Struan Hellier wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> But DMB, there is a very serious point here and it is vital to the health
of the forum. I'm still
> doing nothing but making a considered judgement of the way you conduct
yourself on a continuing
> basis and am sorry you see it otherwise.
David Lind: I don't want to step on toes, but as an onlooker, it
seems to be more than just a considered judgement.....it seems like an
attack. just my opinion.
>This time you subject David Hume to the same treatment as
> you have many others by writing, with reference to Hume and Locke:
>
> "They liked to think that our minds were like the wall inside the camera,
accurately reflecting an
> objective picture of the outside world."
>
> Actually Hume thought the opposite. ". . the perceptions of the mind must
be caused by external
> objects, entirely different from them, though resembling them." (An Enquiry
Concerning Human
> Understanding, Hackett, 1977, pg 105) and "The senses alone are not to be
relied upon," (Ibid.
> pg104).
>
David Lind: Ummmm....i may be slow, but i don't see the two as
opposite....a bit different, but i could see someone seeing those
statements as potenially similar. depends on how you interpret the
hume quote. aren't images in the camera caused by external objects?
and aren't they "different from them? (3-d versus 2-d is one
disctinction) though they do resemble them. Seems that hume's
statement has some room for interpretation (although i will admit that
i haven't read the man's work...just going by the quote)- and in
general, i don't think any of us have the final say about anyone
else's opinion. the best we can do is make educated guesses. it may
be just be, straun, that you and DMB understand the man's work
differently. not that DMB is trying to 'bastardise, reverse and make
an insult to him and everyone else'. (paraphrased)
> I really don't see that I have any other right course of action but to
complain and that is
> precisely what I have done and am doing again.
David Lind: well, in my opinion, it seems that there are other
options. (i think there's always options) - you could present your
understanding of Hume's work without the attack. if you are right
(again, i don't know because i haven't read the man's work) then
present your understanding of his work and point out where the
differences are. but when you present it AND attack another's views
of the subject...this just closes off the lines of communication. (i
am working hard to word this response in such a way to not attack you,
but point out where i have differences with what you wrote. if
something comes across as an attack, please believe me when i say this
is not meant as an attack, but just my opinion...desire... thoughts on
the subject)
> As John put it recently. "If you want to argue with me, fine, but please
don't put words in my
> mouth."
David Lind: I don't get that he put words in anyone's mouth. if i
say in my words what i think a writers ideas were, that doesn't mean
i'm putting words in the writer's mouth. for example, if i happened
to disagree with you about your interpretation of hume's works, could
i then accuse you of putting words in his mouth? just wondering.
Well, that's about all for now.....just another request that we all
treat people with respect and avoid all the attacking.
Shalom (peace)
David R. Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST