[lit-ideas] Macbeth and Banquo (Was: Factivity of "See")
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:09:21 EDT
We are discussing Frege's casual comment,
"Having visual impressions is ... necessary for *seeing* things,
but it is not sufficient. What must be added is not anything sensible.
And it is precisely this that unlocks the outer world for us; for
without this non-sensible something, each of us would remain locked
up in his inner world."
Geary writes, ironically:
>As I see it, ignorance is bliss.
which is back to the problem of 'seeing' which originated the discussion.
The issue is not whether _as Geary sees it_ ignorance is bliss. The issue
is, for Frege, whether ignorance _is_ bliss.
For R. Henninge, that was Frege's Kantian mistake. For R. Paul it was
Frege's improvement on psychologism. And the debate ensues.
Geary concludes (typically, with a mention of the president):
>Bush is proof enough that there is no non-sensible
>something.
-- which (double negatives aside) should be proof that there is (sensibly)
nothing?
Cheers,
JL
"I see with my eyes"
Lin Yutang, The Path to Wisdom.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Macbeth and Banquo (Was: Factivity of "See")
