Drawing an “Eliminativistic” Box Around Cognition
Between Ratliff and Bakker, we seem to have the makings of a debate that I think do well it’s showing us the issues involved on the front lines of philosophy.
Bakker has his blog “3 pound brain”; you can look it up because I’m not having the patience to put in the hyperlink while voice dictating on my phone here.
I think both sides have good and valid points, but I think together they make an even better point.
The way I see it, the occasion of philosophy that brought about the speculative realist conference and I think the most poignant of those Graham Harmons “object oriented ontology” or object oriented philosophy depending on when and where you read it, is, as Ratliff might put it, the issue of the wide open field of cognition. In my mind this is the issue of phenomenology. Indeed is a very difficult situation to get beyond once you have realized what it entails and what it’s really saying. In short it says that everything that can occur does so in the field of cognition and experience, and that this field is so wide open it becomes difficult to logically draw any boundaries around it.
On the other side, again as I see it, we could have bakers blind brain theory and heuristic neglect theory. Baker tries to draw a line around the open field, or through it as the case may be or to somehow define subsections of the field that are legitimate with the field. The basis of his theories, as he says, his biology or neuroscience, or basically the empirical sciences of how the brain and body functions (Baker please correct me here if I’m totally off the mark).
The issue that Ratliff has with this is that his theories appear to be arbitrarily drawing lines that really have no linkage today already substantiated and well known phenomenological field. The linkages that Baker wants to argue appear even as they argue it as founding themselves in, basically, mere assertions. And then the rebuttal to that he might be putting forth just assertions, really come out of a theory again that have no linkage, only have an asserted or an appearance of been asserted linkage to the phenomenological field. Basically Baker says “biology” and anyone with any sort of sense of reality cannot deny that there is a sort of physical/empirical biological neurobiological actual however you want to put it aspect of this existence. But the problem philosophically is how to justify it, And the arguments, not only with Baker but with many people that tend to see something as obvious and then try to talk about it in mind of thephenomenological field, Tend to fall short into mere assertion.
This happens all over the place. And the thing about phenomenology is that a lot of smart people a lot of intelligent people learn about Kant And all these continental philosophers and and and things like that and all these ideas and they understand it, all the postmoderns and stuff, and I understand it and because the field is so wide open, the field that the understanding grants in the theory in the meaning of the text , that they then use that at every turn, as the criterion to which every discussion of philosophy must reckon.
Yet, when we understand what Soren Kierkegaard is really saying and what he’s really doing in his works, if we are sensitive to ourselves and what we are doing in light of what Kierkegaard tells us, Then we might be able See that sometimes we are being argumentative for that sake of being argumentative.
More in a mint…