Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by BeHereNow, Feb 24, 2008.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Totally. In fact, I venture to say that discussion with someone whose viewpoints we do not yet know in depth or whose viewpoints we know to be fundamentally different than our own,
is impossible unless we assume an essentialist/objectivist common ground.
But then I wonder -from the perspective of a relativist/constructivist/holist-what's the point of talking to such a person ...
Makes one wonder why philosophers of different schools bother to talk to each other.
Absolutely, it makes me wonder why they do.
It's because they have their humanity in common irrefutable truth.
1) the highlighted portion seems like a potential doorway.
2) who isn't such a person?
3) the development of skill in communication and the fleshing out of one's own ideas and even discovery of one's own ideas, our blind spots, leaps in logic and assumptions we might not have known we had.
so an observation is not a mental image, it entails one.
It is not solely a mental image, but it does indeed entail one.
So are there two mental images?
I think you can see what I am feeling around here.
Actually, I can't.
No. There is the perceived image and the mental image. The former is a function of one's senses, the latter a manifestation of the mind's (or brain's...) awareness of that image.
OK. So there are 2 images.
I look at a car and there are 2 images.
The first is a function of the senses, the latter is a manifestation of the mind's.
Do I see both of these?
If I don't, what makes the first one an image?
As I said, there are not 2 images.
There can be a second image iff one introspectively considers the original image.
If you choose to.
The fact that your sensory apparatuses are receiving incoming data.
Separate names with a comma.