but spending nearly 20 lines belittling him and only 2 engaging with the argument at hand seems petty...
Not so much belittling him, but rather Brooks's claim of him as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. Not around these parts, squire. Not in the same league as Ayer and Popper. And no, I wouldn't characterize either as being particularly limited to epistemology. So there's the problem of Brooks doing a bit of grandiose appeal to authority in the process of building his strawman, which I suspect is what Hal was reacting to.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: tut tut
Date: 2003-12-27 10:21 pm (UTC)Not so much belittling him, but rather Brooks's claim of him as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. Not around these parts, squire. Not in the same league as Ayer and Popper. And no, I wouldn't characterize either as being particularly limited to epistemology. So there's the problem of Brooks doing a bit of grandiose appeal to authority in the process of building his strawman, which I suspect is what Hal was reacting to.