[Wittrs] Who and What is a Cartesian?
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:35:00 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>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.
this seems to be the crux of the illusion; so, let's analyze the
situation in detail.
your claim that Searle is a Cartesian dualist rests on the claim that
Dennett agrees with you that Searle is a Cartesian dualist.
to support your claim that Dennett claims that Searle is a Cartesian
dualist, you cited the passage from Dennett in which Dennett (after
asking rhetorically who would believe that more of the same would not
add up to genuine understanding) states that Cartesian dualists would
believe so.
logically the claim that Dennett literally makes is that Cartesian
dualists, C, hold a certain belief, X. this would be symbolized, thus:
C -> X.
clearly, you come along to rationalize as follows: Cartesian dualists
believe X. Searle believes X. therefore, Searle is a Cartesian dualist.
equally clearly, you've perpetrated the fallacy of affirming the
consequent.
when I first pointed this out, I told you what was necessary to avoid
the fallacy: you needed to assume or prove that *only* a Cartesian
dualist would believe X.
shortly thereafter you began claiming that when Dennett wrote 'Cartesian
dualists believe X' he *really* meant 'it takes a Cartesian dualist to
believe X' which (arguably) means 'only a Cartesian dualist believes X'.
clearly, you are now reading the passage in question as it would need to
be read in order to avoid the fallacy of affirming the consequent; but,
the suspicion remains that you are reading the needed interpretation
into the text the way some people see a bat in the inkblot. they truly
believe that the bat is really out there *in the inkblot*.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
