Dear Robert,
Ha! There's much controversy around those labels. It was worth
noting. I'm not sure they do anything helpful. I think that there
are several thousand posts in the philpapers forum on this issue. . .
.
Metaphors aide, two isolated discussions don't make for a
conversation. From what I could tell from the description and the
table of contents, the Colman volume does not engage in much of a
conversation. That's all. I didn't claim to know anything more than
that. . . It would be great to find out otherwise.
I'll post back later with a few questions about the first few
sentences in the description of the Colman volume. The description
raises a few worries.
Cheers,
Aaron
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Robert Sinnerbrink
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Aaron,
>
> What a pity you don't like my labels! Your intellectual clairvoyance is probably better than mine
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|