Lancelot Fletcher lrfletcher@... [plato-republic] wrote:

> (In the preface to the second edition of
> his first Critique Kant says that examples are generally not useful
> in philosophy because if the reader understands the author's point
> then the example is unnecessary, and if he doesn't understand the
> point then the reader is likely to argue about the example and not
> about the author's philosophical point.)

Indeed he was correct. Just the other day I attempted to read some of
Whitehead's essays on science. Whitehead gives no examples, and I had
no idea what he was talking about, so returned the book to the shelf,
where, I suspect, it will be when I die.

But say, do I misunderstand? If you make a general statement, and
give an example, and I refute the example, does that not refute the
general statement. So why should I not attempt to refute the example?

And where, by the way, do you get your general statement, except by
generalizing examples?

But perhaps I do not understand what you (or Kant) mean by "example".
How do you actually separate the "philosophical point" from the example?

I don't suppose you could give me an example could you?

Best, Bob
p.s. that last sentence was a joke.