From: "Andrew Brown" <A.N.Brown-AT-uel.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:00:22 GMT0BST Subject: Re: BHA: Transcendental argument Nick, Thanks alot for the interesting post: 1. Your interpretation of RB in terms of working at the level 'greatest generality' and organising his philosophy in terms of levels of generality is very interesting. Does RB himself put his work in these terms? I hadn't noticed that he did (though I haven't read Plato etc.). 2. There is a difference between CR and DCR in that, by DPF, RB claims to derive (D)CR from any human act, as you point out. But, apart from this, I don't see a great gulf between CR and DCR; rather, I agree with RB's characterisation of their relation (deepening, enrichment, 'mostly preservative sublation', etc.). Your interpretation also seems to back up such a view. Yet at one point you seem to suggest that CR and DCR are very different. Surely, a non- conceptual, non-empirical reality is as much part of CR as DCR? (you seemed to suggest otherwise, but this maybe a mis-reading - I know it is so annoying to keep having to write 'CR/DCR' or (D)CR or some such). 3. Do you think RB provides an adequate account as to why all philosophy (except CR/DCR) has made such a stupid mistake as to fail to recognise a non-conceptual / non-empirical realm? I'm not sure that he does but am ready to be convinced otherwise. 4. That DCR can be derived from any human act comes back to the critique I suggested a while back. For it would suggest that it is possible to deduce CR/DCR from a great number of preconceptualisations (sorry Colin!) such that there is indeed a one to one mapping between non-conceptual, non-empirical objects and concepts/objects. Ie it would entail an isomorphism of subject and object. Any thoughts on that? Many thanks, andy --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005