if i did think what you think is inherently flawed, i might think, rather, that you yourself are stupid, which i do not, which is why i bother arguing with you. i know i'm ridiculously stubborn, and i take my beliefs really seriously, and i have very little tact or social grace...I'm not sorry for those things, but i am sorry for some of their consequences, which is contradictory, i suppose. sometimes i give up a sense of humility to force a point...this almost never means that i genuinely think i'm better than anyone. sometimes it's a challenge, and sometimes it's defensive, but regardless, i'm wrong a lot, i'm human. but we've been arguing about some pretty fundamental beliefs, things i base how to live my life around. doesn't mean i can't still be wrong, but maybe i'm more stubborn than usual. i don't know. i probably would take back some of the comments i made as unnecessary or wrong in retrospect, but i can't talk in retrospect.

anyway. as for disciplines, i don't think they don't each have something to offer, i don't reject any of the outright. i just think that a good many things would benefit from a interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary perspective. like doing psychology without anthropology, when human beings are social animals, or economics without sociology, as if they weren't intrinsically related, or philosophy without political science, as if our intellectual concerns should be divorced from our political ones, or linguistics from any of them, as if language were a separate entity not bound to the social forces that shape its use. There's a Wittgenstein quote...here:

"What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?"

That's what I think academics should do, and it seems too infrequently does that actually happen, for anyone, in or outside it.