[Wittrs] Re: Dualism Cooties: Classifying Searle

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:43:34 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>

> Searles defies classification:


> "There are not two (or five or seven) fundamental ontological categories,
> rather the act of categorization itself is always interest relative. For
> that reason the attempt to answer such questions as, 'How many fundamental
> metaphysical categories are there?', as it stands, is meaningless. We live
> in exactly one world and there are as many different ways of dividing it as
> you like."
>
> - Searle, "Why I Am Not Property Dualist"

Or he is wrong about what it means to be a "property dualist" and, as I tend to 
think, in his use of "ontology". I think he is confused on these issues and 
that it is not enough to claim one is not a dualist, not to be one. But defying 
classification can be a function of confusion as much as it can be a function 
of a new paradigm. The problem likes in distinguishing the cases. -- SWM

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

Other related posts: