From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2005 - 21:26:19 GMT
Ant McWatt states:
I think the above paragraph comes back to what a particular philosopher
understands by the term “empirical” rather than the generalisations of a
standard undergraduate textbook. I therefore tend to agree with Ron
Winchester’s line with this particular debate.
Hi,
Another way (in my opinion a less twisted way) to view it would be--- some philosophers prefer to expand the term empirical vs. some philosophers prefer to limit the term empirical.
You said earlier in your post on a different matter " You’re expanding the term
“supernatural” so much as to make it meaningless. " Since you can have that complaint with one word can you also have it with another, (e.g. empirical) without the argument beign reduced from philosophical belief to generalization from a standard undergraduate textbook.
You have also requested clarity. I have also sought that out but have given up hope at getting it from Ron so since you agree with him I would like to request it from you.
Could you answer a couple a questions for me.
1) What is the best definition of empirical in your opinion?
2) Do you think that experiencing the quality of a painting is the same type of experience as experiencing the length of a painting?
3) If you do see a difference in experiences and/or verifiablity why is it wrong to distinguish these type of experiences, especially when other distinctions,e.g. types of quality or another fave typing by politically-proned members--types of people) are welcomed here
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 20 2005 - 21:31:24 GMT