Future, Present, & Past:

~~ Giving itself latitude and leisure to take any premise or inquiry to its furthest associative conclusion.
Critical~~ Ready to apply, to itself and its object, the canons of reason, evidence, style, and ethics, up to their limits.
Traditional~~ At home and at large in the ecosystem of practice and memory that radically nourishes the whole person.

Oυδεὶς άμουσος εἰσίτω

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Post up over yonder

My post for Speculative Heresy's Science and Metaphysics event is up today. I won't repost it here for now, in order to keep the conversation (if any) centered in one locale, but go check out it and several other excellent posts that have gone up this week. There will be more coming up, too. 


  1. I only quickly glanced over your post, but somewhat relatedly, I've been worrying about the relation between phenomenology and naturalism lately. I find this wager from Rudder-Baker compelling: Naturalists must "show how the1st-person perspective can be understood naturalistically,or show it is dispensable." Metzinger, of course, opts for the latter. Anyway, here's a link to the article, you may find it interesting: http://tinyurl.com/2vs2tdl

  2. Shahar, thanks for this. I am pretty convinced that the view-from-inside (so to speak) is irreducible to the outsides of rocks, proteins, or whatever knocking together. Of course, I know that given that I am a first-person view myself, it's hard for me to understand how I am "really" explainable in 3rd-person terms. To me this "hard" just means that any such explanation misses the point. Robots like Metzinger, of course, see no such difficulty.