Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:32:00 +0100 From: Rene de Bakker <rbakker-AT-bs18.bs.uva.nl> Subject: RE: time Hi David, My answer will have to wait till next week. In half an hour I will turn to the material side of life. For now, I can already say, that over against theists I'm surely atheist, and over against idealists I would hold on to Heidegger's abysmal-sensuous, or (maybe) Kenneth's sensing spirit (sinnender Geist) regards, Rene At 09:48 23-3-01 -0600, you wrote: >>===== Original Message From Rene de Bakker <rbakker-AT-bs18.bs.uva.nl> ====>>At 10:27 21-3-01 -0600, David Schenk wrote: >> >>David, >> >>Even stronger. Not only analytic philosophy, but also the Dreyfus school >>will find itself there, when they go on restricting themselves to the >>"project" of BT, the way they do. This background should be the >>"problematical", >>but I understand that someone like Searle deposits it simply in the brains, >>another word for computer. Also Dreyfus' articles on ontological and >>car driving experts point into this direction. And MIT is, as far as I can >>see from here, busy building-in the non-representational background into AI. >>Now, as a part of reality, this is interesting, already bacause it can't be >>stopped, >>but not as philosophy. >> >[...] >> >>Rene >> >> >>----------------------------------- >>drs. Ren de Bakker >>Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam >>Afdeling Catalogisering >>tel. 020-5252368 > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Heheheh. Hi, Rene. > >I think I understand the basis for your earlier claim now. Please correct >me if I'm wrong about this, but it appears you want to define philosophy >in such a way that analytic philosophy turns out not to really be >philosophy, yes? > >Is your contention the familiar one, that analytic philosophy, for all its >clarity, precision, and argumentative tidiness, just fails to address any >of the truly philosophical questions in life and so gets bogged down in >very detailed accounts of things about which no one really cares? Or is >it rather that what were once genuinely philosophical subjects of >investigation within analytic philosophy are now within the domain of >natural science? From your note, you seem to hold the latter, but I'm >uncertain. In any case, let me intitiate a small philosophical foreign >exchange session here by taking up a very popular and entirely silly myth. >The myth is that all analytic philosophers are materialists of one sort or >another. > >Sheer poppycock. In point of fact, Searle himself is not a materialist (not >really, anyway). If his views on the nature of mind are close to any >others, they are closest to what is called _property dualism_. Furthermore, >almost no one in my own department is a materialist and those who are seem >vaguely ashamed of it (not sure why). One of the fastest growing fields of >study is actually philosophy of religion, wherein more than a few dyed-in- >the-wool *THEISTS* can be found. *They* certainly aren't trying to boil >everything down to brain functions... > >Anyway, I'm much more interested in your reasons for contending (if indeed >you do) that what presently goes on in analytic philosophy is not philosophy, >properly speaking. Please confirm this for me, because I am reading between >the lines a bit, here, and I think we both know that that is a dodgy >business. I don't want to saddle you with any erroneous views you do not >happen to hold-- the ones you do hold are what I'm after. ;) > > >I look forward to hearing from you, > >David > > >P.S.-- Sorry for that double-post I sent you before. I hit the reply >button and my emailer decided that meant the message should go directly >to you instead of to the list. Not what I wanted at all. > > > > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > ----------------------------------- drs. René de Bakker Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam Afdeling Catalogisering tel. 020-5252368 --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005