Re: SUO: Re: Im/material Ir/reverence
Dear Jon
>You are obviously having a bad day -- and believe me,
>I know how bad such a day can be! -- and so I will
>simply offer my commiserations and hope that you
>find some consolation before the day is done.
On the contrary, I am having a fine day. I just LOVE trashing ancient
philosophers.
>As to reasons for reading Aristotle -- you miss my point, too --
>even if it were nothing nearer to the "literal truth" than some
>piece of mythology, that is to say, when read literally, as it
>rarely makes sense to read it, or creative literature, or drama,
>or fiction, not to mention some bits of science, too, and still,
>as many literal-minded imaginations persist in reading all of it --
>nay, even then it would be worth reading, if only to find written
>down, in a brief spell, perhaps for the very first time, the very
>things that we have believed all of our lives, without quite being
>able to articulate them.
You seem to have just contradicted yourself; unless, of course you
believe that all the things you have believed all your life do not
make sense when read literally. This might be true, of course
(particularly as your mental life seems to consist largely of puns
and wordplay) in which case I can only offer a silent prayer for your
system of beliefs and turn to more practical (and interesting)
matters.
>In short, the "concepts and distinctions" (CAD's) of these old folks
>will effectively inform the "architectronic design" of your everyday
>and your technical thinking about everything from particles to waves
>to everything that is entangled in between, whether you wit it or no,
It might, although I VERY much doubt it. I havnt ever come across a
scrap of evidence which suggest that it does, and the history of
science suggests that the thinking of the 'old folks' was almost
always inadequate for every new idea which came along, and usually a
positive hindrance. The idea of 'final cause' is a good example.
(Just try reading Harvey on the circulation of the blood, to see how
much of his valuable time was spent on trying to put the old folks
right, for example.)
>....
>As for this troubled notion of a soul --
>psyche is soul and soul is psyche,
>and that is all you need to know,
>and it is a word that still
>breathes on our lips,
Not on mine, my friend. I am quite sure that I don't have a soul or
a psyche; and even if I did, I don't think I would want them in my
ontology.
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes