I’ve been reading Burge and Putnam’s papers on the mind. Although I think they shed light on the semantic issues, I am struggling to understand how this advances our understanding of the mind.
does anyone know of some useful online resources? or care to argue either the case for internalism or externalims?
I haven’t read Burge or Putnam, and I don’t care to either.
The argument between externalism and internalism in the modern academic world is nothing more than a rehashing of the traditional empiricism/rationalism dichotomy. Call it what you want…its still the same thing, only with new descriptions. Despite what ‘cutting edge’ theories are founded in the light of new cognitive scientific technologies, the material conditions of human existence do not change. In other words, as I have said time and time again, these kind of modern philosophies are a floundering waste of time. We could speculate all day over this matter. Meanwhile, the earth is dying, people are getting fatter, and Paris Hilton is the most googled topic of 2005. Now you tell me what our priorities are.
Regardless of what happens to the mind internally, these conditions are inevitably directly linked to external circumstances. Even if there is a ghost in the machine…THERE IS STILL A MACHINE…and that machine determines what happens to the ghost, if you follow me.
So sure, its interesting stuff, but it is a major distraction to the realistic and pragmatic understanding of the value of the scientific method. It is, so to speak, another species of mysticism.
To understand the mind we must focus on the external environments which induce mental activity. This is a matter of science…not philosophy. Philosophy is dead, if you haven’t already noticed. It is an accessory job for the fuckers who can’t work.
I have noticed that your particular philosophy is dead, or dying. Continental Rationalism is dying, albeit its dying a slow death, but old habits die hard.