 |
 |
I think maybe we are getting sidetracked on the concept of "disagreeable"...isn't "disagreeable" in the mind of the beholder? And that's probably part of the limitation of this list - dignity seems quite fragile in some, while very robust in others. Perhaps folks who value the opportunities promised by the existence of this ls stay on the list when there is "disagreeable disagreement", while others drop off and drop out. It's great to have that kind of freedom, isn't it! Myself, I am more concerned with being lazily stimulated by lurking while the rest of you work out understandings/misunderstandings on interesting issues of philosophy in nursing. No doubt I am quite naive in all of this - however, in my naiveté, I have found some value in the "branches of philosophy" idea, and am wondering, for example, what some of the leading thinkers (or just brave thinkers!) in nursing philosophy would say are the key issues to be considered currently, in ontology? in epistemology? in axiology? in praxiology? even perhaps in methodology?, etc. Regards, Savina Schoenhofer ----- Original Message ----- From: June Kikuchi To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: pointless to argue Trevor said, >> "... with someone who you think does not respond to reasoned argument it might be appropriate to be disagreeable ... Being disagreeable would at least demonstrate opposition and act as a protest." I'm wondering why just disagreeing and giving your reasons for disagreement but not entering into an argument would not suffice. What would be gained from being disagreeable? June ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 9:12 AM