On 12/27/2012 12:59 PM, nominal9 wrote:
Antiplatonist, Stephen?.... Well that begs the question... how much
so (are you different from Plato)? Consider that "if" a Platonist
maintains a Subjective view of Concepts and a Subjective view of
References, then you could be antiplatonist either in the whole
(Realist) or in part, halfway in two directions (Nominalist or
Phenomenologist)... it's just the range of possibilities in my way of
looking at it....
Platonist ...................................................Realist
Concept (Subjective) / Reference (Subjective)---Concept (Objective) /
Reference (Objective)
Nominalist.................................................Phenomenologist
Concept (Subjective) / Reference (Objective)-----Concept (Objective) /
Reference (Subjective)
I don't want to get bothersome with this, but what and how is it that
you don't like about the Platonist view
Hi nominal9,
The entire idea of a priori definiteness of properties and the
corresponding tacit idea that consciousness is passive; that the content
of our consciousness is merely poured into us, metaphorically speaking.
OTOH, the sins of the nominalists are too many to count... Present
company excluded...
Process Philosophy tells us that there are no fundamental objects,
all is process or product of process, this answers the dichotomy between
universalism and nominalism - showing it to be false, so why bother with
it? Unless we wish to dive into the depths of semantics...
and how it regards this whole question brought up by Henri Bergson...
does it have to do with the notion of "Spirit"?
I have not quite grasped Bergson's point. I see the spirit as
something corresponding to potential energy for mind... if it is even a
necessary concept.
Let me start it this way.. how and what would you consider or define
"Spirit" to be... a Concept(idea) or a Reference(Matter)?.... and
next would you consider "Spirit" to be Subjective or Objective?...
harder yet... what do you think Bergson says "Spirit" is and do you
agree or disagree with him?
I say: Start over. Are we trying to rehabilitate Bergson or
addressing the problem that he was trying to solve? I like this
rehabilitation of Cartesian dualism
<http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf>, viewed from the p.o.v. of
process philosophy. My initial comment was that I thought Bergson had
the directions "spirit" coming from the past, where Pratt (in the
refereed paper) shows how it looks back on the past. A tiny but
important difference, but I don't wish to spit hairs...
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 1:05:35 PM UTC-5, stephenk wrote:
On 12/22/2012 11:37 AM, nominal9 wrote:
I read your post Craig.... I'm still trying to "unfold" it in my
thinking.....
Happy Holidays, in any event, for now....
I will try to get back to answer more fully to your post, but...
let me think about it... Maybe, to help me better understand you,
could you self-identify your points as being consistent (more or
less) with other known writers or philosophers, including some
branch thereof like Phenomenologists, Idealist, Realist,
Nominalist... or other?
Antiplatonists? ;-)
Happy Holidays to you too, stephen....
Happy Holidays to you as well.
On Friday, December 21, 2012 1:28:07 AM UTC-5, stephenk wrote:
On 12/20/2012 12:50 PM, nominal9 <nom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> *Matter and Memory*
> >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to:
navigation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_and_Memory#mw-head>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_and_Memory#mw-head>,
> search
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_and_Memory#p-search>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_and_Memory#p-search>
>��
> The spirit is the abode of the past, the body
> of the present; the soul or spirit always anchored in the
past, not
> residing in the present; lodged in the past and
contemplating the present.
> To have or take conscience of anything, means looking at it
from the
> viewpoint of the past, in light of the past.
Hi nominal9,
��� Doesn't this seem backward somehow? Spirit should
be considered to be in the future, looking back through the
present to the Past, making sure that the body never behaves
now in a way that is inconsistent with its past behavior.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
