.AA11229@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman") writes: >In article <8607211801.AA17444@ellie.SUNYAB>, rapaport@buffalo.CSNET >("William J. Rapaport") writes: > >> The original version of the ... problem may be found in: >> Jackson, "Epiphenomenal Qualia," _Philosophical Q._ 32(1982)127-136. >> with replies in: >> Churchland, "Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of >> Brain States," _J. of Philosophy_ 82(1985)8-28. >> Jackson, "What Mary Didn't Know," _J. of Philosophy_ 83(1986)291-95. >> (One of the reasons I stopped reading net.philosophy was that its >> correspondents seemed not to know about what was going on in philosophy >> journals!) > >Out of curiosity I hunted up the third article on the way back from lunch. >It's aggressive and condescending; any sympathy I might have felt for >the author's argument was repulsed by his sophomoric writing. I hope it's >not typical of the writing in philosophy journals. I don't quite understand what "aggressive and condescending" or "sophomoric writing" have to do with philosophical argumentation. One thing that philosophers try not to do is give ad hominem arguments. A philosophical arguement stands or falls on its logical merits, not its rhetoric.