Since he, Harris, concludes that the supercategories of religion and art are dissolved, and only science clings to a fragile outcropping called objectivity and even that relies on the institutional theory, maybe he's one up on you because he actually explains his argument. When you say everybody is wrong, I guess that means you adhere to the idiosyncratic theory, another defunct idea. There's no way to counter or test your view. Which means it's useless as a discursive topic.
WC ----- Original Message ---- From: cheerskep <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 1:23:34 PM Subject: Re: book This is a premature and incomplete heads up about Harris's position. Like every academic I know of in linguistics and philosophy of language, he appears to be reifying abstractions like "categories", "art", "religions". I know -- everybody does it. But everybody is wrong. On Jun 1, 2010, at 1:28:07 PM, [email protected] wrote: From: [email protected] Subject: Re: book Date: June 1, 2010 1:28:07 PM EDT To: [email protected], [email protected] In a message dated 6/1/10 9:48:30 AM, [email protected] writes: > Roy Harris: The Great Debate About Art, Prickly Paradigm Press, 2010. > 10,95 on Amazon. It sounds good. Harris is a Professor Emeritus from Oxford and does something called integrationist linguistics. Kate Sullivan
