[Wittrs] Re: What Is Ontological Dualism?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:13:08 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 4/11/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> >> he means simply that people really do have such things
> >> as toothaches - that such things as toothaches really do
> >> exist in the world. And of course he's right; we know this
> >> before we start doing philosophy.
> >
> >
> > Nor does Dennett deny it. Nor do I. The point is we are
> > prepared to explain its occurrence in physicalist terms and
> > do not presume that something that is separate from the
> > physical must be at work.
>
> You claim to understand Searle. If you did then you would know that he posits
> nothing separate from the physical and that his philosophy in no way implies
> such.
>
I KNOW what he says. My argument is about what his argument IMPLIES and, of
course, I have made the case for WHY it implies what I have said it implies.
You, on the other hand, have yet to make a case for a reading that doesn't have
such an implication (or why my case that it does is mistaken) contenting
yourself, instead, with denouncing others who do make such a case as I make,
questioning our motives, reiterating repeatedly the claims being challenged
and, finally, asserting that what is obvious to you is therefore also true.
Now your case seems to come down to an assertion that I just don't understand
Searle. Well, it's clear enough you don't understand Dennett. While we can both
assert non-understanding on the part of the other, what we claim must finally
stand or fall on the merits of the cases we respectively make and so far your
case hinges on irrelevancies. I, at least, have offered a detailed argument vis
a vis Searle's CRA (while providing text and explanations to show why you are
misreading Dennett).
> And as I've stated, I do not (nor should anyone) take seriously any
> definition of "dualism" that does not entail a non-physical explanation of
> the mental.
>
> -gts
>
It's about what Searle's argument (the CRA) implies (and therefore what Searle
implicitly holds) not about what Searle says he holds. The point of analyzing
an argument is to see where it leads, what implications it has. If you won't do
that you aren't really dealing head on with the argument.
In the present case, it's pretty clear that you are basically defending a
doctrinal belief you have. Otherwise you would presumably have more to offer
than endless restatements of your own beliefs and the impugning of the motives
or others.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
