From Wikipedia:

Batman's place of residence was first identified as Gotham City in Batman #4 (December 1940). The city is located in the Northeastern United States, in close proximity to Metropolis, with the majority of DC Comics references placing Gotham City specifically in New Jersey.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Cities such as New York City[7] and Chicago[8] have also influenced the look and feel of Gotham over the years.

Gotham is also one of NYC's nicknames, also used by Washington Irving. The West Coast too la de da.

Hi and thanks, I am off for now, but I will think about it during the day.

I think there may be a basic error in saying 'my experience constitutes me'. Suppose everything that is embedded in the brain could be downloaded, put on a disc and that disc were capable of being uploaded into as many brains as wanted, overwriting whatever was there. Are the resultants all the same individual? No, I don't think that it works, since they all would have different bodies.

" 2015, Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero has said the procedure (head anastomosis venture) might be feasible – with improved technology and more accurate ability to keep neural tissue perfused – before the end of 2017, when he intends to perform the procedure in either the United States or China.[A 30-year-old Russian programmer Valery Spiridonov with Werdnig–Hoffmann disease (type I spinal muscular atrophy) and rapidly declining health has volunteered to offer his head for the study." Wikipedia

He plans to do a brain transplant (probably in Asia from what I can gather).

I bring it up because I think it points to an identity issue that has to do with the "I" as referent to some indefinable essence that is referred to when I say 'I am constituted by my experiences', it is what makes these experiences mine.

So he goes ahead and finds someone (Joe) whoes is brain dead and the Doc gets all the consents, finds a place that will allow the operation and the operation is a success. What happens to the "I" that represented 'my experience', is the resultant being me or Joe, did the 'my' as in 'my body' die and a new 'I' emerge as some sort of synthesis of Joe & me? Or perhaps Joe is now me.

Even if there is some vital essence that persists, it could not be the "I", or mine that it was.

We've had superpowered heroes prior to Superman, but heroes like Achilles, or Hercules have divine components, while Superman's powers seem to be more alien than supernatural, he is also mortal. It interesting that he lives two lives, the life of the everyday hero and the life of the mild mannered reporter Clark Kent. The intimacy of their connections is not hidden from the characters in the narrative. As a character he is at once everyman and the epic hero. A meme suggesting that even the most timid of us can rise to the occasion and be a hero, an appeal to sacrificial patriotism based on truth and justice.

He ages, but interestingly, it is not a progressive form of aging, he ages more in terms of liquidation of plot possibilities (of course his ability to fly faster than the speed of light means he is not confirmed fate, as were the classical heros). He is free to totally do whatever he pleases, but he "fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way." He is an instrument of society, he does not ask what his country can do for him, he asks what he can do for it. His fight is predictable, like watching a TV series, we all know who the main characters are, we understand that there will action, but it is not so much the particular action or plot that attracts us (main characters typically stay in character, they are predictably), the fans enjoy how the series characters respond to their challenges.

Happened across this, kinda interesting going with the flow...the dilation of time

Well, you know that nominalists are not saying that we don't create and utilize universal/type concepts/terms, right? The dispute is over whether we believe universals are something "real" (read "extramental") or not. So universals are our own construction, and they're very useful at that..

Yes, and I have recently thought that this may be the wrong question. Universals are not things, concepts are not things, but they do have utility, which has bounds.

What I didn't understand was "If universals are our own construction, then don't we trust what we have built"--maybe I'm missing some context for that comment or something.

If life is absurd, has no meaning, then why bother to valorize at all? What possible significance could it have. I think, even if valorization can not be shown to have a logical basis, it is still an inescapable function of life that we cannot not value our experiences in life..this is what I meant when I asked why we shouldn't trust what we have constructed...it seems to work.

The adoption of universals in dialogue, communication seem necessary. My point is that we can't get by in life without using them. We constuct our sense of space long before we understand its concept, but the concept is extremely useful since everything we experience seems to fall into its domain. I think while we can dispute the existence of any universal, we cannot discount their utility. There may be no good answer to the sceptical argument, but so what, everything seems to work fine, if what we experience can't be encapsulated by logic that is so much the worse for logic...this is what I mean by trust.

Whether or not universals exist might not be the right question, if they are functional aspects, tools of thought that we utilize to understand our situation.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "god".

Sapientia

I think we have to believe in universals, even though particulars are foundational. If universals are our own construction then don't we trust what we have built? It seems to work swell. Sure you can say no, you can be like that, but that's the issue, you can't be like that.

I listened to the video it was interesting. The impression I got is that he thinks beauty is that which is aesthetically pleasing, and he runs through an analogy of life in nature to human life. I don't think there is any beauty in Nature (Hegel), I do think beauty may follow some rules, and sure it is aesthetically pleasing, but pleasing how?

My impression is that Deutsch thinks beauty is pleasing in the same way a mathematician is able to solve a complex equation with elegant insights, beautiful novel ideas. The development of new art is similar to the development of new science since both progress by experimentation.

Fine, but I doubt spontaneously new ideas. I think that similar to science, art depends for its sustenance on those who came prior to them, their historical context. When I say "spontaneously new' I mean completely novel ideas. Art & Science progress historically. Newton and Leibniz developed calculus separately, Darwin & AR Wallace--Theory of Evolution...and many other cases. The basic concepts these men needed to achieve their advances were available to them. They changed the syntactical structure of man's thought with their ideas. The pieces where there, and it was by the rearrangement of some essential parts that a new whole was formed. I think this can be imagined as a plan, as an accidental, dreamed, and so on.

My guess, he is no fan of Jackson Pollock.

I think that beauty is a broad term, unlike Mr Deutsch I tend to agree with Keats

”Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.' Ode on a Grecian Urn.

Among many other things, I think the 'truth' Keats is talking about is truth as a force which opens a range of possibilities, the establishment of a domain in thought (similar to the fictive domain of the Urn he creates in his poem) which illuminates life as it rearranges it in a novel manner, this process and the poem are beautiful.

I don't disagree with anything you have outlined. I think there are endemic issues in our system that may not have had racial implications when implemented but because of social stratification have had disproportionate effects on the poor. Mandatory minimum sentencing, the bail/bond system and perhaps other judicial systems have a much greater effect on the poor.

The gentrification of cities is also affecting the poor. Why should poor people not have a place to live as in cities like San Francisco ( here 'poor' is not necessarily at poverty level). I think this is and will be a major challenge for our society.

Do you accept that there is a noumenon? Do you think that it can be known? Do you think that our nature is the same as the nature of the noumenon? If philosophy can't answer these questions, then are there any other ways of knowing them?

I wonder if there is noumenon, might it not be of two types: natural and man made.

Where natural noumenon...trees, man, and other natural items cannot be known because their existence strictly contingent,particular, only possible, not necessary with no telos. We can only know their appearance.

Man made things, swings, homes, cars and the rest have a subjectivity/telos/necessity built into their being they are objective/subjective in themselves. Their being is wrapped up in us, and unlike nature's works, our works can be known, the subjectivity that inheres in man made things make them knowable beyond their appearance... if that makes any sense.

No I was just responding to your last post.

I don't think comely, pretty, handsome are beautiful, you may say well they are normative, but so what, I think it is philistine sense of beauty, like Tom Kincaid's kitsch.

Character can be beautiful, I think that is what Freud was after, even if his work will never be the backdrop to dancing with the stars and I doubt you will see it on many motels walls, except perhaps a hotel for insomniacs X-)

Hollywood's stars are not beautiful, they are iconic, normatively ideal, I think.

BC Happy Birthday!

I agree with very little you have written, however I do think there is such a thing as natural beauty, and manmade beauty. I think manmade beauty relies on natural beauty.. What makes Lucian Freud's faces beautiful, I don't think you are even close in this regards. The whole thing about beauty based on consensus isn't beauty, it is popularity.

The classical piece is interesting because it suggests that beauty has a history, and what we find beautiful in Venus De Milo may have to do more with its imperfections, the fact that it survived the millennia, may be more important than its technical merit, my guess.

I like rainbows, their beauty lies in their surprise, their contingency, their particularity and barring any Leprechauns, they are not commodifiable. They present more than what they are, they transcend their own objectivity. Artworks are memetic, and they too present more than what they are.

Different business balance sheets look very different from one another. A real estate investment corporation can have huge, non cash losses related to depreciations expense. Other companies, such as banks are highly leveraged compared to other businesses, because the majority of their assets are cash. Computer companies buy the good name, and intellectual property when they merge with other companies. Apple has, last time I read, about a billion dollars in cash available. It can purchase and purchase companies, and never have much of a tax bill.

The thing is that the tax code ought to be set up to direct business spending, so that if you don't want to pay taxes, you don't have to, but you must invest in other businesses or processes that benefit society. Apple went from employing around 10,000 people in 2002 to 47,000 today.

Big corporations are getting far too big. The proposed merger between AT&T and Times Warner would create a corporation with around $400bn in assets, which is monstrous. I think ultimately that such large corporations, bigger than many countries, are bad for society. M&As take the place of innovation and become a cyclic method of competition.

The belief in the noumenon sounds kinda like the belief in god, magical thinking to use an old term :) ...I suppose that only he could guarantee that appearances cohere with with their noumenon

Genuine and Authenticity are synonymous but I think their emphasis is a little different as they are applied to human behavior.

Genuine as what is honestly communicated, as if it were a real existent fact, something that could have objective truth. Directed towards the exterior, more relational than authenticity.
Authentic looking for coherence within, between one's beliefs and one's actions, so directed towards the interior.

Can a person be authentic but not genuine....be true to yourself but at the same time, be perceived as coldly ungenuine in the view of others.

If our character is determined by our actions, and work takes up much of what we do, then work determines our character to no small extent. How do group norms force one to accept one job over another, except by commodification of life, which leads to our alienation from what we do. But we are not forced to accept, we can be a merry mailman if that is what we want, and we are fortunate to live in a society where this is free choice.

To say that well we don't do this, I don't think is a valid argument against our ability to say no, that we can intend to do something else. I think there is a direct link between the slingshot and the atomic bomb, but I don't think such a link exist between slavery and freedom. Otherwise where did the civil rights movement come from? Except by saying no to the prevailing norms.

There are people who enjoy what they do. To point to all the possible counterexamples cannot dismiss the fact that people, generally have the ability to say I'll do this and not that.

Yes we have no control over our birth, and yes, in order to survive we must work, produce something that others will want, we must be able to participate in economic exchange to survive. Man can't survive on his own in nature, man's social character is determined negatively by nature.

In 'free' societies we are not forced to work for any specific employer, but we must work. Similarly employers are not forced to hire any specific worker, but they must have workers. There is a choice on the part of the worker and that of the employer. The synthesis of these is obligation: the worker to perform the work outlined by the employer, and the employer to enable and pay the worker for his labor. (I also think a secondary obligation is formed, loyalty on the part of the worker and the employer, yet this loyalty has become far more tenuous/temporary in our time, this is due to the capitalistic nature of our society)

Insofar as life is expressed by the work we do, our actions go beyond the material labor in which they are employed. Yes, we all have to work, and luck plays its part, but in free society we are not forced to work for any specific employer.

If I apply for work at several companies and several accept my application, then what differentiates them, how do I make my choice assuming that situations are virtually the same. Same pay, same type of working conditions and all the rest. I mentioned that businesses have a way of doing business and I think most workers look to how a business conducts itself, when they choose employment. I think a person wants to enjoy what they are doing, to see their work as productive, as an integral part of their lives.

Edit: To bring it to a more specific level, alluding to what you were saying, are you at the least, indebted to your employer for hiring you on for work which is a large part of what sustains the goods/services for survival (at least in our type of society)? Or, if everyone is born, and that is simply the case, without any choice being given in the matter, is a job more or less a right? This is now getting more political, because this can be a type of justification for social programs, etc.

Well I am self employed, so yea I am indebted to myself :)

I have worked for others in the past. I don't think that work is a right in the sense that society owes me a job. All that society can provide is the opportunity to work, so that I can live, and pursue my individual ends. The only way that society can do this is with laws that govern our relationships with others, so that our opportunity to seek our own ends is fair, in so far as this is possible.

Do I owe an employer more than the work I perform? Yes, I think so. In so far as my employer provides me with work, I am provided with a paycheck for services rendered and in so far as my employer provides me with a livelihood, a way of living, I owe my employer for this also. I do not think these are the same, this is why alienation is possible. Many work for a paycheck, but do not like what they are doing, they are not able to express the character of their life in their work. But this character of life must be expressed, and in capitalistic societies it is expressed by the accumulation of things.

'I hate my job' but I love my new car'. The commodification of life. Life is enjoyed not for the work that one does but rather for the ends that what can achieve based on the work. I think this is sick, unhealthy, but I also think it is the way capitalistic societies work.

Beauty is a very broad term, which can refer to the natural beauty we can sense around us, or moral beauty, some say perfection & symmetry, or the elegance of some thought. Do you suppose that what is ugly is also in the eye of the beholder and if this is the case then what is the utility of the word 'beauty'. Can an ugly thing also be a beautiful thing like Guernica perhaps.

If we agree that there are beautiful things then perhaps there is something in these things that we collectively find beautiful, so that saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is only part of the story. If there is something in the object, then perhaps that has to do with how that object is comprised, its natural or man made composition, its accidental or purposeful beauty.

If the state is what reared you, and you decide to live under its conditions, you should then respect the norms and dictates of the state.. so he seems to imply. But is this really sound logic?

I think it depends on patriotism, the love of country. The logic in national laws enable and shape our ends in life. Patriotism may have logical aspects but I think it is primarily emotional (ex., love of the right to bear arms :-x ) attitude, which would explain why some people appear to be more patriotic than others. The emotional attitude is distinct from the logic structure of the laws which enable and shape it

Bringing it closer to home.. do you owe society by following the dictates of a bossman?

Work is a complicated topic. So if you are paid for a service do you owe more than that service to the person/institution paying you since they are providing you with a job plus paying you for your work. I think that depends on how the owner deals with the staff, some form of the master/slave scenario. Of course you may also be alienated from you work...the modes of production...and so on.

Maybe this depends on the other people you find yourself working with. How they are treated, how they treat each other, you and the job, how the managers manage, how the owner leads the company. I do think some companies have distinct cultures, ways of performing, esprit de corps and I think this type of company attracts a lot of loyalty (obligation).

Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking.

since the group shaped/shapes the individual, and the group, by-and-large, is also part of the reason the individual can survive and thrive, the person should feel a sense of duty to the established group.

I am not sure which is more accurate, I think there are good arguments for each view.

The second view reminds me of Plato's lines in his Crito when Socrates considers Crito's escape plan and Socrates explains that he has a moral obligation to remain 51:

And he who disobeys us[the law] is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither.

Note that, it is not so easy to leave one's country today, but people can and do leave.

In disobeying the law he is disobeying his parents. The word patriotism, 'of one's fathers' suggests that one ought to love the laws of the land as one loves one's parents.

The law of the land teach us how to act or not act, they educate us, we know most of what we know because of the practices of the place where we are raised.

Our implicit contract exists because we live under the safety, protection and economy of our country. As initially stated it is possible to leave.

Now working into your 1st possibility no being swayed by patriotism ( nationalism seems to be more of an aggressive, racial term).
A moral man might look at the bombing of Aleppo and object that Assad's grip of power, his allowance of the death and destruction of the multitudes of his citizens as well as those nations who have realized his terror is incandescently immoral. The vast migrations of people out of the country suggest that any notion of an implicit contract here is inane, that the only education the country is providing is how to kill as many enemies of the state as possible.

We owe nothing to the state, we owe everything to the universal value of human life.

I like what you have said. I think that honesty is closely related to justice, truth and fidelity to one's word. Each of these are complex notions. Justice is typically associated with the law; truth with logic, fact and judgement; and keeping one's word such as keeping promises.

Any action has contextual components so even if there were objective standards these standards would still have to take into account the situation in which actions occur. I think promise keeping or fidelity to one's word is the closest to honesty.

Can a politician be honest and be successful? Plato's noble lie suggests that society as a whole can't take the whole truth, it must be lied to for its own sake. A pious lie. I don't think that society can act simply, ethically. If a societies's end is to enable the pursuit of happiness for its citizens then I think it must generally act from a utilitarian standpoint.

I mostly agree with what you have said, but a couple of points.

Thought uses language for itself, to enable it to construct complex ideas, as a tool of thought. You may be right that negation is built into the structure of the brain, as in on/off switches, but I think it is thought that turns these switches off for the most part.

I like the idea of the conjunction of simple words, yielding more complex ideas, a bottom up construction of the hierarchies (interesting bit about this in paper by Shigeru Miyagawa, reference following) in language as the result of the Merge function. I get the mechanism/computational aspect in this, it is almost as though Chomsky were trying to construct a foundation for a machine language. Chomsky's Minimalist Program (they don't call it a theory because it is a position being studied by a variety of specialists) is an attempt to explain language using the fewest possible terms.

There is a paper which touches on your singing hominid explanation:

Researchers from MIT, along with a scholar from the University of Tokyo believe that human language is a grafting of two communication forms found elsewhere in the animal kingdom: first, the elaborate songs of birds, and second, the more utilitarian, information-bearing types of expression seen in a diversity of other animals. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00071/full

They also argue for the abrupt change happened around the same period around 100,000 years ago. (Shigeru Miyagawa and Chomsky are from MIT, it is not that surprising they agree)

The relationship of ideas to language

Chomsky thinks that language is primarily designed as a system or thought, secondarily as as system of externalization and tertiarily as a system of communication. He thinks the most fundamental formation of language lies in the Merge function. His Merge Theory

Merge (usually capitalized) is one of the basic operations in the Minimalist Program, a leading approach to generative syntax, when two syntactic objects are combined to form a new syntactic unit (a set). Merge also has the property of recursion in that it may apply to its own output: the objects combined by Merge are either lexical items or sets that were themselves formed by Merge

Wikipedia

There are two distinct types of Merge, external which involves the merging of two separate items, and internat which involves merging of two related items, one item within the other.

Interesting theory here is lecture he gave at the end of last year about the Merge Theory


Whether of not language was formed over a long period of gradual changes vs formed quickly, abruptly in evolutionary terms has been a topic of debate for a long time. Chomsky thinks that humans language ability arose from a single mutation about 100,000 years ago and it quickly spread.

Utopia/Dystopia both fictions, but they are useful for describing the limits of society's structure, each point toward very different the futures. More's fiction was more like an optimistic satire suggesting solutions. The end of Yeats's "Second Coming" poem a dystopian premonition written shortly after WWI.

The darkness drops again, but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The perception of space is a biological process not an idea, which is not to say that ideas can't influence what we perceive. Animals also perceive space, and many animals are far superior to us in their perception. Space as a relationship between objects (which I think is correct) is a conception, which may be ontologically correct but this conception arises from our ability to perceptive.

The sacredness of imperfection lies in realization of the impermanence of everything, being in awe of it rather than saddened by its eventual loss.

Yellow rose petals

thunder—

a waterfall
(Basho)

Realization of the impermanence of life enables us to rever each moment as something sacred.

According to christians didn't god become man in order to understand what it is to be an imperfect being, to save us, so that we could become perfect, but that perfection does not take place in this world.

I think we construct all ideas or concepts. Space is both a concept and not a concept. The baby crawling around constructs its concept of space, which is not to say that it does not perceive objects in space. Space, as I think following Kant, is how we intuit what is around us. It is not on this basis a concept but rather our ability to perceive, and we cannot perceive without this ability. It is not conceptual in that sense, it is necessarily a part of the hardware we born with.

Language enables us to conceptualize space, enables us to develop rational concepts to deal with what we perceptive in space. I think we are born with a lot of hardware, but none of it is conceptual from the get-go.

I think sacred things are fetishized by religion, the real is taken as the ideal in the sense that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

On a secular basis man seems to need ideals, things to strive for, to hold as sacred. Baden's definition of the sacred, sounded very much like a description of virtue: that which

cannot be denigrated without denigrating the nature of the one who denigrates it.

The problem is that all men are of "limited mind", the only actions which we are capable of fetishizing are the imperfect conceptions of an ideal. such as justice. Perhaps virtue's 'sacredness' lies in humanity's own imperfect conception of itself, since what we fetishize for (virtue/justice/...),,,we seem to require because of our own imperfections.

Dylan has yet to acknowledge the Noble Prize

A prominent member of the academy that awards the Nobel literature prize has described this year’s laureate, Bob Dylan, as arrogant, citing his total silence since the award was announced last week.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/22/bob-dylan-criticised-as-impolite-and-arrogant-by-nobel-academy-member

The announcement was posted up on his web site several days after the award was announced, but then taken down shortly thereafter. He is just not communicating with them, and they are peeved by it.
Sartre refused the award, but Dylan is the first one to not respond (at least thus far).

As far as I know, he did not ask to be placed in contention for the prize, and I see no reason why he has to respect their award.

(although he could ask them to give it to charity)

It's funny that Rosa Park's action was her refusal to act, to give her seat. She was sitting in the 'colored' section of the bus when she was asked to give up her seat to a white person because the bus was overcrowded, her action started the Civil Rights movement here.

I don't think that a reduction of the terms of human agency to what comprises it can encapsulate what she did, but we read about it, and we can appreciate how much guts it must have taken for her to refuse. She wasn't the first, others had also refused to give up their seats, it but her case got picked up to run through the courts since they thought it had the best chance of prevailing.

Early start of the postmodern movement...a turn in thought.

I have been thinking about those two Sellarsian 'images'. Why only two ?

Sellars established two broad conceptual frameworks, which are analogous, not equal or parallel but are related. He suggests these views are like viewing though a stereoscope, where the two distinct views become one vision of the world. Neither framework is reducible to the other but each is in dialogue with the other. Neither can completely explain the other without leaving something out, He does not dismiss the fact that there can be multiple conceptual frames within each view, such as physics and biochemistry in the scientific image or between ethics and behaviorism in the manifest image.

His essay: http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf
is short and concise.

Science is about what is,
Philosophy asks why it is.

It appears to me that she is role playing, a role that she has seen taken place before... she is improvising upon what she has learnt, which is amazing.

Isn't that what we do sometimes, don't we get into a role, playing a part. Some of our roles give rise to hard emotions, which can consume normal consciousness even if only briefly. Normally we repent or make up. When we don't make up or repent, aren't we left with guilt, vengeance a sense of injustice. That's not to say that people don't have inherited dispositions, or that contextual situations don't have their part in our actions.

Arguments about who needs to do what are common. Sometimes civilized discussion, but not always, sometimes protagonists become angry, get upset by what is said, respond in similar terms to what is said, they play a role, which may be particular to them, but it is still a role.

Religions also ask us to perform ritualized behaviours, to assume a role as a member of the religion community. Some of these roles may be self-destructive, and some monstrously destructive to others...you know the Spanish Inquisition, which no one ever expects, happened. The jihadist beheading the non-believer, sets their soul free, saves them (as I understand it).

In the video of the little girl, I think (speculatively) that she is mimicking her parents behaviors and language. "holy crap" the mother translates for her, the way she looks downward sweeping her hair forward, something I imagine she saw her mother do. She is learning how to stand on her own, to be counted, it involves her mentally, gesturally-physically. She emotions have a target, the soda, and she is playing out similar to the way she may have experienced her mother and father argue.

This is the way children learn how to use words, what strategies work, how to align oneself in a arguments, and eventually how to act in social interactions.

At the end, the mother tries to mollify the child, bring her in line by suggesting solidarity with the dad. "Go Hawks!" probably a familiar family cry watching sports on TV.

I think all emotions are embodied, the question is (and maybe it works both ways) whether you tremble because you are afraid or are you afraid because you realize you are trembling.

I like the Sellarsian distinction between Manifest Image and Scientific Image as two distinct conceptual frameworks in which man conceives the world. The Manifest Image as “the framework in terms of which man came to be aware of himself as man-in-the-world”

The scientific image grows out of and is methodologically posterior to the manifest image, which provides the initial framework in which science is nurtured, but Sellars claims that “the scientific image presents itself as a rival image. From its point of view the manifest image on which it rests is an ‘inadequate’ but pragmatically useful likeness of a reality which first finds its adequate (in principle) likeness in the scientific image” (PSIM, in SPR: 20; in ISR: 388).

SEP