[Wittrs] Re: Understanding Dualism
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:07:03 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> responding to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6234
> SWM:
> But that is what is needed -- a definition of the terms. If you
> only want to hazard a definition in terms of the conceptualization
> that relies upon the defined thing, then isn't it an exercise
> of circularity?
If you have ever try reading through a dictionary, and following
referred to words, you would see that reliance on definitions is
necessarily an exercise in circularity.
Wittgenstein, with his "meaning is use", at least gave us an
alternative.
> SWM:
> What is needed, therefore, is an analysis that determines if
> something critical has been left out, not merely the pronouncement
> that it cannot be done.
Everything critical has been left out. And that's not just Dennett's
account. When you boil it all down, philosophy provides an elaborate
sophisticated account of nothing at all. It evades every important
issue.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
