Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:45:25 +0100
Hi Diana and squad
> My problem with trying to explain the MoQ has tended to be with the "so
> what?" question. People never understand why I think the MoQ is
> important. I guess it's because when I came across the MoQ I had already
> decided that the subject-object metaphysics didn't work and I'd already
> explored other world-views or weltbilds (the Germans have the best words
> for these things). The MoQ was the Great Answer to me. But try telling
> friends, hey look I've got the great Answer here, and they'll say, what
> was the question?
Know what you mean... Another common response is that expressed by
Galen Strawson in the forum, (hmm, Galen means "mad" in swedish :-).
Anyway, he doesn't think he's submerged in SOM land in the first place.
He doesn't really state which land he belongs to, but according to the
Oxford web page he's teaching Kant, and I really can't say if Kant went
outside the SOM borderline. Anyone?
Then there's the people who don't even think that they are using
a metaphysics at all. They are convinced that science is pure and
totally free of presumptions.
> Some time ago Bodvar said that he couldn't find a way to explain the MoQ
> without mentioning the subject-object metaphysics first. At the time I
> didn't think so but now I'm starting to see why. In order to convince
> people that you've got a better metaphysics you need to show them that
> there's something wrong with the one they're using first.
>
> So I'd like to make a request for examples of what's wrong with the SOM.
And I add a request for examples to show that science is not
presumptionless.
Magnus
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:47 CEST