On Jul 13, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: > > Hi Marsha, > > Marsha said: > You've written a bit over my head, but I have been > wondering about the particular versus the general, and > finding them both to be false. I'm really kind of stuck in the > 'not this, not that' mode, especially as I interact with my > own thinking. > > Matt: > If you want an insight into my process, I try to write a > little bit over my own head. It's nice to get to the point > where you say just and exactly what you mean, but that > means your thinking has solidified. In breaking up the > iceflows, thinking in stages and rungs on a ladder helps > you get further than you had imagined when you started.
Hi Matt, I thought all along that you were not writing for a caring reader. That's been my frustration, but I understand it completely. It is not always safe to care on this list. Marsha > It's funny that you're wondering about the > particular/general thing, because its one of the older > philosophical conundrums and one I'd largely left behind > thinking about--I'd sided with the "particular" side (picking > up from Rorty the medieval designation for it, "nominalism"). > But in saying they are both false, two weeks ago I might > have said, "that's true, but..." and made up some excuse > for continuing the see-saw by still labeling myself as a > nominalist. > > That was two weeks ago. Now, after reading Robert > Brandom's Reason in Philosophy (cover to cover: that's a > first for me), I think I understand how to better reject > both sides of the equation. The very short of it is that > Brandom suggests that the issues surrounding the > particular/general distinction are generated by what he > calls the "classificatory theory of consciousness." It's > hard for me to articulate this, but it involves thinking of > concepts/ideas/words as post-it notes you wipe onto > previously differentiated kinds. That means the > _content_ of thoughts are simply classified by > concepts/ideas/words, since they were already > differentiated. Contrary to that, Brandom suggests that > the content of thought can only come _with_ > concepts/ideas/words by the relationship between the > concepts/ideas/words with each other and the world. > This means that the particular/general distinction itself > only comes in a heap after you've become conceptual, > and that neither can be reduced to the other. (This > requires a previous articulation and defense of a > distinction between sentience and sapience--between > differentiation-as-sensing and > differentiation-as-concept-using. The former we hold > in common with animals and babies, but only > language-users have the latter. And while Brandom has > no particular desire to denigrate the sensing and feeling > we have in common with animals, he does want to make it > more clear what the difference is between the two so as > to become more clear what each is and their relationships > to each other.) > > Marsha said: > I sense that you have depth, and you are kind, and that > you hold an important question. i cannot explain the > 'question' so you are correct not to pay me too much > mind. > > Matt: > Just one important question? I hope I'm holding more cards > than that... > > Though maybe one important one is enough. > > Matt > > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with > Hotmail. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
