[lit-ideas] Re: Transcendental and otherwise
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 21:20:54 -0330
Quoting Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>:
> Yesterday I wrote
>
> > He rejects it (in PATMON) via rejecting what he sees as a traditional
> > view got from Descartes (and common, I'd say, to many philosophers) that
> > the mind is some sort of surface or mirror with reflects (and somehow
> > retains its reflections of) the world outside it.
>
> Should be 'which reflects.'
Apart from that one inexcusable foible, I believe RP accurately portrays the
basic gist of the views of the early Rorty. (Though later than *The linguistic
turn* of course.)
But I think the texts that are more centrally relevant to our thread concerning
the transcendental as a form of inquiry, and Rorty's woefully mistaken views
surrounding this topic, are abundantly illustrated in specific essays collected
in the 3 volumes of his *Collected Papers.* (Esp. vol 1 and 2).
I may be the prince of "casual dismissals," but Rorty is surely the king of this
domain. When he was here at MUN a few years ago, I asked him a question about
Kant's moral theory. The "down his nose" response I received was: "Well, Kant
wrote before Darwin ... anybody else?"
Returning to his newly assigned real and virtual students,
Walter O.
>
> RP
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
