The forest and the trees - Reply to Siegel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Decency requires that a discussion as lengthy as the preceding be handily brought to a close. The seriousness of Siegel's complaints against me do, however, call for a response. In what follows I will address what I take to be Siegel's main criticisms, roughly in the order that they are presented. My responses will be limited to, at most, a few paragraphs. They can do no more than indicate how I would counter the thrust of his critical remarks. As both Siegel and myself readily admit, our positions exhibit deep agreements. As I shall attempt to indicate in what follows, much of what Siegel sees in my arguments as evidence of confusion, or worse, may point to equally deep differences of opinion. Our agreements, as he graciously acknowledges, are relevant to issues at the center of recent philosophy, but, as should be apparent from what follows, so are our possible differences.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)285-291
Number of pages7
JournalStudies in Philosophy and Education
Volume11
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Sep 1992

Fingerprint

complaint
criticism
evidence
philosophy

Cite this

@article{363820e93b29434c906a6b5cb7d9e26b,
title = "The forest and the trees - Reply to Siegel",
abstract = "Decency requires that a discussion as lengthy as the preceding be handily brought to a close. The seriousness of Siegel's complaints against me do, however, call for a response. In what follows I will address what I take to be Siegel's main criticisms, roughly in the order that they are presented. My responses will be limited to, at most, a few paragraphs. They can do no more than indicate how I would counter the thrust of his critical remarks. As both Siegel and myself readily admit, our positions exhibit deep agreements. As I shall attempt to indicate in what follows, much of what Siegel sees in my arguments as evidence of confusion, or worse, may point to equally deep differences of opinion. Our agreements, as he graciously acknowledges, are relevant to issues at the center of recent philosophy, but, as should be apparent from what follows, so are our possible differences.",
author = "Mark Weinstein",
year = "1992",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/BF00402601",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "285--291",
journal = "Studies in Philosophy and Education",
issn = "0039-3746",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

The forest and the trees - Reply to Siegel. / Weinstein, Mark.

In: Studies in Philosophy and Education, Vol. 11, No. 3, 01.09.1992, p. 285-291.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The forest and the trees - Reply to Siegel

AU - Weinstein, Mark

PY - 1992/9/1

Y1 - 1992/9/1

N2 - Decency requires that a discussion as lengthy as the preceding be handily brought to a close. The seriousness of Siegel's complaints against me do, however, call for a response. In what follows I will address what I take to be Siegel's main criticisms, roughly in the order that they are presented. My responses will be limited to, at most, a few paragraphs. They can do no more than indicate how I would counter the thrust of his critical remarks. As both Siegel and myself readily admit, our positions exhibit deep agreements. As I shall attempt to indicate in what follows, much of what Siegel sees in my arguments as evidence of confusion, or worse, may point to equally deep differences of opinion. Our agreements, as he graciously acknowledges, are relevant to issues at the center of recent philosophy, but, as should be apparent from what follows, so are our possible differences.

AB - Decency requires that a discussion as lengthy as the preceding be handily brought to a close. The seriousness of Siegel's complaints against me do, however, call for a response. In what follows I will address what I take to be Siegel's main criticisms, roughly in the order that they are presented. My responses will be limited to, at most, a few paragraphs. They can do no more than indicate how I would counter the thrust of his critical remarks. As both Siegel and myself readily admit, our positions exhibit deep agreements. As I shall attempt to indicate in what follows, much of what Siegel sees in my arguments as evidence of confusion, or worse, may point to equally deep differences of opinion. Our agreements, as he graciously acknowledges, are relevant to issues at the center of recent philosophy, but, as should be apparent from what follows, so are our possible differences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34249837087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF00402601

DO - 10.1007/BF00402601

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:34249837087

VL - 11

SP - 285

EP - 291

JO - Studies in Philosophy and Education

JF - Studies in Philosophy and Education

SN - 0039-3746

IS - 3

ER -