[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[John Carl]

Matt,  You are preaching to the choirboy here,


> Maybe, but why does common sense need to be antithetical to
> philosophy?  Why not take account of as many contexts as you can?
> Why not consider Samuel Johnson's "refutation" of Berkeley's idealism
> by kicking a stone a legitimate philosophical response?
>
>

Because I believe the epistemological distinction between sensation and
perception is crucial, Matt.  There can be no perception of a stone's
hardness, without reference to some aspect of judgement.    Otherwise we've
just a nebulous sensation occuring in a nebulous sea of sensations, and
nothing really means anything to anything.

Is my point.  And I'm glad to consider any philosopher or his refutation,
but my "consideration"  does not mean swallowing whole.  I nibble at the
edges and see if it tastes good, before I'm gonna just wolf it down.

And I certainly don't think common sense need be antithetical to philosopy.
Au contraire, mon ami. On that I agree with you completely.



> Think about putting your point this way: something _not_ being
> language still plays a _linguistic_ role.  Showing sensitivity to
> context and nuancing your claims accordingly is what allows you to
> have your cake and eat it, too.
>
>
Well, I am beguiled by cake - and having it both ways.  So I'll consider
your offering.

Thanks for the forkful!

Stuffed,

John