Guyau Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Coming next month:How We KnowEpistemology on an Objectivist FoundationHarry BinswangerFrom the Chapter Outlines, it is plain this work will tackle philosophy of mind, including philosophy of perception.Looks to be a substantial, well-pondered exposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Coming next month:How We KnowEpistemology on an Objectivist FoundationHarry BinswangerFrom the Chapter Outlines, it is plain this work will tackle philosophy of mind, including philosophy of perception.Looks to be a substantial, well-pondered exposition.Do these works bring in brain function and structure? How biologically are they based. Any theory of "mind" that does not factor in the human brain and how it works is worthless. We are physical beings, right down to the molecular and subatomic level and the workings of our body and brains is subject to physical law. And approach that does not take into account our physicality is worthless.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Coming next month:How We KnowEpistemology on an Objectivist FoundationHarry BinswangerFrom the Chapter Outlines, it is plain this work will tackle philosophy of mind, including philosophy of perception.Looks to be a substantial, well-pondered exposition.Do these works bring in brain function and structure? How biologically are they based. Any theory of "mind" that does not factor in the human brain and how it works is worthless. We are physical beings, right down to the molecular and subatomic level and the workings of our body and brains is subject to physical law. And approach that does not take into account our physicality is worthless.Ba'al Chatzaf One novel approach would be to read the book before preemptively prounouncing its potential worthlessness. By the way, which molecule or subatomic something-or-other dissuades me from hitting the snooze button on my alarm clock? I need more of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Coming next month:How We KnowEpistemology on an Objectivist FoundationHarry BinswangerFrom the Chapter Outlines, it is plain this work will tackle philosophy of mind, including philosophy of perception.Looks to be a substantial, well-pondered exposition.Do these works bring in brain function and structure? How biologically are they based. Any theory of "mind" that does not factor in the human brain and how it works is worthless. We are physical beings, right down to the molecular and subatomic level and the workings of our body and brains is subject to physical law. And approach that does not take into account our physicality is worthless.Ba'al Chatzaf The answers to such questions will be in the footnotes (a reductionist approach). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Whaddya call something so tiny it can't be perceived, even smaller than a subparticle, yet inherently holds capacity for the emergence of all the forms in the universe and even the universe itself?God? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Coming next month:How We KnowEpistemology on an Objectivist FoundationHarry BinswangerFrom the Chapter Outlines, it is plain this work will tackle philosophy of mind, including philosophy of perception.Looks to be a substantial, well-pondered exposition.Is this his long-promised book on consciousness? Looks like it is from the table of contents.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Whaddya call something so tiny it can't be perceived, even smaller than a subparticle, yet inherently holds capacity for the emergence of all the forms in the universe and even the universe itself?God? MichaelIs there even such a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I ordered my copy Saturday evening. It's supposed to arrive this weekend.I've been following his epistemology lectures for a couple of decades, and this looks like an organized presentation of the material from those. His stuff on perception and theory of mind, as well as free will and psycho-epistemogy (without giving credit to Barbara Branden, of course) has been out there for years, for those who wanted to pony up to buy the cd's or mp3 downloads. I really don't think he has a lot to offer in those areas.One of the few items that he has not discussed in audio lectures is the theory of propositions, and he has a chapter on it in his book. I will be most interested in that material, to see whether he breaks any new ground or just "chews" (rehashes) what has already been said by Peikoff and others.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 This is a work articulating and elaborating Rand’s thought in epistemology, and in some metaphysics too. One will not find the term corollary in the Index. Some starts of Rand are dropped in this comprehensive vista of Dr. Binswanger. Axiomatic concepts and axiomatic propositions are here, as in Rand, but here evidently doing without Rand’s talk of corollaries (beyond occurrence in quotation of her).Under the indexed Fallacies, one finds familiar ones from logic, familiar ones peculiar to Rand’s epistemology, and a delightful fresh one called the fallacy of retroactive self-evidence. It is straightforward from Rand’s epistemology and the role of automatization. One of the pages listed for this entry is off by one. Just look to nearby pages, as usual. The material quality of the book is excellent.The writing of the book is easy reading (listen up, Stephen). Binswanger’s treatment of self-evidence, Rand’s notion of it, in the first chapter, may be characteristic of most of the topics treated in this book. Objections to the notion are raised and answered, but the objections are of an elementary sort. The objections formulated by Peirce, Schlick, or Burge are not raised. Good work remains for others to stand up Rand’s conception of self-evidence facing the more challenging objections afoot in philosophy since Peirce.No doubt I shall find good work, accomplished and helpful, as I read this book. In-house work in philosophy can have its own insights and delights. This work acknowledges only some workers in the house; it omits mention of the work of David Kelley in epistemology on an Objectivist foundation. That is a bit of smallness, hopeless smallness. On to the substantive issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Whaddya call something so tiny it can't be perceived, even smaller than a subparticle, yet inherently holds capacity for the emergence of all the forms in the universe and even the universe itself?God? MichaelA fragment of your imagination.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now