I’ve just been re-reading the attempt at a discussion with Mr Philip Atkinson, ‘author’ (I’m reminded of a glib one-liner to the effect that the subject of the retort was only an ‘author if that class is broadened to include anyone who can write a sentence’) of ‘A Definition of Philosophy’.
I have to admit that, since it appears Mr Atkinson has moved on, I feel somewhat cheated. Mr Atkinson approached the Club, and thus Dialectic, and asked us to critique his argument. Mr Douglas commenced this with an introductory commentary. My, probably biased, analysis of what followed was a process of him ridiculing his interlocutors, demanding they comply with his method, and refusing to expand upon any of our points. Clearly, his interlocutors were not faultless in this process (an admission on my part).
I’m left wondering what was achieved in this quiet sustained (by recent standards) discussion. It appears that Mr Atkinson will probably ignore the points we raised, and I feel that I have actually gained no insight from the discussion.