[Wittrs] Re: Who and What is a Cartesian?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:25:04 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
<snip>
> Stuart,
>
> you spend altogether too much time whining about the evolution of a
> thread. in your case this is particularly hypocritical since, if there
> is no change in what people say from post to post, you turn around and
> whine about people who repeat themselves mantra-like.
>
Well you are always free to skip my "whines" and do your own thing.
> here are the crucial aspects of one current dispute:
>
> 1. Dennett uses 'Cartesian dualism' in a way that is historically
> accurate and philosophically correct. it is philosophically accurate in
> that it means the same as 'interactive substance dualism'. it is
> historically accurate in that this is the philosophical position
> Descartes actually advocated.
>
> 2. Dennett does not accuse Searle of Cartesian dualism as Dennett
> defines that term. it seems to me that you've agreed with this claim
> when you indicated that there was no basis for saying that Searle
> believed that an immortal soul was necessary to produce understanding.
>
Dennett, in the context of explicitly critiquing Searle's CRA says that it
takes a Cartesian dualist to conclude that more of the same would not make a
difference in the CR, i.e., the argument known as the CRA. Searle makes THAT
argument and defends it. Thus Dennett's point is directed at Searle and his
thinking on the matter which is what I initially said Dennett's argument
addressed and what the text I found and transcribed here demonstrates. Your
ongoing claims aimed at undermining this point are just an exercise in
sophistry.
> 3. you think that Dennett accuses Searle of Cartesian dualism according
> to some alternate definition of that term that no one (except you) can
> find in the text and which you won't quote for us.
>
See above.
> 4. you say you allow yourself to label people as 'Cartesian dualists'
> even if they do not postulate a second kind of 'stuff' besides physical
> stuff;
My point is that Dennett's use of "Cartesian dualist" in that context, and my
use of the term here, applies to a way of thinking about mind someone has, NOT
to whether they are fully enrolled disciples of Descartes' historical
philosophy, contra your imputations.
> but, when I ask for a listing of the criteria you consider
> necessary/sufficient for classifying someone as a Cartesian dualist, you
> refuse on the grounds that this has already been given.
>
See above.
> in the approximately 3 years that I've been following your attempt to
> challenged the CRA on the grounds that Searle is an implicitly Cartesian
> dualist, you've never admitted (until a few days ago) that you felt
> justified in the practice of labeling people as 'Cartesian dualists' who
> do not meet Dennett's definition (because they do not postulate a second
> kind of stuff).
>
I suppose it's because no one ever attempted to parse "Cartesian dualist" in
such a pedantic and overly narrow way as you have done. You get an A for
originality, I suppose, but that's not enough to carry your point to a
successful conclusion. See above.
By the way, recall that this is about saying of someone that they are
implicitly dualist, therefore the question of their fully subscribing to an
explicit set of tenets is beside the point.
> consequently, it is unreasonable to suppose that we already know what
> your inclusion criteria are for those who do not meet Dennett's
> philosophically correct definition of 'Cartesian dualism' as
> 'interactive substance dualism'.
>
See above.
> give it a shot, Stuart. it might eliminate a lot of back and forth.
>
> Joe
>
Not likely with you, Joe. I expect that you will always come back with some
arcane and forced "logical" argument, given enough time to come up with
something. But if philosophy is to be about improving our understanding, such a
game of endless re-sets based on faux logical maneuvers as you pursue can only
be counter-productive. I saw you in action on Analytic and felt rather sorry
for you because of the way Walter was treating you. I know he can be awfully
sarcastic and cutting (he got increasingly so with me over the time I was
posting there, going from making snide remarks to outright and sometimes
hyperbolic attacks). And so I thought he could and should have been more
restrained where you were concerned (because I recall how frustrated I was at
his style of verbal put-downs in my case). But after engaging with you more
directly on this list I have come to have more sympathy for his aggravation
with you.
Hopefully, I will never fall into the mode of dealing with people he too
frequently demonstrates, though it is probably just a personality trait of his
and not something over which he has any real control, just as you have your
personality traits and I have mine. But one thing is clear and that is that all
personalities do not mesh well together and there are some that are foredoomed
to clash repeatedly. Perhaps that was so in my case with Walter. It is
certainly becoming increasingly clear that it is so in my case with you.
I no longer wish to go over the same stupid arguments with you about whether
Dennett really said what he said or meant what he said when he said it. You
challenged me to find text supporting my claim that Dennett's case against the
CRA hinged on the identification of dualism as that argument's underlying way
of thinking about mind.
I found that text and put it up here and it is available for anyone to examine.
That you now want to find a way to alter the plain meaning of that text to
claim it doesn't say what it says it says is your problem, not mine. The text
you said did not exist in Consciousness Explained has been shown to exist. That
ends the matter as far as I'm, concerned, no matter what kind of
reinterpretations you want to impose on it to sustain (or obfuscate the
implications for) your original claim that it wasn't there.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
