[lit-ideas] Neither Fish Nor Fowl: Grice and Popper on Neutral Monism
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:14:52 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 11/20/2013 3:07:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Popper is not a "neutral monist": nor is he someone who thinks there is a
way of neutralising the "mind body problem" by way of claiming minds and
bodies are constructions out of "neutral" material. The reference to TSAIB is
to where Popper explains why he thinks so-called "neutral monism" is only
neutral in name, for the so-called neutral elements are "mental". It was a
reference to Popper's criticism rather than endorsement of a 'neutralising'
dissolution of the mind-body problem.
-----
The idea of 'neuter' or 'neutre', as the Brits prefer to spell this, is
hardly 'neutral'.
Popper's argument that the neutralist is not really a neutralist
equivocates not on 'neutral' but on 'really'.
It may be argued that neutralism is wrong -- but then, as Geary would
remind us, it may also be argued that neutralism is right.
"In philosophy, most theses allow for a similarly ridiculous
counter-thesis".
We may say that a cat is 'neutral', or has been neutralised, in terms of
the mind-body discussion to hand, when we hypothesise that since he _wants_
milk, he is "thirsty". The predicate "... wanting milk", as applied to the
cat's "mind" may be approached neutrally.
Popper regards that a neutralistic reduction of the mental-physical
dichotomy wrongly balances on the mental side.
The best enlightment on this is the "Neutralism" entry in the Stanford
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Stanford.
We may need to revise the historical literature. (Or not).
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
