Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

important book....it made a difference I think

So far pretty poor. Incoherent discussion of the mind/body problem, based on conflation of the two senses of 'material': the brain is not the material embodiment of the mind in the same way that the graphemes are the embodiment of significance in writing. For the words on a page work insofar as they appear, qua phenomena, whereas the question of the embodiment of the mind in the brain is simply...more

So far pretty poor. Incoherent discussion of the mind/body problem, based on conflation of the two senses of 'material': the brain is not the material embodiment of the mind in the same way that the graphemes are the embodiment of significance in writing. For the words on a page work insofar as they appear, qua phenomena, whereas the question of the embodiment of the mind in the brain is simply the question of the possibility of phenomena as such. Discussion of Descartes, Locke and Kant a bit better, but doesn't go nearly far enough, and is surprisingly theoreticist, given the mooted 'pragmatism'. Far too much invocation of 'language games', as if that explained anything.   hide

A really interesting look at the history of modern philosophy as an intoxication with epistemology, conceived as the need to "ground" claims in some piece of the world, or at least some state of affairs that is the case. It's dazzling and bewildering, but ultimately I think Rorty's metaphilosophy is impossible -- he leaves us with what McDowell calls a "frictionless spinning in...more

A really interesting look at the history of modern philosophy as an intoxication with epistemology, conceived as the need to "ground" claims in some piece of the world, or at least some state of affairs that is the case. It's dazzling and bewildering, but ultimately I think Rorty's metaphilosophy is impossible -- he leaves us with what McDowell calls a "frictionless spinning in the void," and that's just not acceptable. His critiques are eye-opening, though.   hide