1) With Kant the issue is, the correct
characterization of his views (which is very hard),
and the incorrect characterization, as a sort of
Berkeleyean (which is easy).
CB: Lenin and Engels are very clear on the differences and similarities
between Kant and Berkeley. They are also quite
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:54:41 -0800 (PST) andie nachgeborenen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is truly remarkable puzzlement for a
professional philosopher.
An ex-professional now. But what's puzzling about it?
The whole point of
Well, I still don't know what materialism in this
context. Presumably it doesn't mean that there is
nothing but matter, because the denial of that view is
not idealism but dualism or nonreductionism or the
claim that there are emergent properties -- any of
which Berkeley might accept.Indeed,
Well, spirit and nature are not transparent terms
either, not is primacy, so it's not much help to say
that idealists make spirit primary to nature and
materialists vice versa. This is a Hegelian-flavored
formula that is highly specific to a narrow
philosophical tradition.
Moreover, Engels mixes
Well, spirit and nature are not transparent terms
either, not is primacy, so it's not much help to say
that idealists make spirit primary to nature and
materialists vice versa. This is a Hegelian-flavored
formula that is highly specific to a narrow
philosophical tradition.
CB; On the one
This is truly remarkable puzzlement for a professional philosopher.
At 08:22 AM 1/11/2006 -0800, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
Well, spirit and nature are not transparent terms
either, not is primacy, so it's not much help to say
that idealists make spirit primary to nature and
materialists vice
Sort of up against the wall with two deadlines, so
very briefly
1) With Kant the issue is, the correct
characterization of his views (which is very hard),
and the incorrect characterization, as a sort of
Berkeleyean (which is easy). This matters for lots of
reasons, undewrstanding the context
--- Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is truly remarkable puzzlement for a
professional philosopher.
An ex-professional now. But what's puzzling about it?
The whole point of philosophical training is to get
confused at deeper and deeper levers.
At 08:22 AM 1/11/2006 -0800, andie
