There are different blogging styles. Some of my friends in the blogosphere allow all manner of trash to be dumped into their Comment Boxes sight unseen. At the other end of the spectrum, one of my oldest blogging acquaintances, Keith Burgess-Jackson, allows only prescreened comments to appear. My approach is a bit less draconian but still rather choosy. At present my configuration is 'wide open' but I delete the substandard and block the offender. Why should I tolerate rubbish? If a man's home is his castle, his blog is his cybercastle. And just as I don't allow any riff raff through my physical door, I don't allow any through my cyberdoor.
Your first comment is your letter of introduction. On the basis of that I decide whether you are worth interacting with. I am not interested in increasing my traffic as I get enough. And I don't want a lot of comments. I want a few good comments from people who are sincere and intelligent and basically agree with me on fundamentals. Fruitful discussion and fruitful disagreement is possible only on the basis of broad agreement. All the rest is polemics -- and philosophy is not polemics.
Let's say you are a PoMo idiot who denies the existence of truth. What then could be the point of any discussion? To get closer to (nonexistent) truth? You say it's all power at bottom? Then I will exercise my blocking power with respect to you and your idiocy. Or perhaps you are a stupid leftist who thinks that 'religion is the problem' while making an exception for radical Islam. Then you are not only stupid but contemptible and cowardly to boot. Discussion is not what you need; you need therapy. Or perhaps you are an eliminativist in the philosophy of mind: you deny the existence of beliefs and desires. Then I believe you are beneath refutation and I desire that you go away. Or maybe you a sophistical qualia-denier like Daniel Dennett. Pinch yourself and then report back. Or adopt the 'intentional stance' with respect to yourself and self-ascribe some intelligent thoughts.
Recent Comments