maybe word things differently in other areas, such as the self. — Manuel
God was used back then by almost everybody, Descartes had no special claim in relation to others in using God as an explanation. — Manuel
Kant’s most basic idea, the axis around which all his thought turns, is that what distinguishes exercises of judgment and intentional agency from the performances of merely natural creatures is that judgments and actions are subject to distinctive kinds of normative assessment. - Brandom — plaque flag
I'm wondering where that self-confidence comes from. — Isaac
Specifically I was referring to the eliminative materialism of Daniel Dennett and the way he uses Darwinian biology in support of that view, which I (and a lot of people) regard as anti-humanist. I was certainly not characterising anyone I differ with as evil.here you are deriding as 'evil' world views... — Isaac
Personally I don't want all of Kant's baggage, but I love what Brandom takes from him in that passage.Hence the incompatibility between transcendental idealism and naturalism. — Wayfarer
The "I" is a construct, I am re-reading Descartes soon, but I believe he was aware of this. — Manuel
Specifically I was referring to the eliminative materialism of Daniel Dennett and the way he uses Darwinian biology in support of that view, which I (and a lot of people) regard as anti-humanist. I was certainly not characterising anyone I differ with as evil. — Wayfarer
Why invoke 'fear of religion'... — Isaac
The "I" is a mark of mind ... — Manuel
The issue for me is, was he aware, maybe inexplicitly, that the self is a creation of the mind ... — Manuel
As I understand him, it is not a mark but the thing that thinks. The 'I' asserts itself. Claims its place and authority. — Fooloso4
Does he make this distinction between self and mind? — Fooloso4
Dogs don't have fingers to operate laptops, but the notion of them learning button-pushing communication is not far-fetched. Amazon has several models of "dog button mats" available. And I've seen several videos of dogs that seem to know how to speak with technology, even though they lack a human larynx. I wonder what Chomsky would say about chatting doggies using human language to convey their thoughts. :smile:Continuing with the case of other animals, suppose someone says "dogs will learn how to use laptops, it's just a matter of "learning more" and eventually they will understand it". — Manuel
Can't get this. On the one hand, Chomsly accuses Newton for destroying the notion of materialism and on the other hand, he denies himself the notion of materialism.He starts with a story about Newton who apparently destroyed materialism once and for all.
Moreover, Chomsky goes ahead denying altogether even the notion of materialism/physicalism, saying that we do not know what matter is. — Eugen
the notion of them learning button-pushing communication is not far-fetched — Gnomon
Apparently, the majority of humans do not "fear religion". It's mostly god-fearing intellectuals & liberals who are not attracted to mysterious & authoritarian religions with bloodthirsty deities. Religious people seem to reason that it's best to be on the side of the biggest baddest M-F, when the world is out to get you.Why invoke 'fear of religion'... — Isaac
Have you read the essay that this is quoted from, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, by Thomas Nagel? I think what he says in that essay is extremely relevant to many of the arguments we see on this forum, including this one, which is why I quoted it. — Wayfarer
The dogs in the videos are obviously using pre-recorded human language to express their limited doggie thoughts. But they seem to know the meaning of those sounds. So, it's true that human Language is uniquely human, but the mental & emotional elements from which spoken & written communication evolved were inherited from animal ancestors, who were limited to gestures, such as wagging tails. Apparently language evolved along with hands, big brains, and upright posture. :smile:They can't because dogs don't have a language faculty. Communication and language are frequently confused, they are not the same. All animals (or most of them) have some form of communication, but they don't have language. — Manuel
I don't know how simply saying that the self is a kind of fiction or a necessary social construction is any less clear than adding the aspect of a "tradition we perform" — Manuel
nor do I see how a scientist or a philosopher is "to accept the selftranscending bindingness and legitimacy of these norms." — Manuel
What norms? If a scientist is speaking about astronomy, she is specializing in a specific branch of science, attempting to clarify what exists in the mind-independent world. — Manuel
Chomsky not only argued that language was uniquely human but he also questioned Charles Darwin's theory that language evolved from animal communication and B.F. Skinner's theory that language could be reduced to learned behavior. — Gnomon
Its claims are independent of this or that observer. What's negated is not mind but personal perspective. In my view, this kind of dualism is hopeless and yet so often projected on physics, for instance. — plaque flag
I think rationality (more so than norms) goes significantly beyond stop-signs or handshakes, it's an innate characteristic of a very peculiar creature, namely, human beings. — Manuel
Here we are though discussing the very norms you don't find plausible. Which inferences play by the rules ? Are valid ? That's us discussing what concepts mean in the first place, or so might an inferentialist claim.It feels a bit strange to say that one is to be held responsible for making a judgement - I don't think that must follow. — Manuel
By mind-independent I mean what the word says. If we did not exist, there would still be planets and suns - in some fashion - as would there be photons and fossils. I don't believe that we literally created the world, that there was nothing here prior to homo sapiens. — Manuel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.