Of course it would be counter productive, there is no common experience between us on this matter. We never sat in the same classes, nor drank beer with the same philosophy profs.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Simple Minded wrote:I could spend the rest of the day arguing with you on this, but I have a feeling it would be counter-productive.Most of the philosophy profs I had the pleasure of knowing had the personality I imagine to be dominant among lawyers, they just love to argue with little regard for the outcome. Lot of output bandwidth, little input bandwidth. One day, my favorite said so in almost as many words, "We, philosophy professor are just full of ourselves, and we love to argue. And if we ever start to agree with each other, most of us won't be employed any longer."
But refusing to enter the arena of counter productive philosophical argument? Turn in your high brow intellectual ID card at the door on your way out Bro!
My other applicable analogies would be drinking wine with a wine snob, or watching baseball with a baseball stat snob.
"Oh yes, the grape of this wine was obviously picked in the morning by a well rested left hander, which is much less traumatic to the vine and the grape, as opposed to a fatigued right hander picking the grape in the hotter afternoon sun."
"Fred's screw ball is unique in all of MLB because his mother was a Jewish welder."
Fun to a point, but tedious. Maybe if I was getting paid to read what they are getting paid to write.......