Here, we invite anyone to submit a philosophical thought, comment or criticism and if you want to recommend a good book, then we’d like to see that too. You can even consign someone’s comment to the sin bin, or promote it to heavenly glory… in a purely unbiased way, of course! Use the arrows at the top of the columns to sort The Eclectic into subject headings.
If you would like to submit something to add to this page, then press this big threatening red button… Submit something
|Reproduced from Ryan Lake's website (give it a try) and is shown under a Creative Commons licence.||THOUGHT||9|
|'There is an infinity of ways in which parts of the world can be assembled to make an environment, and we can know what the environment of an organism is only by consulting the organism.'|
R.C. Leowontin, The Doctrine of DNA, p. 110
|Clerk Shaw, Plato's Anti-hedoism and the Protagoras, CUP, 2015.|
Devin Henry and Karen Margrethe Nielsen, eds. Bridging the Gap between
Aristotle's Science and Ethics, CUP, 2015.
Sean McConnell Philosophical Life in Cicero's Letters, CUP, 2014.
G. E. R. Lloyd, Analogical Investigations, CUP, 2015.
Ian Ground, F A Flowers III, eds. Portraits of Wittgenstein,
Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.
|"The aim of this book is to argue that the mind-body problem is not just a local problem, |
having to do with the relation between mind, brain, and behavior in living animal organisms,
but that it invades our understanding of the entire cosmos and its history.”
Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception
of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, p.3
Sat 23/01/2016 11:37
|'I will pause for a while, rest my hands on the arm-rests, and look at the brain I am operating on. Are the thoughts that I am thinking as I look at this solid lump of fatty protein covering blood vessels really made of the same stuff? And the answer always comes back - they are - and the thought itself is too crazy, too incomprehensible, and I get on with operation.'|
Henry Marsh, Do No Harm, p. 27
|A grievance about the Preface to Kant's Prolegomena|
The patronising account of Hume is disingenuous, self-aggrandising and deterministic: I openly confess that the remembering David Hume was the very thing which many years ago first interrupted by dogmatic slumber...'  '... the working out of Hume's problem in its widest extent ... will fare as the problem itself fared when first proposed.'  Praising Hume plays to Kant’s progressivist and historicist assumptions. Hume breaks new ground, is rejected and subsequently recognised. Just as a scientist would, Kant picks up the baton, corrects Hume’s errors and presses forward. Those who oppose the narrative of progress (i.e. the common-sense brigade) will be ridiculed by posterity. This is rich given that Hume specifically rejects the very idea that metaphysics can progress in any productive sense, and his critique of a priori causation should not marry well with determinism. Nonetheless Kant basks in Hume’s reflected glory, compares his critics with Kant’s critics, and gives a bogus impression of magnanimity in acknowledging Hume’s flawed achievement. This utterly patronising account underlines Kant’s unwarranted assumption of the role of unilateral judgement. By associating himself with Hume’s difficulties, he implies his own historical importance, and appeals to common sense historical determinism. Aside from the cheapness of this rhetoric… this is not thorough, this is not critique.
Andy McChlery 19/04/2016
Newcastle Reading Group
|The Phenomenology of Sociality: Discovering the 'We'|
Looks full of fascinating papers:. Preview available here.
There's an associated University of Dublin based research project:: phenomenology of sociality
Could the Transcendental Deduction of the Pure Concepts of Understanding (after Immanuel Kant) ever be fully explained? Perhaps a musical metaphor might do it?