by phil on Friday Apr 11, 2003 11:42 AM
My philosophistric stance is somewhat controversial. A lot of my blogs sound like complete BS, almost like Nietzsche's Gay Science. I recognize that I don't go at lengths to back up my positions with conventional academic rigour and wisdom. Nonetheless, there is always some element of truth in each of my posts. Even if I am completely wrong, the possibility that some unique position may be plausible makes it well worth entertaining.
We make a lot of shortcut decisions in life, so I find it pointless to obsess for some strict academic-like consistency. In academic circles, I have a tendency to propose some far-out possibility, and then, instead of exploring my position with a playful curiosity and helping me fill the holes, stodgy academics just shoot me down by reiterating their perspective backed up by more things that other dead white guys have said. I guess maybe this is to put the burden of proof on me and inspire me to research my position and come back. That is BS. I see what occurs more as a vicious cycle of inuring to conventionalism and specialization.
I'd rather have the tip of the iceberg of 10,000 wonderful insights than be an expert of five lame technical concepts that I can only share with the professors that are my masters.