tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post1833735273865902439..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: READING THE CRITIQUE PART SIXRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-20739185517483020752011-07-25T15:44:59.821-04:002011-07-25T15:44:59.821-04:00Ah.
I quite miss authors like Hume. Between Descar...Ah.<br />I quite miss authors like Hume. Between Descartes to Hume philosophy was so crisp and clear. Once Kant gets on the scene, followed by those German Romantics...one really wonders what the hell happened!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-25412207866476540442011-07-25T15:26:11.830-04:002011-07-25T15:26:11.830-04:00No no. I said his argument was deceptively simple...No no. I said his argument was deceptively simple -- i.e., it looks simpler than it is because he writes so simply and clearly. It was a compliment!<br /><br />I won't go through the Critique section by section. I did that in my book, and it would be insane to try to reproduce that here. It is far to complex and demanding for that.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-75381393557920234932011-07-25T15:05:15.507-04:002011-07-25T15:05:15.507-04:00Another great update.
As usual I'm left with ...Another great update.<br /><br />As usual I'm left with questions though ;)<br /><br />1. Why do you call Hume's argument deceptive? It might be wrong - albeit I've never read a good refutation - but I can't envision Hume being a deceiver...<br />2. Will your ongoing discussion actually involve cracking up the critique and running through it section by section? Or is this a broader discussion? I ask because I have the Critique coming in the mail and I wonder if I should dive right in, or read it along with your updates.<br />Thanks.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-23224025437959553382011-07-25T12:10:06.568-04:002011-07-25T12:10:06.568-04:00Your response on Kant's part to the developmen...Your response on Kant's part to the development of consistent non-Euclidean geometries is exactly the position Frege took on the matter. He knew all about non-Euclidean geometries (it was the topic of his doctoral dissertation), but he maintained that our actual experience of the world is Euclidean.<br /><br />(He broke with Kant concerning arithmetic. In effect, Frege's entire life's work was to show that arithmetic is analytic.)Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12922719871297540449noreply@blogger.com