MFBukowski: Shafted By the Mopologists?

[_mfbukowski]

For the record, I like mfbukowski. Over the years I have learned a lot from him -- even when I don't agree with his position.

I would like to see the same respect afforded to David Bokovoy and Don Bradley extended to mfbukowski. He's a kind person seeking to understand the world through both a Gospel and philosophical lense.

I would love to see him post more often here so he can see, contrary to popular propoganda, that the majority of this board is full of substantive conversation. Often heated, but substantive.

Thanks for the kind words, Seth

If you look back at the record of my posts here, this has been a recurring issue, because lately the only reason I post here has been to defend myself against threads started about me- out of the blue, because of something I have said at MDD.

Any posts I have started or commented on extensively, like the postmodern threads, and the Royce evolution of morality thread almost always end up with personal attacks - particularly by a single poster here who starts it, and then others follow his lead and loves to question my qualifications to post at all. It really is pretty silly. He loves to bring up my opinions on Quine which, incidentally I completely stand behind (my opinions, not Quine)

The thread then typically degenerates into personal attacks as everyone else jumps on the bandwagon.

It really isn't worth it for me- it becomes a waste of time with the real issues getting lost in the gunsmoke.

But thanks Seth, I enjoy your posts and think you are among the sane few on both boards. (Please note I said BOTH boards)

[_Drifting]

But thanks Seth, I enjoy your posts and think you are among the sane few on both boards. (Please note I said BOTH boards)

I also note you said 'few'....

[_dblagent007]

Any posts I have started or commented on extensively, like the postmodern threads, and the Royce evolution of morality thread almost always end up with personal attacks - particularly by a single poster here who starts it, and then others follow his lead and loves to question my qualifications to post at all. It really is pretty silly. He loves to bring up my opinions on Quine which, incidentally I completely stand behind (my opinions, not Quine)

The thread then typically degenerates into personal attacks as everyone else jumps on the bandwagon.

"Personal attacks" = questioning Bukowski's understanding of certain philosophers he uses to support his arguments.

This is how it usually goes down. The poster who shall not be named usually quotes the writings of the philosopher in dispute, which contradict Bukowski's argument. Bukowski responds by telling the poster who shall not be named that Bukowski will not submit himself to something so utterly pointless and silly as questions about whether Bukowski could possibly be mistaken.

[_Kishkumen]

"Personal attacks" = questioning Bukowski's understanding of certain philosophers he uses to support his arguments.

This is how it usually goes down. The poster who shall not be named usually quotes the writings of the philosopher in dispute, which contradict Bukowski's argument. Bukowski responds by telling the poster who shall not be named that Bukowski will not submit himself to something so utterly pointless and silly as questions about whether Bukowski could possibly be mistaken.

Yup.

[_MrStakhanovite]

To be fair, I do personally attack mfbukowski, but I’ve come to acquire a personal distaste for him. I wish he’d just state his beliefs and argue for his ideas without gratuitous name dropping, but he can’t seem to explain himself without recourse to something like “ I believe what Nagel/Wittgenstein/Rorty/Quine/Nietzsche/James, read them and get back to me”

Naturally, few people even know who most of the names are, much less familiar with what they wrote. He uses this as a platform to intimidate those he considers “anti-Mormons” and make accusations that people are still stuck in some niche of the past, because he was after all, a well read philistine for decades before he got baptized, and has done this all before.

I’m horrified that someone might actually associate mfbukowski’s terrible ideas with the actual names he is so quick to mention. I think he lies about his ability and understanding to score rhetorical points, using any name or book title he can to hide behind. His total inability to do basic philosophical analysis, properly understand and use jargon important to the discipline, and the careless and lackadaisical manner in which he represents other philosophers are all points that fuel for my dislike for him.

He is a pretender who gives philosophy a reputation as just a bunch of BS, there is no reason on earth to treat him like an actual scholar who has character like David or Don.

[_mfbukowski]

Arguments about what philosophers said are nearly always pointless. All one has to do is read what they said. Who is right and who is wrong is usually quite apparent. And as I have said, if one really wants to get into that kind of discussion, I stand behind all I have said.

But arguing about such things is a great distraction tactic when one does not want to confront the real issues in a discussion, and a great way to make ad hominem attacks to destroy the credibility of your opponent, especially when most of the audience has no idea what you are talking about anyway.

What is important is how we integrate what philosophers have said, into our own views, and how that modifies how we understand the world.

And as my idol, to drop a name, Forest Gump would say, that is about all I have to say about that.

[_LDSToronto]

Arguments about what philosophers said are nearly always pointless. All one has to do is read what they said. Who is right and who is wrong is usually quite apparent. And as I have said, if one really wants to get into that kind of discussion, I stand behind all I have said.

But arguing about such things is a great distraction tactic when one does not want to confront the real issues in a discussion, and a great way to make ad hominem attacks to destroy the credibility of your opponent, especially when most of the audience has no idea what you are talking about anyway.

What is important is how we integrate what philosophers have said, into our own views, and how that modifies how we understand the world.

And as my idol, to drop a name, Forest Gump would say, that is about all I have to say about that.

And yet, as Stak has said, you don't share your own views.

H.

[_Darth J]

Arguments about what philosophers said are nearly always totally irrelevant to Mormonism.

Fix't.

[_mfbukowski]

And yet, as Stak has said, you don't share your own views.

H.

That doesn't exactly fit with your claim that it was my views which pushed you out of the church, does it?

[_ludwigm]

But thanks Seth, I enjoy your posts and think you are among the sane few on both boards. (Please note I said BOTH boards)

I also note you said 'few'....

One can say rude words very courteously...
(Words which don't hurt - any hippopotamus.)