This (via The Row Boat) is a good example of why philosophy needs non-philosophy. Not simply the rude disagreement, but what Peter Van Inwagen identified as the ‘two different styles of philosophy’ that seemingly cannot tolerate each other. “Dennett believes that science can tell us many things about metaphysics and epistemology, that we work from science to these positions. Plantinga thinks of these matters rather differently.” Non-philosophy suspends the validity of both of these positions and their concommitant ‘styles’, so as to show they are both equally determinations of the Real. Of course, this only raises the question of what kind of resistance would someone like Dennett, or what kind of indifference would someone like Plantinga, would show to the non-philosophical operation…
UPDATE: further proof here.
I think it’s all good fun, mostly the parties themselves are the only victims of their seriousness, us, the observers are enjoying it, are we not?
I agree for sure. I meant this post to be kinda tongue-in-cheek. I certainly enjoyed your post, which is why I linked to it. I just hope it all turns out well.
I do think non-philosophy can provide a useful ‘mediator’ for debates like this, but for now I’m just content observing from the sidelines.