[Krimel] James is quite clear that concepts arise from and are subservient to perception. That is what empiricism is, anyway you slice it. He certainly acknowledges their interrelations but when push comes to shove perception wins. Ron: If he was quite clear about the primacy of percept, then why did he forward the idea of a radical empiricism to replace it?
[Krimel] Exactly! He didn't and it doesn't. Ron: If I understand you correctly, you maintain that William James is of the school of Hume and Locke as in the reduction of perception to sense data correct? I have to say this goes against anything I have ever read on the subject of radical empiricism or can dig up online about William James. I'm really trying to see what you mean, Can you point me to any resources? [Krimel] I get it. I was having trouble figuring out what you were getting at with your last post. No, I have not been saying that James is the same as Hume and Locke. He is adding the experience of conjunction and disjunction to overcome the limits of simple sensory empiricism. In terms of radical empiricism his aim to still to overcome rationalism. It certainly is not his aim to do some kind of reverse zwabydah and turn empiricism into rationalism. Dave would paint James as a rationalist in empirical clothing. But I am saying that he is just adding to the British empiricists not throwing them out. I think you would find at least the two chapters on concepts and percepts in Some Problems of Philosophy very helpful. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=1051665 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/
