Thursday, July 27, 2006
Carrier compares himself to Aristotle, or does he?
When I first read Carrier's comparison of himself to Aristotle, I thought that all he meant was that you didn't have to be a credentialed philosopher in order to be able to participate in philosophical dialogue, and that Aristotle, for example, would not meet today's criteria of an academic philosopher. I make that kind of claim myself on behalf of C. S Lewis. But I'm not so sure now. What did he mean?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What a waste of time writing that article was!
Basically, he wants to justify an ad hominem against Carrier (against something Carrier said in response to another ad hominem from someone else).
Seems sort of foolish.
But entertaining to the lurkers.
I am not at all impressed by Carrier's philosophy.
Carrier has clarified his remark here:
Note of Correction: I previously used the phrase "no less a philosopher than" with respect Aristotle and Hume, which Wood then took out of context as a reference to my equivalence to them in fame or accomplishment, rather than what the context clearly established as my meaning, which is my equivalence to them in being a philosopher. Wood also ignored the word "relevant" and babbled on about such irrelevancies as my not knowing as much about octopus biology as Aristotle, which has nothing to do with philosophy or being a philosopher. I also changed the word "match" to "comparable" to prevent anyone thinking I ever meant my knowledge is identical to theirs. For those with the patience of Job, Wood's arduously long ramblings about this can be read in Richard Carrier: Equal to Aristotle?
Based on Richard's clarification, Victor, I'd say your original interpretation (which was also my original interpretation, based on my initial reading of Wood's article just now) was correct.
The fact that Wood thought otherwise and wrote that entire article without first asking Carrier what he meant doesn't say much for Wood.
Post a Comment