From: David R (elephant@plato.plus.com)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2003 - 17:43:14 GMT
Scott,
You say:
> If you are making an inquiry into the nature of perception, then the
> pathological and borderline cases are important. But that was not the
> context of my referring to "sense-perceptible particulars". If we need to
> precisely define all our terms in all contexts we will never get anywhere.
> That's why I was asking if you were serious.
This won't do. You *may* not be interested in an inquiry into the nature of
perception, but if you make your discussion of truth rest upon a claim about
perception then you certainly *need* to be. What is true by correspondance,
and whether anything is true by correspondance, depends upon what perception
is like, and how or whether 'physical sight' can be distinguished from
'insight' in the fashion you suggest.
The context of your refering to "sense-perceptible particulars" was one in
which you were distinguishing two kinds of truth. Your claims about
correspondance truth were explained, by you, to rely upon the existence of
"sense-perceptible particulars".
If there are no sense perceptible particulars, then there is nothing on your
scheme to correspond to.
So if you don't know what 'sense perceptible' means, then you don't
understand what you mean by 'correspondence' either.
*Therefore*, you cannot blithely dismiss these concerns about the unclarity
of "sense-perceptible" with "If we need to precisely define all our terms in
all contexts we will never get anywhere".
That kind of remark is a justification for not thinking deeply about
anything.
That you deploy it now, in the middle of philosophical discourse on the
nature of truth, is odd. Either you want an answer to the 'what is truth?'
question, or you don't. If you do, you need to follow that through.
Properly. It's philosophy here and we need to ask these questions. It
isn't anything fantastically weird that I'm asking for, and it may be of
general interest, since most people tend to think that there are
sense-perceptible particulars, without really examining what they actually
mean by that. And you've offered a bit of a clarification, namely that
there's distinction between sense and insight. OK, follow that through.
Tell me where that distinction fits in with actual cases of seeing.
So, could you answer the simple question in my previous post, about the
puma?
All best
David R
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 : Fri Nov 21 2003 - 17:45:55 GMT