>I'm quite familiar with the story. "Philosopher A," so the story goes,
>was Berkeley, and "Philosopher B" was Swift.
I shall try to remember that for the next time I recount the story. Thank you.
>Indeed, my approach of assuming that we "experience" (in the >functional
>sense) instead of Experience (in the spooky Cartesian >sense) gives me all
>the practical value I need: I'll still try to >avoid being in "pain," still
>attempt to maximize "happiness," etc. >Only I don't have to believe that
>there's something spooky and Hard >about the problem of mind.
Fair enough (I was wondering what the capitalization was for, thank you for the clarification-I must have missed it).
I'm actually going to defer to Mr. Haradon here, as he has already said pretty much all I wanted to say at this point, and I prefer to keep the noise ratio down.
>You assert that without Experience, there is no basis for argument, >but
>you make this claim totally without justification! Sometimes I >get the
>feeling that I'm arguing with 17th century thinkers about the >existence of
>God. "Look," they say, "You simply have to have a >notion of God! Denying
>His existence is logically contradictory!" >"How?" "It's a first
On a point of information, this is Anselm, which means that you'd be talking with 11th century thinkers. By the 17th century you would be talking to Locke, who believed (and I'm sure most on this list would agree, including myself) that one is not justified in holding a belief, any belief, without rational justification. Difficulties and disputes rise here as to what constitutes "rational justification," but that's a discussion for another time.
>You're telling me that your argument for the existence of Experience >is
>that... it's a FIRST PRINCIPLE??? What the *heck* kind of an >argument is
>that? This is dogma, not reason!
First, I don't think you are denying the necessary existence of first principles. If you are, however, let me know and I'll gladly prove you wrong.
Second, could you please tell me why 1+1=2?