humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), Bianca Steele
wrote:

>On Feb 15, 8:26 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:02:33 -0800 (PST), Bianca Steele wrote:
>
>Weren't
>>> you aware of this? I know you're way off in Alaska, but didn't you go
>>> to college?
>>
>> Yes, I'm pretty well habituated to cave living. I went to four
>> colleges and had some kind of an off-campus cave at all of them; then
>> had many more caves while teaching around the world.
>
>What do you teach?
English and library science, retired.
>
>>
>> Perhaps we all live in a cave in some respects and should realize it;
>> Plato thought so.
>
>Given how we all have our eccentricities and how none of us is right
>about all things, perhaps we should not point out the limitations and
>mistakes of others. Does that mean I should accept your frequently-
>unreliable assertions at face value as true (or true enough),
>especially given that you're a teacher and that comes across in your
>posts?

Talking about accepting unreliable assertions sounds like Hume's
problems with human understanding. Actually, I like the pre-Socratic
skeptics and sophists analyses on that. Anyway, my posts are in
large measure just sallies/essays inspired by the moment, not
positions I defend. I don't mind being contradicted and allow for
various opposing views to be all relatively true at the same time, so
I allow that my assertions may be unreliable, but not dogmatic.

I think I'm so far from posting bald statements that I cringe a bit
for indulging in subjunctive devices, like "seems" and "might", that
allow me to get off the speaker's box without being pelted on my "face
values."

See how easy it is to cope with confrontation when you're a skeptic? I
like the discussions at h.l.a.s. because, while there is
cross-examination, one assumes the intention is usually to investigate
the truth, not belabor facts or use deconstructive criticism on each
other. Lots of skeptical humor and wit, too.