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

Re: [existlist] Re: Actuality and Ideality

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    I wouldn t be comfortable with psychological there. I do not see why a practical or critical determination should be reduced to anything psychological, if by
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I wouldn't be comfortable with "psychological" there. I do not see why a
      practical or critical determination should be reduced to anything psychological,
      if by that one means to somehow bracket off an act of resistance as if
      'inauthentic'. It is hard to understand your usage of the term as anything other than
      pejorative or at least diminutive.

      When the State oversteps its authority, an act of resistance or critique
      addresses the matter as an event that intrudes itself as urgent and rational. I
      can't see any truth beyond this in relation to which our judgments would be some
      occulted or merely reactive.

      I cannot agree with certain philosophical tendencies that see such things as
      'states of mind'. Truth is not, as far I am concerned, a mental state.
      Rationality is not, in that sense, a "brain state".

      Wil


      In a message dated 9/29/07 11:06:17 AM, hb3g@... writes:


      > Wil:
      >
      > If I understand what you are saying, the distinction between is and
      > ought, then, need not be a firm ontological distinction, but,
      > perhaps, a practical psychological one. That is an interesting way to
      > look at it.
      >
      > Hb3g
      >




      **************************************
      See what's new at http://www.aol.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.