Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:12:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca>
Subject: Re: BHA: RE: b, k & e fallacy


Hi Marsh,

You wrote:

>My reading of RTS is that RB avoids or ignores the issue of perception.

Well, maybe I'm reading too much into it.  I'm not sure why I'm tending to
see the lack of a response to Kant on this as tacit acceptance of an
empiricist account.  He might even agree with Kant.  I mean, in principle
anyway, Kant could be right about it being an a priori necessity that we
perceive the world in spacio-temporal terms, but wrong about what causality
is.  So just because RB disagrees with Kant about causality doesn't mean
that he has to disagree with him about perception -- and even if he does
disagree, it doesn't mean that he has to hold a pre-Kantian view.

If you wanted to be generous, I guess you'd say that the ontic fallacy could
be extended to cover perception as well as cognition. 

I don't know.  I'll have to think about it more.  I guess it just seems as
though if he believed our experience of the world to be mediated in the way
that Kant, Hegel and the gang do, he'd have talked about it a bit more.  

On the other hand, maybe it's just that this is where the limits of my
understanding of DPF and Plato, Etc. kick in.  

Off to muse and read,
r. 
       



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---