You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Words have no Meaning
- Thread starter BeHereNow
- Start date
Isn't this an essentialist review?
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 ...
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.
It's because they have their humanity in common irrefutable truth.
Entails, especially since it now seems distinguished from 'is', seems to indicate that the image is a consequence or simultaneous phenomenon but not the same phenomenon.
Exactly.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
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 ...
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.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Exactly.
so an observation is not a mental image, it entails one.
so an observation is not a mental image, it entails one.
No.
It is not solely a mental image, but it does indeed entail one.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
No.
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.
I think you can see what I am feeling around here.
Actually, I can't.
So are there two mental images?
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.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
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?
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?
OK. So there are 2 images.
I look at a car and there are 2 images.
No.
As I said, there are not 2 images.
There can be a second image iff one introspectively considers the original image.
The first is a function of the senses, the latter is a manifestation of the mind's.
Correct.
Do I see both of these?
If you choose to.
If I don't, what makes the first one an image?
The fact that your sensory apparatuses are receiving incoming data.