Geoff Crealock writes:
"Re: Examining the theory
I don't know about art ..... But, I would submit that one aspect of
examining a theory might be understanding its products or results but that
surely leaves the process of arriving at those results unexplored/unknown.
Who did what under what circumstances, under what pressures/expectations
which resulted in this result this time?
Geoff Crealock"
I can't find the thread "Examining the Theory", but your posting occasions
this thought:
Your line "one aspect of examining a theory might be understanding ITS
products" betrays a circularity. For example, if it's a theory about "What is
art?"
the 'its' seems to assume you've already "identified" "art", or you wouldn't
be able to cite "its" products.
If, however, the "it" you have in mind is the THEORY, you have essentially
the same problem: "What is art?" -- as with any question of the "What is XXX?"
form -- probably assumes the assumes the existence oof a mind-independent
quality/category that "IS" "art" -- but what if the adversary's position is
that
there is no such mind-independent entity? If your subject is solely your own
notion of art, and the 'it' is merely a theory of your own personal notion,
it's
liable to be of limited interest, and it's a fairly sure thing it will amount
in the end to a unilateral stipulative definition. "This is my theory of
what my notion of art is." "Oh? Well that's not MY idea."
**************
Looking
for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out
WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.
(http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
