Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:46:59 +0100
Hi Martin and squad
Martin Striz wrote:
>
> Kant practically defined the SOM! He "saved" objectivity, as Pirsig put
> it, when he proposed there was a priori (in the mind, subject side)
> knowledge that we automatically have, which we use to filter and integrate
> sense experience (object side).
Then our problem, or his, maybe is of another kind. Galen says:
'He keeps attacking something called "subject-object metaphysics".
But this is a straw man, a position held by no one.'
He obviously doesn't think he's in SOM land. Maybe what's bothering
people who are confronted with the word SOM for the first time, is
that it seems to wrap up all philosophy from Aristotle to present
time in the same bag, which it actually does. They aren't too thrilled
about being lumped together with dualists, materialists, idealists etc.
regardless of their particular view. They have always confronted
"the others" as being totally foreign and evil, and we must understand
their reluctance to our lumping.
I have no great solutions to this, maybe it's not even a problem.
But perhaps we should respect their differences more than we presently
do. Otherwise we risk being accused of having a holier-than-thou-
attitude.
Magnus
-- "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good" N. Peart - Rush-- 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