Posts
Sorry, I just couldn't resist...
With regard to the article, I fumbled through it and felt as though I had a shaky understanding of it until this part: "Mere acknowledgement of the many available frames of reference provides us with no map of the motions of heavenly bodies: acceptance of the eligibility of alternative bases produces no scientific theory or philosophical system; awareness of the varied ways of seeing paints no pictures. A broad mind is no substitute for hard work" (71).
Wasn't that the point of Goodman's article though? As I understand it, Goodman spent most of the piece exploring the interrelations between various worlds as well as things like deletions, etc, which, in my mind, rests on the assumption that we should be open to different worlds. Was this not the point of Goodman's refutation of reductionism?
If we could spent some time in class fleshing out a clear and cohesive thesis, I think that that would be enormously helpful with regard to understanding the rest of the article.
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
Yes, you've gotten the primary point. Also in there is the rejection of one reality and with it one truth -- though not the rejection of rightness and truth within systems. So, very similar to Wittgenstein's language games with the caveat that there can be checks on the languages (thus, in keeping with Elgin's imperfect procedural epistemology).
ReplyDelete