Ham said to dmb: ...In fact, Krueger notes that "James was suspicious of the idea that conceptual or propositional thought functions as the primitive-and thus irreducible-interface between self and world. On this conceptualist or 'intellectualist' line, as James refers to it, ALL THINKING AND EXPERIENCE INVOLVES CONCEPTS. NO CONCEPTS, NO EXPERIENCE." [My emphasis]
dmb says: Look at that Krueger quote again, Ham. Again, you are defending my points and undermining your own. He's saying that "James is suspicious of the idea". I'd say that a bit of an understatement of the case, but the point is simply that James rejects the intellectualist line, which is your line about all experience being conceptual. The part you added emphasis to is the suspicious part. He and Dewey both go into great detail about all the problems this intellectualist line has caused. Ham said: ...I suppose it's asking too much for you to accept my view that value is man's link to Essence. But does this definition of fundamental selfness make no sense to you? dmb says: Yes, it certainly makes no sense to me. Except for the conventional meaning, which I essentially understand, the version of "Essence" is exactly the kind of fictional metaphysical entity ruled out by radical empiricism. Pragmatists think such items should be seen for what they are; abstract concepts wildly inflated and given a primary ontological status. This is an error known as "reification". They have no problem with abstract concepts as long as they're seen for what they are, intellectual tools, and nothing more. _________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
