Oh good Lord. I posed a simple question. I did not advocate the Obama plan, or oppose it. I pointed out that there were some things which were "socialized" and some things which were not socialized, and asked whether health care is something that should be socialized or not socialized. That's it. That's all I said.
It does reflect one thing, and that is that when you look at something and ask whether government should try to provide it or whether it should be provided privately, it's a case by case decision. A simple "capitalism good, socialism bad," or the reverse, won't do the job, unless you are a thoroughgoing, consistent libertarian. I mean, is there anyone out there that wants to privatize the military? Besides the CEO of Blackwater?
Vallicella offers some reasons why health care should remain privatized, or rather, why the step in the direction of socialization that has been proposed by the Obama administration is not a good one. However, his post and mine are not parallel to one another. He advocated something, I asked a question, and behind that question are a few observations about the nature of the debate. Only by reading a whole bunch of things in to my statements do you get anything like a basis for the kind of comment you made. I respect Bill's points, and may at some point raise some questions about his post.
I might add that the Democratic proposals have been criticized on the left because they don't replace the insurance companies with a single payer program.
OK, you guys know my political affiliation, but not everything I write is intended as advocacy. My job as a philosopher is sometimes to ask question, rather than to answer them. In fact, I wrote that as a response to a student's paper proposal to give that student a way of thinking about the issue, and then thought it would be a good blog entry. I do that a lot, actually.
But notice two things that happened here. One is that you resorted to name-calling and personal attack. The other is, apparently, you read a huge amount into my statements that are simply not there. This is a serious problem that I have with this blog. It's kind of tough to take you guys seriously when it comes to exegesis, when your interpretation of my statements is nothing but eisegesis.
Oh good Lord. I posed a simple question. I did not advocate the Obama plan, or oppose it. I pointed out that there were some things which were "socialized" and some things which were not socialized, and asked whether health care is something that should be socialized or not socialized. That's it. That's all I said.
I suppose we could say the same thing. We just posed a simple question. We didn't say whether you were or weren't a real philosopher. Or whether you were or weren't a charlatan. In fact, we didn't even say whether you supported or opposed socialized medicine let alone Obama's health care plan in this post. We didn't say anything either way. We left it up readers to decide for themselves. That's it. That's all we said.
But notice two things that happened here. One is that you resorted to name-calling and personal attack.
In this post, we didn't call you any names. We didn't make any personal attacks against you here.
But, while we're on the subject, you might be interested in reading a recent post.
The other is, apparently, you read a huge amount into my statements that are simply not there. This is a serious problem that I have with this blog. It's kind of tough to take you guys seriously when it comes to exegesis, when your interpretation of my statements is nothing but eisegesis.
Do you mean it's tough to take us seriously when it comes to biblical exegesis? Or exegesis of other texts? Well, either way, it's possible, for example, for us to misinterpret your statements, but correctly interpret other people's statements and in fact all other texts. I'm not saying we're misinterpreting you or putting our thoughts and ideas into your words. Rather, I'm saying, even if it were true that we're misinterpreting you, I think it's still possible for us to reliably exegete the Bible or reliably interpret other texts or statements or what not.
I would hope that you handle sacred text with more care than you handle my comments. But when you assert that one of the bloggers in question is a charlatan, when the overall stance of the blog is right-wing, when one of the bloggers, who is known to support conservative causes presents a criticism of Obama's plans for health care, and the other, who has taken more liberal positions in the past, makes a statement about it the health care debate, can there be any doubt as to who you think is a charlatan?
Look, Bill Vallicella doesn't think I'm a charlatan, and I don't think he is one. Why assume that there is a charlatan in the discussion? I think there are zero.
Bill's a good friend of mine, and a chess buddy. We differ on politics. I'm not even sure I know how to characterize my own political views, because I am more of a opponent of the cafeteria conservatism and corporate prostituion of the present-day Republican party, and in particular the Bush administration, than I am an actual liberal. But I've been told that perceiving the Bush administration as practicing a bastardized conservatism is seen at least by some as evidence that I'm really a leftist. So, I suppose, was William F. Buckley Jr. when he opposed the war in Iraq.
On the other hand, if you were to compare my political views to most people in the academic community, I would come out fairly conservative.
“I would hope that you handle sacred text with more care than you handle my comments. But when you assert that one of the bloggers in question is a charlatan, when the overall stance of the blog is right-wing, when one of the bloggers, who is known to support conservative causes presents a criticism of Obama's plans for health care, and the other, who has taken more liberal positions in the past, makes a statement about it the health care debate, can there be any doubt as to who you think is a charlatan?”
You’re assuming it’s an ideological comparison, rather than a comparison involving the respective level of analysis. If you were two receive two student papers, one representing your post, and the other representing Vallicella’s, how would you grade them?
Oh good Lord. I posed a simple question. I did not advocate the Obama plan, or oppose it. I pointed out that there were some things which were "socialized" and some things which were not socialized, and asked whether health care is something that should be socialized or not socialized. That's it. That's all I said.
ReplyDeleteIt does reflect one thing, and that is that when you look at something and ask whether government should try to provide it or whether it should be provided privately, it's a case by case decision. A simple "capitalism good, socialism bad," or the reverse, won't do the job, unless you are a thoroughgoing, consistent libertarian. I mean, is there anyone out there that wants to privatize the military? Besides the CEO of Blackwater?
Vallicella offers some reasons why health care should remain privatized, or rather, why the step in the direction of socialization that has been proposed by the Obama administration is not a good one. However, his post and mine are not parallel to one another. He advocated something, I asked a question, and behind that question are a few observations about the nature of the debate. Only by reading a whole bunch of things in to my statements do you get anything like a basis for the kind of comment you made. I respect Bill's points, and may at some point raise some questions about his post.
I might add that the Democratic proposals have been criticized on the left because they don't replace the insurance companies with a single payer program.
OK, you guys know my political affiliation, but not everything I write is intended as advocacy. My job as a philosopher is sometimes to ask question, rather than to answer them. In fact, I wrote that as a response to a student's paper proposal to give that student a way of thinking about the issue, and then thought it would be a good blog entry. I do that a lot, actually.
But notice two things that happened here. One is that you resorted to name-calling and personal attack. The other is, apparently, you read a huge amount into my statements that are simply not there. This is a serious problem that I have with this blog. It's kind of tough to take you guys seriously when it comes to exegesis, when your interpretation of my statements is nothing but eisegesis.
Thanks, Victor, for your comment.
ReplyDeleteBy way of response:
Oh good Lord. I posed a simple question. I did not advocate the Obama plan, or oppose it. I pointed out that there were some things which were "socialized" and some things which were not socialized, and asked whether health care is something that should be socialized or not socialized. That's it. That's all I said.
I suppose we could say the same thing. We just posed a simple question. We didn't say whether you were or weren't a real philosopher. Or whether you were or weren't a charlatan. In fact, we didn't even say whether you supported or opposed socialized medicine let alone Obama's health care plan in this post. We didn't say anything either way. We left it up readers to decide for themselves. That's it. That's all we said.
But notice two things that happened here. One is that you resorted to name-calling and personal attack.
In this post, we didn't call you any names. We didn't make any personal attacks against you here.
But, while we're on the subject, you might be interested in reading a recent post.
The other is, apparently, you read a huge amount into my statements that are simply not there. This is a serious problem that I have with this blog. It's kind of tough to take you guys seriously when it comes to exegesis, when your interpretation of my statements is nothing but eisegesis.
Do you mean it's tough to take us seriously when it comes to biblical exegesis? Or exegesis of other texts? Well, either way, it's possible, for example, for us to misinterpret your statements, but correctly interpret other people's statements and in fact all other texts. I'm not saying we're misinterpreting you or putting our thoughts and ideas into your words. Rather, I'm saying, even if it were true that we're misinterpreting you, I think it's still possible for us to reliably exegete the Bible or reliably interpret other texts or statements or what not.
I would hope that you handle sacred text with more care than you handle my comments. But when you assert that one of the bloggers in question is a charlatan, when the overall stance of the blog is right-wing, when one of the bloggers, who is known to support conservative causes presents a criticism of Obama's plans for health care, and the other, who has taken more liberal positions in the past, makes a statement about it the health care debate, can there be any doubt as to who you think is a charlatan?
ReplyDeleteLook, Bill Vallicella doesn't think I'm a charlatan, and I don't think he is one. Why assume that there is a charlatan in the discussion? I think there are zero.
Bill's a good friend of mine, and a chess buddy. We differ on politics. I'm not even sure I know how to characterize my own political views, because I am more of a opponent of the cafeteria conservatism and corporate prostituion of the present-day Republican party, and in particular the Bush administration, than I am an actual liberal. But I've been told that perceiving the Bush administration as practicing a bastardized conservatism is seen at least by some as evidence that I'm really a leftist. So, I suppose, was William F. Buckley Jr. when he opposed the war in Iraq.
On the other hand, if you were to compare my political views to most people in the academic community, I would come out fairly conservative.
VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
ReplyDelete“I would hope that you handle sacred text with more care than you handle my comments. But when you assert that one of the bloggers in question is a charlatan, when the overall stance of the blog is right-wing, when one of the bloggers, who is known to support conservative causes presents a criticism of Obama's plans for health care, and the other, who has taken more liberal positions in the past, makes a statement about it the health care debate, can there be any doubt as to who you think is a charlatan?”
You’re assuming it’s an ideological comparison, rather than a comparison involving the respective level of analysis. If you were two receive two student papers, one representing your post, and the other representing Vallicella’s, how would you grade them?