[C] [Wittrs] Re: kind remarks from Josh

From: "J D" <ubersicht@xxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:05:48 -0000

JRS,

Thanks.  I take no small pride in being able to present a reading as separate 
from a position on the content, so your feedback on that score is encouraging.

Honestly, your questions do tempt me but I am reluctant to engage further on 
these topics.  Some reasons are best left unspoken because they might be read 
as sniping and there's been more than enough of that.  But I can say that such 
topics really aren't of great interest to me at the moment and there are 
several other topics I've intended to post about but have neglected in order to 
respond to topics already in play.

Concerning Hacker vis-a-vis Dennett, you ask

> But I wonder if you'd be as pure in your own theory.

I would deny having a theory, though I am sure you didn't mean that 
pejoratively.  But whether Hacker's remarks (some of which strike me as useful 
insights, others of which seem to verge into dogmatism) can be stigmatized as 
"theory" is a tricky question.  I mention this not to engage in a debate about 
Hacker's writings, but to foreshadow a topic I've been working on, related to 
how we distinguish between grammatical investigations and theories and whether 
the "therapy" metaphor is essential to this question.

I'll also just make the observation that my concern would be less whether the 
concept of "intentionality" is being reified and more whether a lot of 
different ideas, grammatical and psychological, are being run together.  And 
then what one needs is not a theory but a grammatical investigation.

have you read "Orrery of Intentionality"?


JPDeMouy


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

[C] [Wittrs] Re: kind remarks from Josh

Other related posts: