Frances to Luc... It was not my intent to compare angloamerican studies against each other or to imply any analogy. The pairs of passages you quote however do seem to be confused. If your request is correctly understood by me, my intent was to make an umbrella genus under which falls species. My main philosophic support is currently realism, and specifically that brand of realism called idealist realism, and an idealist realism as practiced by angloamerican philosophers. The angloamerican philosophy of idealist realism furthermore has several theoretical branches, one of which is naturalist pragmatism. Under this kind of pragmatism there is also several fields or doctrines, such as the formal science of phenomenology or phaneroscopy and phanerics as it is often called, and then phenomenology holds such theories as synechastics and categorics. The theory of semiotics would also fall under pragmatism, but not under phenomenology. The term angloamerican is used merely to differentiate its philosophy and phenomenology and sign theory from that of the francoeuropean kinds. Under angloamerican pragmatist philosophy, its idealism posits an infinite continuity to the world, and its realism posits a continuing world of action, and its naturalism posits a cause to action, and its pragmatism posits a purpose to action. Under pragmatism there are also further subordinate theories such as objective relativism and fallibilism for example. If my response here fails to address your point, perhaps you could clarify your request a little more.
-----Original Message----- From: Luc Delannoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Analogy? Frances, I'm wondering if you could explain the analogy you seem to make between "angloamerican philosophy of idealist realism and its naturalist pragmatism" and "angloamerican phenomenology". As I said, I am kind of lost with this analogy - if it is one. Thank you Best Luc
