[MD] CA1

[John Carl]

Wiki:

In epistemology and the philosophy of perception, *phenomenalism* is the
view that physical objects do not exist as things in themselves but only as
perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli (e.g. redness, hardness, softness,
sweetness, etc.) situated in time and in space. In particular, phenomenalism
reduces talk about physical objects in the external world to talk
about *bundles
of sense-data.*

Phenomenalism is a radical form of empiricism and, hence, its roots as
an ontological view of the nature of existence can be traced back to George
Berkeley and his subjective idealism, which David Hume further elaborated.

-----------
Radical form of empiricism?  Where have we heard the words "radical" coupled
to "empiricism", before?   To me it looks like my intuitive, ill-educated
grasp of the subject was not so far off the mark.

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:


> dmb says:
>
>
> I was dealing with the text, John.  That's why I suggested you ought to
> look up all the key terms. I can tell from the text that you're using words
> that you don't understand. I wish it was just a matter of catching a mistake
> or pointing out a logical contradiction. If that were the case we could have
> a conversation because everybody does that and it's not a big deal. What I
> was trying to say - it a relatively polite way - is that you seem to have no
> idea of what you're talking about.
>
>
I have a good idea of what I'm talking about dave.  The fact that I don't
conform to your preconceived notions doesn't keep me up at night.



> You're trying to interpret a philosophy test book and Pirsig's comments on
> it, right?



Is that what you'all philsophological experts call a 'freudian slip"?  Cuz I
thought this was a philosophical text, not a philosophical test.



> Well, how can you do that if you don't understand the key terms?



And how is one to understand the key terms, except in relation to the text?
Do you know who makes words and their meanings dave?  It ain't
dictionaries.

It's writers.  Dictionaries just do the collecting afterward.



> I think you're plenty smart but you need to learn some things. Until you do
> you're only pretending to understand. You are bullshitting me. And I'm
> calling your bluff. Since you don't even have a pair in your hand, I'm a
> little bit offended by such a bluff.
>
>
Got a pair in my hand right now, big boy, and they're big enough for the
task at hand.  And what is it with you always getting "a little bit
offended" anyway?  Mellow out dude.  There's no reason to get all
hand-wringing.  I went ahead and  looked up Phenomenalism and all it did was
confirm what Copleston was saying when he described it thusly:

 "For the empiricists who embraced phenomenalism tended to reduce both
physical objects and minds to impressions or sensations, and then to
reconstruct them with the aid of the principle of the association of ideas."

And I said,  "Sounds like radical empiricism to me."  You still haven't
demonstrated any difference and all your "pop-poo, there-there" is just
whistlin' in the graveyard to my ears.

C'mon, put up or shut up, dave.  Stop teasing me with threats.   Let's see
some of that accumlated academic excellence on display.  This is getting to
be like that Mark Twain dialogue between Tom Sawyer and the new guy in
town.  "I bet my big brother can lick your big brother."