Thanks a lot for the link!
I found it interesting that he wrote the Mind’s I, as that was the very first philosophy book that I ever read. It came out when I was a kid and I very much enjoyed it. It’s funny how I come to enjoy, or rediscover, authors that I encountered when I was a kid.
Frankly, it makes me wonder if exposure to their work shaped my mind into liking them as an adult or am I just genuinely liking them.
Anyway, thanks again.
Adl.,
Frankly, it makes me wonder if exposure to their work shaped my mind into liking them as an adult or am I just genuinely liking them.
I think this happens all the time - at least it does for me. I find myself “rediscovering” authors that I nearly had forgotten I had read, or I assumed had no longer influenced me, but stumbling upon their new reference in a new line of thought. It is as if I had been pursuing a variation of them all the while, only to return to the source and see it more afresh, with more power, more depth than it would have been if I simply had concentrated on them alone.
Dunamis
p.s. I’m right in the middle of that essay, and it’s pretty good, at least in terms of the interest I have in Dennett.
The is an author named Michael Moorcock that I used to enjoy when I was younger. Much of stuff is fantasy that has many messages about humanism in it. I recently read some of his work and found that I have many of the same positions as he does. On his website I know frequently speak with him. We are a lot alike.
Is it the case that “great minds think alike” or did his mind annex mine? Frankly, I’m not too sure that I want an answer.
Anyway, I will read that essay tonight, as i have to finish work here.
Hey D,
I read that article that you linked. It was good on a variety of levels. Firstly, it reminded me of my own criticisms of how the “scientific method†is applied to the study of human thought and behavior. Frankly, I have never heard anyone state the case quite the way that he did.
I have always been an adherent to the principles of phenomenology, with a little sociology thrown in to shape that individual phenomenon. It seems that Dennett is too. However, I’m not sure about how he makes a study of individual thoughts and their workings unless be correlates certain features that are common. Anyway, I hate psychological studies but found a little intrigue in his approach.
Finally, he mentioned that research based on personal insight is not considered good research. I say that it is although it might be classified as philosophy. I could be wrong, but it appeared that he classified insight as third person questioning, as you are asking yourself questions about your own thought process. Is that how you took it?
Adl,
Finally, he mentioned that research based on personal insight is not considered good research. I say that it is although it might be classified as philosophy.
I think he makes the distinction of working as a philosopher and working as a researcher, and sets two standards for himself. The essay did flatten out at the end, but there are some very interesting ideas in there, in particular the view that 1st person accounts are really a kind of 3rd person account - if I read him correctly - and need to be treated as such, agnostically. It was a compelling, though slight distinction to be drawn, and something people don’t think about. They asssume a first person objectivity to their own states, an assumption that is perhaps a bit problematic. I take the more extreme view that “we” are only observers of ourselves as agents, just as others are observers of ourselves as agents. Its just that we have a much closer view to the process.
Dunamis