tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post116074536674271629..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Intuitions in the SandboxEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1161017421226173542006-10-16T09:50:00.000-07:002006-10-16T09:50:00.000-07:00Thanks, Brad, for your long and thoughtful comment...Thanks, Brad, for your long and thoughtful comment. I started working on a reply, and realized that the core problem was that I object to the very term "metaphysics". It was getting complicated, so I just decided to do a whole post on it, which you can see at the top of the blog today.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that post also implicitly suggests a certain view about the relationship(s) between philosophy and empirical science....Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1160859503182185902006-10-14T13:58:00.000-07:002006-10-14T13:58:00.000-07:00Yes I made the comment then I read the full essay ...Yes I made the comment then I read the full essay and realised you had expanded on it.<BR/><BR/>So Brad,<BR/>would the answer then be to seperate a scientific and philosophical approach or to have scientific branches of philosophy constantly emerging from the body of it without proceeding too far? (ie use scientific tools to, and I struggle a bit with the imagry here, shape but not redirect the development of philosophy)...Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1160842769024888802006-10-14T09:19:00.000-07:002006-10-14T09:19:00.000-07:00Hi Eric,I just browsed through the paper and think...Hi Eric,<BR/><BR/>I just browsed through the paper and think it raises a number of interesting issues. The one I want to focus on is the claim that elucidation of intuitions may help us understand the concepts we use but that may not be a good guide to understanding the world from a scientific point of view. Following Strawson, we can say that intuitions are a good guide to descriptive metaphysics, but that science may encourage us to hope for revisionary metaphysics.<BR/><BR/>But what should we be after when we are doing philosophy? Are we aiming as the same thing that scientists are after? I think this methodological question is the most interesting one your paper brings into view. Williams, for example, thinks that the aim of philosophy is understanding, not knowledge, which for him means it is a mistake to think that philosophy should aim to develop an absolute conception of the world. You can quibble with this way of making the distinction (e.g. Putnam thinks the absolute conception is incoherent) but it seems like one worth making and thinking about.<BR/><BR/>I think it helps in this context to think back to Socrates. He challenged people to think about the "folk" concepts (and presuppositions about those concepts) deployed in their emotions, beliefs, choices, etc - the concepts that gave sense to their lives. In the Euthyphro, for example, he tries to get someone to think about the concept of piety that structures his way of life and his society. Promoting this sort of rational reflection can lead to the development of what I call critical metaphysics - descriptive metaphysics + critical reflection on that.<BR/><BR/>Now one question is: what role can and should a scientific understanding of the world play in the project of critical metaphysics?<BR/><BR/>However the answer to that goes, I think it is important to emphasize that engaging in descriptive metaphysics is very important because it promotes self-understanding, which can all by itself have a critical edge to it. By elucidating and reflecting on our conceptual scheme we can become more rational, and the aim of becoming more rational need not require that we make claims that can pretend to scientific objectivity (whatever that is). Aiming for that sort of objectivity may even derail our pursuit of rationality in our actual lives and social institutions. <BR/><BR/>This is not to criticize science; it is to ask, as open questions, (1) how much of our philosophic and cognitive resources we should allocate to achieving a more (scientifically) objective view, and (2) HOW will pursuit of that goal will help or hinder the project of critical metaphysics.Brad Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698027539432083841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1160827515419409122006-10-14T05:05:00.000-07:002006-10-14T05:05:00.000-07:00Thanks for the comments, genius! I agree with eve...Thanks for the comments, genius! I agree with every word. Alison and I develop the second point a bit in the full essay.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1160806992354547722006-10-13T23:23:00.000-07:002006-10-13T23:23:00.000-07:00I am inclined to think it is easy to over simplify...I am inclined to think it is easy to over simplify these things. For example I might say "children below age X, and only below X don't know beliefs can be false" but I would have all sorts of false positives and negatives.<BR/><BR/>Similarly I think you would have false positives or negatives WITHIN THE SAME CHILD (in various situations), i.e. at a particular age that a child might not realize a belief that chocolate is in a box can be 'false' but still realize a belief that he can grab that chocolate in his hands could be false and some adults may have issues with the concept of their religion being false.<BR/><BR/>As to the dialogue I see and appreciate the point about intuition. And I think they should be open to revision (and am a little frustrate by others who don't revise them).<BR/><BR/>However, intuition does serve as limited evidence (i.e. in the absence of something strong to stand against it) because it amounts to some sort of a secret calculation by natural selection or our subconscious or our environment all of which tend to do a little better than random chance answering questions correctly when filtered through our minds.<BR/><BR/>For example it is my intuition that I would not enjoy falling down some concrete steps - and indeed, from memory that is true.<BR/><BR/>BTW that Phil, despite being 'confused', is one smart toddler.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.com