[Wittrs] Re: What Is Ontological Dualism?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:58:48 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>
> SWM wrote:
>
<snip>
> >>SWM wrote:
>
Gordon Swobe:
> >>>>The eliminativist doubles his mistake when he, a la Dennett,
> >>>>falsely labels those don't fall into the same trap "Cartesians".
>
> >>>Now THAT you need to defend
>
> >>As Joe and others have repeatedly tried to explain, and as I now also
> >>try to explain, you suggest wrongly that Searle's view in some way
> >>entails something you call Cartesian dualism.
>
> >"Ontological dualism" and you have yet to argue why I am wrong. You
> >have only asserted it. Joe, at least, made arguments.
>
> one of my arguments is that you've admitted that 'ontological dualism'
> means 'substance dualism'.
>
Yes but without the nuances and connotations of "substance". But I agree they
are substantively the same thing in that both are about ontological basicness.
> just a few days ago, you said "Since you equated Cartesian dualism with
> 'substance dualism' and we had agreed that by 'ontological dualism' I
> meant the same thing as what you meant by 'substance dualism', Dennett's
> claim that it took a Cartesian dualist to read the CRA as Searle read it
> amounted to the assertion that 'ontological dualism' (or 'substance
> dualism') lay at the heart of the CRA."
>
> Joe
>
What Gordon needs to defend is his claim that in denying dualism Dennett and/or
I are embracing it.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
