> My goodness Brad, You are particularly transcendant today.
> REH
>
> ----- Original Message ----- [snipped]
>> persons [might try] to appreciate that they are
>> shapers of their world and not just instances
>> in it...
>> ... persons to see themselves as transcendental
>> subjects of experience rather than as objects
>> in the object world, seems appealing to me.
Which is why (I will add, continuing my previous
intervention) RG Collingwood was correct to maintain that
the proper "science of mind" - worthy of the name - is
HISTORY.
Psychology, despite its name, cannot be a science of mind,
because psychology, like chemistry, is only about "events" -
things that happen in the universe - and never about "acts"
- what actors do, doing something on purpose, with intent.
An appropriate account of human actions must have that
intentionality at its core; hence history is superior to
psychology.
This is also why Kuhn's account of science is necessarily
superior to any scientific account ("social science" or
socio-biological, or ...).
Stephen Straker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vancouver, B.C.
[Outgoing mail scanned by Norton AntiVirus]
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
