>
>
>
> Chris Doss wrote:
>
> >
> >> CB: Spacetime manifold, quarks, and genes aren't common sense. ( Well,
> >> actually, the notion of human inheritance through "blood" is common
> >> sense)
> >>
> >> But Lenin-Sokol-Bricmont vs Bishop Berkeley, materialism vs
> >> idealism-solopsism, i.e. that there is an objective world, external
> >> reality ,to our minds that
> >> our minds don't just create, is common sense.
> >
> > Those of course are not the only possibilities.
> > I tend to prefer Kantian transcendental idealism, or variants thereof.
>
> Isn't this idealism the logical implication of the kind of
> "materialism" CB is defending i.e. doesn't the conception of reality
> involved require experience (including experience of time and space) to
> be interpreted as consisting wholly of experience of secondary
> qualities and not at all of direct experience of "reality"?
>
^^^^^^^
CB: This seems a rhetorical question. What is your answer ? Elaborate.
Does the proposition that objective reality exists require experience to be
interpreted as consisting of experience of secondary qualities and not direct
experience of "reality" ? mediate instead of immediate experience ?
Yes, mediated through the senses.
Does mediation through sense imply , surprise, solopsism ? Elaborate. What are the mediations from here to your conclusion ?
> If this is true, the implication for epistemology is solipsism -
> "solipsism of the present moment" actually.
>
> Asserting the reality of the materialism would therefore be
> self-contradictory.
>
> In fact, any assertion about reality other than the solipsism, e.g. any
> assertion about the reality of Russia, would be self-contradictory.
>
> Ted
>
Yes there may be a self-contradiction, as the basis of a dialectic of the personality, the individual in relation to objective reality, I don't know. Whadaya think ?
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030901/6cde2904/attachment.htm>