My responses begin with [J
Stephen Shields wrote:
Jon,[J Yes exactly!!! There is overlap between those who do one or the other of these types of philosphy and happily the vast chasm that existed between them is gone largely do the appreciation of some analytic types to see the value in the work of Husserl and Heiedegger and Merleau-Ponty.**On the Relationship Between Phenomenology and Analytic Philosophy**
You wrote:
"Phenomenology and analytic philosophy go well together and each without the
other seems to suffer in leaving out aspects of method that are necessary
for philosophical work. "
I'm trying to understand the relationship. Is phenomenology helpful because
it focuses on what is and analytic philosophy is helpful because it focuses
on how to think about what is (with logic)?
[J I think you are stereotyping the attitude to logic and generalizing it illegitimately!?
**On the Basis for Logic in Nature and the Limits of Modernism**
Regarding our interchange:
Jon had written: " The human body and mind play a major role in the
coming-to-be of the symbolic sciences of mathematics and logic and yet these
structures of logic and math have their roots in nature, independently of
human cognition.. "
Stephen then wrote: "It occurs to me - and I'd like to get your comment on
this - that part of the modern program that's problematic is the *exclusive*
reliance on the adequacy of logic and math to attain *all* significant truth
(I will use logic to parent my girls but it will take more). "
Jon responded with: "The problem I have here is that I do not see that as
truth. Yes heavy emphasis on reason but also empirical observation and
testability of hypotheses by both reason AND empirical evidence. As far as I
see this, this is excellent. "
Stephen now writes: Jon, I didn't understand the sentence, "The problem I
have here is that I do not see that as truth. " Would you tease that out a
bit for me?
**On "The Turn to the Subject"**
Jon wrote:
"What does happen, is that more and more of what I take to be constituents
of being get put in the mind and taken out of nature!!!!!. Following
Descartes and those who came after him, Kant reaches new heights in doing
this. He believes that only individual things in space and time are to be
found in perception. He thinks that no universal properties and no necessity
can be found in nature. He agrees with Hume. Kant continually argues for his
a priori mental machinery of the mind where alone, for him, universality and
necessity, can be found. His key premise in these arguments is that
necessity and universality cannot be found in the perceptual world. I have
never agreed with that! But this overmentalization robs the perceptual world
of the great richness that it has..... "
Stephen writes: Very nice and brief critique of the postmodern "turn to the
subject"! And I've recall you've written elsewhere that there was some
riches to be garnered from the pre-postmodern turn that...did you say it
began with Descartes...earlier thinkers highlighted.
To everyone: I can't stress enough how important the concept of "turn to
the subject" is to understanding where the postmodern thinkers are coming
from. If you want to understand postmodernism (as a philosophy, many are
making a valid distinction between the sociological phenomenon of
postmodernity and the loosely organized school of thought called
postmodernism) you must understand this concept that Jon is addressing.**Finding Reinhardt's "The Fourth Way"**
Jon wrote:
"If you can get a copy of Reinhardt Grossmann's The Fourth Way, please do
it! Sad to say the book is out of print. It was published by Indiana
University Press 1990 ISBN 0-253-32654-0
This is one of the most exciting books in Epistemology that I have ever
read. He takes on all of modern epistemology and shows its radical errors
and also Grossmann is a radical realist. Even if you have to sign up on a
book search for this book, do it. You will not be sorry! "
Stephen writes:
Well, I found it, bit it's a bit pricey - $123. If one has the money, Jon,
is it worth it? It's a print-on-demand book available from Indiana
University Press. I found it on
http://www.alibris.com
The full url for this book is
http://www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?chunk=25&qtit=The%20Fourth%20Way&S=
R&bid=3b40eada81&page=1&matches=107&qsort=
You may need to cut and paste this long url into one contiguous line in your
browser.
[J I would think there are used copies that would be much cheaper!!!!!!!!!!
But yes, Stepehen 123 is worth it. Why! Grossmann is a very
independent thinker who provides a perspective on epistemology that was
thought to be impossible . He shows it is possible and along the
way provides a radical critique of modern epistemology from Descartes through
Kant and beyond!!!!!!!!!!!
**On our Disposition toward Postmodern Thinkers and the People Who Read
Them**
Jon writes: my main problem with postmodern "philosophers" is I do not
think they ARE philosophers because they are so bad!
Stephen writes: With respect, my friend, that seems to collapse pomo
thinkers to merely their philosophical errors. Without disagreeing with you
that they've made some mistakes, I would suggest that they do have some
valid points. e.g. Acknowledging his faults, Foucault's comments on
paradigmatic oppression are genuinely helpful. But I realize that you
believe searching thru Lyotard, Rorty, Derrida, Foucault, etc for valid
insights is akin to commenting positively on the quality of the bathroom
faucet in a condemned house. I guess I'm just saying that when they make a
valid point, I want to acknowledge its validity and learn from it. And in
the philosophical sphere they seem to have a corner - at least in what's
being popularly read by those philosophically inclined - on the criticizing
the excesses of modernism market.
[J Well, if you want to get a solid foundation in solid philosphical
thinking, these birds will not provide it for you!!!!!!!
The other point I'd like to make on this, Jon, is not only that we learn
what we can from the postmodern writers but that we also don't unnecessarily
alienate them or our friends who read them. This is different, of course,
from placing an imprimatur on everything they've written! :)
These writers are very, very popular, especially with a lot of Christians
and with some faithmappers here. I'm coming from a conflict resolution
standpoint. In my work doing mediation and training people how to handle
conflict (at USA TODAY, in church, and with other companies) a core
resolution strategy that I've used, trained, and believe is in Scripture is
that you agree with the other party's position as much as you possibly can
and that after exercising due diligence in exploring it to the point that
you not only understand their position, but you understand *why* they hold
their position. I'm also thinking of the Proverbs 15:2a - "The tongue of
the wise makes knowledge acceptable...." I think we see Paul doing this
with the Athenians. In fact in this passage, Jon, Paul reminds me of you!
In Acts 17:16 we read that Paul's spirit is provoked! And yet his approach
is so instructive. He starts with a compliment/observation: They are
religious. He continues by highlighting their religious interest in the
unknown god. Then he goes on to respectfully push back.
My point is that by summarily dismissing the postmodern philosophers (it's
what I call "absolutizing" when I'm training or writing about conflict
resolution), I'm concerned that we 1) miss out on any insight they might
afford us; and - more importantly - 2) unnecessarily alienate others with
whom we might have profitable kingdom discourse. Even Rorty has admitted
that ... I can't remember the phrase he uses...that he inconsistently
assumes theist or Judao-Christian presuppositions in his writings. I think
that becomes a basis for conversation with someone like him and a foundation
(yes, irony!) for wooing him to embrace the God of Truth. I wonder if he's
even ever encountered a mind that understands his positions, loves truth,
loves him and loves God. Why Jon, I might pray that one day you might be in
a position to be God's ambassador to Rorty!
Jon, please know that I write this with the *highest* respect and affection
for you. Your mind and learning are amazing and I see the Lord's imprint on
your heart.. Your combination of deep philosophical reflection, your
knowledge of the philosophers, and your commitment to God and His Truth are
a rare combination. I genuinely feel blessed by God just to have met you
and we are so happy that you've joined us on faithmaps. I just respectfully
submit that an adjustment of our discourse might be more kingdom optimal.
[Thanks for the wise thoughts and admonitions......I agree that
Paul was all things to all people in order to win people to the cause of
Christ. One reason I enjoy the discussion with you is you are
forcing me to deal with what I hate!!! I do and have dealt with it
all my life but when I see the baloney coming, I tend to go elsewhere,
time is short and for me at 60, this becomes a pressing issue, how to spend
whatever time I have left paying back the vast debt I owe to philosophy
with all that I have taken from her, I want to give back beyonfd the class
room and reach more people with the encouragement that truth is to be found,
known, loved, and cherished...that the mind is God's gift to us and we
should learn that there is a discipleship of the mind that would give Him
glory etc. etc. SO, I am after positive theories and claims to show
what can be done and to show what is. The whining, I am sick
of...there are problems yes, so let us go to the Lord for wisdom as to
how fix them. Can languaghe and social structrures be used to oppress
people, of course but I do need need Marxists or pomos to tell me this!
I know enough about this from my lived eperience.
[J Certainly reach out to christians who are in the grips of pomo in the hope of offering them better mental foods!
[J In Christ's love!
Jon
Stephen Shields
sshields@...
http://www.faithmaps.orgYou can visit the faithmaps Yahoo groups web site to modify your
delivery settings and review former messages @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/faithmapsHere you can set your delivery settings so that you
1 - receive every individual e-mail (the default setting), or
2 - only receive one email a day that is a digest of all that day's e-mail activity, or
3 - never receive any e-mails! If you select this option you can still remain a member of the group and view all e-mails at your leisure online athttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/faithmaps
If you've never signed on to any yahoogroup before, you will need to create a userid and password. You do this by clicking "register" in the upper right hand corner of the screen when you go to the web page listed above. Or if you have registered before, you may need to click "sign in" so that Yahoo knows who you are.
If you do not wish to belong to faithmaps, you may
unsubscribe at any time by sending an email tofaithmaps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: winmail.dat
winmail.dat Type: Netscape File (application/ms-tnef)
Encoding: base64
Send Email