the only easy day was yesterday
Shout To...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(74)
-
▼
January
(23)
- engine, engine, number nine
- what is philosophy
- Props 94-97
- iTunes U
- Considering our conversation on creativity, I was ...
- im doing work, but i dont want to forget this. hol...
- abduction 2
- Abduction
- theres a problem. ill call it individuality versus...
- No title
- No title
- No title
- Discuss:
- This is Why I Don't Care Anymore
- Now A Cartesian
- Grimace!!!
- Zeno
- Aristotle Very Much The Man In Form
- Farve needeth not eyes
- Conan
- Homeless
- Guaranteed to Make You Grin
- On Science as a Study of the Mind
-
▼
January
(23)
5 comments:
posted by the W? is this maddys computer last logged in by warner?
either way, ive never actually read any Pierce, though i was peripherally aware of his coining pragmatism.
as for the theory it seems pseudo-philosophical, he doesnt seem to present any reason apparent from that little passage. now, i may not agree that we need to be foundationalists, or objectivists, but he really doesnt SEEM to present a strong argument.
what i think he may have been doing is being sarcastic. the problem with the prominent stream of rationalist philsophy and such in the past is that it is largely impractical. there is not practicality in doubting the external world or expressing it as an external entity at all, so pierce may be using a little hyperbolea; others have been so impractical in the past that he may have been driven to say, hey lets be practical, lets look at life in the scope of life. but then he sort of messes with deduction and induction so this is all mushy to me...
haha, what makes you think that maddy, and not i; the w, would post this?
i think the abduction idea is pretty neat and practical. i had to read this for my sustainable developement class (which is confusing as fuck by the way). The dude that wrote it is either coming to class or talking to us through skype (which you and maddy should get) tomorrow, if you got any questions let me know ill ask him...
it doesn't seem like the guy is arguing at all.. more like saying something that seems to make sense in a way that you can't really refute it because you would just sound like an ass... Who would want to say they did not agree that you should perceive the world around you accurately...or that you should not approach truth...its one of those piece of candy writings that make you say- hey this sounds good, we should do it...it reminds me a little bit of the imbedded challenge in the golden rule- refuting things like this would make you seem close m inded and ignorant, or in the case of the golden rule, extremely unsympathetic
does its candyness disquailfy it from application?
the only problem with it is that it has no metaphysical groundings. which may not be wrong, it just opposes what philosophy generally does. this would be okay, but he confronts the idea of truth, and thus knowledge as well. and once you get into those, you go down the path of classic analytic philosophy.
its certainly understandable to see why we would want to say that we want to perceive the world arounf accurately, but that pressupposes the question of whether the world around us has anything within it to value; what will we gain from wanting this accurate perception, if it were a deception, wouldnt our studies be worthless?
its really very hard to try to use practicality in philiosophy unless you steer entirely clear of a lot of shit. heidegger comes the closest as far as ive read to incorporating the existence of a human being as a philosophy that cooperates with our daily way of being.
if you get a chance ask him what his general ontology is that allows him to consider the being of a human being in a practical setting.
i dont doubt that he has an argument, but i just dont see it myself...
Post a Comment