tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post5577147448969038347..comments2024-01-22T08:01:58.626-08:00Comments on Panexperientialism: Strawson on Nietzsche's MetaphysicsJustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-45417205462108701552010-11-22T14:19:05.851-08:002010-11-22T14:19:05.851-08:00Interesting thoughts here. I appreciate you taking...Interesting thoughts here. I appreciate you taking the time to share them with us all. It’s people like you that make my day.Liberationhttp://www.shogoliberation.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-58971751097260826352010-10-27T03:51:57.232-07:002010-10-27T03:51:57.232-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.smplcvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13570881075216641509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-89333674097886314752010-03-30T04:07:31.427-07:002010-03-30T04:07:31.427-07:00Hi John
They're Strawson's pithy words.
I ...Hi John<br />They're Strawson's pithy words.<br />I like your aphorism hits - a lot of food for thought thereJustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-63877041465083146252010-03-29T04:07:06.659-07:002010-03-29T04:07:06.659-07:00Joachim -
I really like how concisely and clearly...Joachim -<br /><br />I really like how concisely and clearly you worded #10:<br /><br />[10] The fundamental stuff of reality is suffused with—if it does not consist of—mentality in some form.<br /><br />Up to now, my favorite statement of panpsychism involves a paraphrase of Chalmers, where he talks about the "fundamental furniture of the universe, along with mass, charge, and spin." Is that your own paraphrase of Strawson, or is that his, verbatim? I'd like to swipe it for my list of bumper sticker aphorisms (http://home.comcast.net/~johnrgregg/oneshots.htm), but I'd like to give proper attribution.<br /><br />-JohnJohn Gregghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03899523765720651079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-5290807742436782092010-01-08T15:29:52.708-08:002010-01-08T15:29:52.708-08:00I tend to agree with you what your saying Monte- t...I tend to agree with you what your saying Monte- thanks for your thoughts.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-79042636421522546302010-01-04T02:20:29.127-08:002010-01-04T02:20:29.127-08:00Hi, Monte Alpaca here,
To Strawson a scientist m...Hi, Monte Alpaca here,<br /> To Strawson a scientist might simply say that there is no difference between what gives rise to the mental (i.e. the physical)<br />because the mental is simply the physical and so there is no difference. Now, this is a kind of scientific hiding the head in the sand--avoiding the issue created by the mind/body split--which they<br />apparently do accept --but then don't know how to deal with it.<br /> But in reducing the mental to the physical--scientists are inadvertantly saying that mental is physical and physical is mental.<br /> They mean reductionism that ignores the difference between mental and physical or submerges or subordinates mental to physical--but I see it differently. I see it as a tacit admission by science that mental and physical are in some sense the same. It could be that there is one reality, one substance if you like, and it manifests as a continuum from tactile to smell and color to thought and memory and so on--a whole bunch of things. <br /> The presumption of science is that the physical is the base--but it has inadvertently opened the door to the mental being the base and giving birth to the physical as much as the physical gives birth to the mental. In this mental and physical become two points of view<br />of a larger phenomenon. phenomenon. And beyond these is the one substance<br />giving birth to them both. The search for that substance or category of being--may form the science of the future (ok, yes this is very speculative--but I gotta have -some- fun!)<br /> The vision entails that the physical and the mental are made of the same stuff---but differ in quality. <br /> But really, it is paradoxical to say that there are two things; mental and physical and they are separate. I mean geez, one can easily consider the physical world a mental construction---as well as holding the mental world comes from the brain.Any clear boundary between mental and physical is arbitrary at best.<br /><br />If I knock your head hard enough--<br />nothing will arise in your brain---<br />the mental content halts for a time------(presumably). And so surely the mind is physical--so the scientists would say. <br /> But again, the world could be made of something that is neither mental nor physical, that gives rise to many variations in form, including the situation wherein I knock you on the head and conclude<br />that mental is physical, as well as point of view wherein the mental gives rise to the physical.<br />(Or we could harken back to Bishop Berkeley: only minds and God exist.)<br /> The problem at base of all this mental gyration of course is the presumption of the mind body split. Look, the same Cartesian paradox holds today as it did 400 years ago: If mental and physical are so different from each other then how could they interact at all? The unsatisfactory solution is that God<br /> coordinates the separate mental and the physical so that, for instance, when there is the thought "I want to get up and eat breakfast"--the body does get up!<br />It's magic! But the whole scheme is awkward and cumbersome and paradoxical. Any clear boundary between mental and physical is arbitrary at best.<br /> The whole scheme needs to be seen as just two different points of view---that have their place in a wider, much wider world. <br /> The wider world, I posit, is being--with all considered arising from that, including some kind of substance that makes up the world including-- mental and physical points of view and so on. <br /> After all, what is the world? The world is whatever shows up!<br />What else could it be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-67251068204434886292009-12-30T14:32:56.121-08:002009-12-30T14:32:56.121-08:00Thanks for the link Rob, I'll have a listen.Thanks for the link Rob, I'll have a listen.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-78347318830079028102009-12-29T19:01:55.781-08:002009-12-29T19:01:55.781-08:00Strawson's acute presentation is now available...Strawson's acute presentation is <a href="http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/?feed=philfac-nietzsche-video-feed#philfac-nietzsche-video-feed" rel="nofollow">now available</a>. Note that the video, but not the audio, cuts off prematurely.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10546265581296919974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-79940140091877164832009-12-22T07:23:22.861-08:002009-12-22T07:23:22.861-08:00No confusion: I thought it was unlikely there wou...No confusion: I thought it was unlikely there would be two different dudes posting here on Neitzsche's metaphysics!Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851240963321295307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-52432872585342387842009-12-21T13:49:10.685-08:002009-12-21T13:49:10.685-08:00Hi Steve.
That is interesting - I've never co...Hi Steve.<br />That is interesting - I've never considered a comparison of Nietzsche and Spinoza, but there could be some strong parallels there. <br />Hopefully Strawson will put the full paper on his website in due course.<br />(PS hope my name change hasn't caused confusion!)Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-25247485267554621872009-12-21T10:11:36.863-08:002009-12-21T10:11:36.863-08:00I have been reading Spinoza and that would be a pl...I have been reading Spinoza and that would be a plausible summary of his metaphysics, too, I think. Interesting.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851240963321295307noreply@blogger.com