Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy] Wilfrid Sellars

Expand Messages
  • Maurice McCarthy
    Thanks for the encouragement Joel. I reckon you are right in what you are saying but the difficulty I ve had when I ve tried to make reply is that picking out
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the encouragement Joel.

      I reckon you are right in what you are saying but the difficulty I've had when I've tried to make reply is that picking out an early error without addressing the rest I've ended up being accused of superficiality. This, I think, is justified in my case. The analytic style I find tediously mincing in its dissection of words and parts of words but to put some light into this mire I think I'm going to have to sink into it.

      I mentioned the language issue especially because when I say that words are only labels for thought they switch off. I get no responses. I get the impression that opinion is too ignorant for anyone to to have the time to put me right. Or at least that is how they seem to feel.

      Best Wishes
      Maurice




      On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:56:13PM -0700 or thereabouts, Joel Wendt wrote:
      > Dear Maurice,
      >
      > I haven't read these particular writers, but over the years I've
      > been directed at a number of websites of modern philosophers, whose
      > basic conclusions would be seen as counter to Steiner in some fashion.
      >
      > In all cases (none of which I remember at present), the error of
      > thought arises almost within the first couple of sentences, and usually
      > takes the form of an unadmited assumption or an omited observation.
      > Sometimes these problems (errors) are buried in the language conventions
      > used.
      >
      > The result is that the logic slips off to the side almost
      > immediately and then from that point is so internally consistent that it
      > seems to be a valid argument. So it can't really be dealt with in its
      > fully developed form, but only by going to the most basic operational
      > statements from which the thinking then precedes.
      >
      > Its sort of like shooting an arrow at a far away unseen target. If
      > you are off just the slightest in the beginning, you don't hit the
      > target (the truth), but you will eventually hit something.
      >
      > warm regards,
      > joel
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.