[Wittrs] Re: On the Varieties of Dualism
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:58:21 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>
> a hard core physicalist would likely agree that the experiencing
> I is not identical to the stone, or the afterimage that it
> apprehends. that alone doesn't make the physicalist a dualist.
Hi.
Hard core physicalist here.
I would not agree that the "I" is not identical to the stone.
I *would* lose my hard core license if I did.
Have a nice day.
Josh
ps - I just picked up Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature",
and commend everyone (re)read the ten page introduction, it puts all
the issues and schools of thought very nicely in context.
Rorty's position is that the "Mirror of Nature" ideas about the mind
are wrong, and the separate "I" is just classic Descartes. Rorty
also says a few things about what different people ask of philosophy,
whereby some people may be happy talking about the "I" *because*
they (think that they) experience it, and they think such discussion
is the proper domain of philosophy, while for others, there is more
demand for further questioning, even of experience. Rorty says it
very much better than I just have.
But then, in the next couple of pages, I believe Rorty does just
what turns people off about hard core physicalist or monist
positions, and starts to deny the "I" phenomenon. Now, I need to
reread more of the book, probably the whole book. Because what
Rorty says in the introduction, I feel, is exactly the right thing.
The question is, how to you preserve the phenomenon and still
find a naturalistic - that is, hard core physicalist - explanation
for it? I want to have a bit more respect for the phenomenon, than
I believe Rorty required of himself.
btw, he mentions Wittgenstein, a lot, and accurately by my lights.
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
