BruceD wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>Strawson on Experience and Experiencers

>Is there a typo here or am I not following this? "There cannot be
>experience with a subject of experience" (without a subject of
>experience?)

yes. there was a typo. The quote should read:

in _Mental Reality_, Second Ed., Galen Strawson quotes Frege as saying
"An experience is impossible without an experiencer" and then comments:
"This is a necessary truth. ... There cannot be experience without a
subject of experience, because experience is necessarily for someone or
something --- an experiencer or subject of experience." [p. 129]

>What is the relationship between the experience and the experiencer?

an experiencer experiences experiences?

an experiencer has experiences?

Joe

--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

==========================================

Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:

I am puzzled by the existence of this thread.

> "An experience is impossible without an experiencer"

I see that as an uninteresting truism.

> "This is a necessary truth."

It is common that necessary truths make for uninteresting truisms.

I am puzzled that somebody is interested in discussing something so
uninteresting, and after two posts in the thread he has failed to
clarify what it is that he is really interested in discussing.

Regards,
Neil

=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
>
> I am puzzled by the existence of this thread.
>
> > "An experience is impossible without an experiencer"
>
> I see that as an uninteresting truism.
>
> > "This is a necessary truth."
>
> It is common that necessary truths make for uninteresting truisms.

A home run is impossible without a home run hitter.

A unicorn rider is impossible without a unicorn.

"necessary truth" is one of those phrases that sounds really important, and doesn't seem to come to anything at all.

Josh

=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Since the group is unusually quiet of late, I hope I can be forgiven for
making a contribution to what appears to be an off-topic discussion.

BruceD wrote:
> What is the relationship between the experience and
> the experiencer?

Joseph Polanik replied:
> an experiencer experiences experiences?
> an experiencer has experiences?

It will simply not do to argue that an experienceR exists by
virtue of the claim that it experienceS (or "has") experience --
this does not establish the existence of the putative experienceR.
If the putative experienceR experienceS (or "has") experience
(as though the experienceR and its experience were somehow
distinct), then what is it about the experienceR that permits
us to claim that it experienceS (or "has") this experience,
short of stamping one's foot and proclaiming "it just does!" ?

If the answer is "nothing" then the claim that the experienceR
experienceS the experience cannot be upheld.

If the answer is "something distinct from the experience"
then this "something" must be yet another experienceR,
and we fall into an infinite regress.

If the answer is "experience experienceS itself" then
experience would be constantly reflexive, which it is not.

Why might it be premature to conclude from the above that this
putative experienceR is a prime candidate for Occam's Razor?

==========================================

Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/