[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: "Cayuse" <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:41:11 +0100
Stuart wrote:
> Cayuse wrote:
>> Stuart wrote:
>>> Cayuse wrote:
>>>> 424: The picture is there; and I do not dispute its correctness.
>>>> But what is its application? Think of the picture of blindness
>>>> as a darkness in the soul or in the head of the blind man.
>>>
>>> "I do not dispute its correctness." As to "application"
>>> what application do you think he is challenging? The
>>> idea that brains can be shown to be causal re: minds?
>>
>> Any application at all.
>
> I don't think he can be taken as saying "any application at all."
> Think of the moral application of acting in a way that reflects
> empathy for the pain of another. Wittgenstein, if anything in his
> later years, was arguing against the notion of solipsism, that we
> had no way of knowing that there was anything beyond ourselves.
> As a man much given to solitude it's not surprising this held his
> attention. But recall, as well, that his later work is directed to our
> linguistic practices, to understand how these reflect and shape
> our beliefs, ideas, understandings, etc. He himself often noted
> that ethical questions fell outside the purview of analytical
> considerations and this, of course, is an application! So your
> blanket statement that he meant "any applicationn at all" when
> he asked "what is the application?" strikes me as quite wrong.
The idea of "subjective experience" has no application at all.
Empathy is an instinct and does not depend on this idea.
Conditioned responses (moral codes) do not depend on this idea.
Reason takes this idea and tries to provide an explanatory account.
All such explanatory accounts are metaphysics and have
no application at all.
Other related posts:
