The fact that he went to the effort to block you indicates that you rattled his cage. If he were truly captive to his own rhetoric, he would have simply dismissed you as being 'depressed' or perhaps as a troll.
Possibly. My first article was long, so he would had to have read at least enough of it to see that its critical content is serious. If he read all of it and still blocked me rather than responding in an intellectually respectable way (either by mounting a defense or admitting that his philosophy could use some work), he'd be no philosopher at all but just a pure sophist (a con artist businessman). But it's highly doubtful he read all or most of it, given his aversion to "negativity."
More likely is that he read hardly any of it, but still enough to see that I took him apart piece by piece. He'd have avoided the details but perhaps skimmed it to get the gist. The question is whether that would have been enough to rattle him.
Judging from that next article he posted, assuming it does allude to my criticisms, he did indeed dismiss me as someone who's not willing to "listen" or to "pay attention" and "appreciate" his weaselly rationalizations.
Anyway, I just wrote this second one quickly when I found this annoying backdoor response he posted. And he won't see this second article at all, so he'll go on emitting his pollution.
The fact that he went to the effort to block you indicates that you rattled his cage. If he were truly captive to his own rhetoric, he would have simply dismissed you as being 'depressed' or perhaps as a troll.
ReplyDeletePossibly. My first article was long, so he would had to have read at least enough of it to see that its critical content is serious. If he read all of it and still blocked me rather than responding in an intellectually respectable way (either by mounting a defense or admitting that his philosophy could use some work), he'd be no philosopher at all but just a pure sophist (a con artist businessman). But it's highly doubtful he read all or most of it, given his aversion to "negativity."
DeleteMore likely is that he read hardly any of it, but still enough to see that I took him apart piece by piece. He'd have avoided the details but perhaps skimmed it to get the gist. The question is whether that would have been enough to rattle him.
Judging from that next article he posted, assuming it does allude to my criticisms, he did indeed dismiss me as someone who's not willing to "listen" or to "pay attention" and "appreciate" his weaselly rationalizations.
Anyway, I just wrote this second one quickly when I found this annoying backdoor response he posted. And he won't see this second article at all, so he'll go on emitting his pollution.