Subject: Re: Fw: "metaphysical and not phenomenology"?
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:30:25 +0000


Jud wrote:

>though our cognitive
>systems inform us (if they had apprised us incorrectly then the human race
>would not have developed or survived) in a commonsense way, that objects
>exist,  [though as seen through the eyeglass of our own distinctive sensory
>apparatus] there is no way that one can prove this, and I am about to write 
>a
>conciliatory message to Anthony admitting it is indeed impossible for one 
>to
>stand outside perception to prove the validity of that  perception and the
>objects that are so perceived, and agreeing that he was quite right.  That 
>is
>not to say that I accept what he says about “purpose” of course, for it
>doesn't logically follow that I accept that purpose is nothing else that a
>human existential notion.

My argument was not simply that if you reject purpose, that then you must 
reject the objectivity of all your senses. My argument was that if you 
reject purpose FOR THE REASONS YOU GAVE, that then you must also reject the 
objectivity of all your senses. The reason you gave for the rejection of 
purpose was the lack in the appearances (vs. non-appearance). But that VERY 
SAME REASON applies to other things that you do accept, such as "causal 
chains," since there is no such thing as an "appearance" of causality (ie, 
What color is causality? Is causality blue? Is causality hot or cold�). So 
you cannot merely reply that you cannot prove that your perceptions are 
valid. You must show specifically how THE REASONS YOU GAVE (specifically the 
lack of evidence in the appearances) for rejecting the objectivity of 
purpose does not also apply to all those other things you accept.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



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