oh. hi carrol, don't mind if i butt in and actually participate in a conversation about me. do you?
goshes but i haven't had this much fun since the ex-girlfriend of my high school beau was writing on the bathroom wall about me.
hey, but the fishing was purty fine. sorry you couldn't wait til i got done having a little fun, but honest it was my son's friend's birthday and i promised.
platonically, kelley
carrol wrote:
>the only materialist arguments an idealist -- e.g. Kelley -- would accept
>are those starting out with an argument -- i.e. with a proposition
>capable of being expressed without external reference -- i.e. with
>the mind -- i.e. with the premise that all anti-idealist arguments are
>illegitimate. She would not, for example accept as the point of departure
>for argument the 8th and 11th Theses on Feuerbach as given premises.
>(With Thesis 11 interpreted as an epistemological and not a pragmatic or
>voluntarist proposition.) So what we try to prove is not that a given
>[idealist] argument is wrong but merely that it *is* an idealist argument.
>Lenin, for example, probably here and there in MEC drifted into the
>mode of "proving materialism," and to that extent the work partly
>deserves a characterization in *Radical America* as "philosophically
>embarassing." But for the most part he concentrates on merely
>demonstrating that positions that pretend to be either materialist or
>some sort of compromise are in fact idealist -- and to that extent it
>is the *Radical America* writer whose judgment is embarassing.
>