Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!buffalo.CSNET!rapaport
From: rapaport@buffalo.CSNET ("William J. Rapaport")
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: follow-up on philosophy articles
Message-ID: <8608041930.AA17526@ellie.SUNYAB>
Date: Mon, 4-Aug-86 15:30:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ellie.8608041930.AA17526
Posted: Mon Aug  4 15:30:05 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Aug-86 10:28:11 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 35
Approved: ailist@sri-ai.arpa

Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: philosophy journals
References: <8607211801.AA17444@ellie.SUNYAB>
  <8608010555.AA11229@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: William J. Rapaport (rapaport@buffalo.csnet)
Reply-To: rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (William J. Rapaport)
Followup-To: The Colonel's complaint
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science

In article <8608010555.AA11229@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
  colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman") writes:
>In article <8607211801.AA17444@ellie.SUNYAB>, rapaport@buffalo.CSNET
>("William J. Rapaport") writes:
>
>> The original version of the ... problem may be found in:
>> 	Jackson, "Epiphenomenal Qualia," _Philosophical Q._ 32(1982)127-136.
>> with replies in:
>> 	Churchland, "Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of
>>	  Brain States," _J. of Philosophy_ 82(1985)8-28.
>> 	Jackson, "What Mary Didn't Know," _J. of Philosophy_ 83(1986)291-95.
>> (One of the reasons I stopped reading net.philosophy was that its
>> correspondents seemed not to know about what was going on in philosophy
>> journals!)
>
>Out of curiosity I hunted up the third article on the way back from lunch.
>It's aggressive and condescending; any sympathy I might have felt for
>the author's argument was repulsed by his sophomoric writing.  I hope it's
>not typical of the writing in philosophy journals.

I don't quite understand what "aggressive and condescending" or
"sophomoric writing" have to do with philosophical argumentation.
One thing that philosophers try not to do is give ad hominem arguments.
A philosophical arguement stands or falls on its logical merits, not its
rhetoric.