Flemish philosopher responds to my Article in defense of real books with a long epistle full of clever sophistic arguments that simply do not address any of the points I made in the article, which were very simple:
1. My thesis is that ‘the digital revolution’ makes censorship more easy and not more hard (completely ignored by Sanctorum)
2. My rebuke to his rather flimsy idea that ‘since everyone changes all the time books are impossible because they (in his mind) need to be perfect mirrors of the human brain – I rebuked this bit of nonsense by pointing out that with the same logic (‘One cant write coherent books because everything changes all the time) you cannot sit down in a chair either – classical Zeno paradox material. (ignored by Sanctorum)
3. My simple question: why doesn’t he simply whisper his philosophies to his neighbours if he’s such a fan of oral traditions and hates the written word that much? Ignored.
His article makes clear that Sanctorum is a strictly sophistic philosopher: he has no interest in actual arguments, and his real position is that of a Neoromantic postmodernist: as his big example Rousseau, he believes in a ‘natural state of things’ and that, in his case, is the digital world. Once everybody will be ‘digitized’ we will finally be free and happy, etc. It’s not a very interesting or even philosophical position: it belongs to the graveyard of pseudo-religious thought. And since Sanctorum has made it clear he has no interest in actual debate or in actually addressing any of the points i brought up in my article, I wish him a jolly happy time floating around nude in his digitized paradise.