Since Rosey's original date for her party was tonight, and most people were off playing at Simon's, I didn't have a coffee night tonight. I also did nothing particularly productive (except sleeping).
I'm trying to finish off the "Kant's Theory of Knowledge" book, but the argument being presented now seems... pointless. Dicker even introduced it as being largely unsupportable and generally dismissed. If I'm reading between the lines correctly, the original argument should have been something like "if we see an X, and then a Y, we only see them as being the same object (existing at the same time and place) if we can relate them via a cause". That's fairly close to the subject matter and arguments of the rest of the Critique, and would be an interesting comment on the nature of cognition.
Instead it seems to be getting read as "if we see two distinct objects, we can only say they exist at the same time if we can relate them as affecting one another". Which is rather unsupportable. It also has little to do with epistomology. Dicker's having to pull in now-invalidated science just to see if even with that science the interpretation could be defended, but overall it just seems rather pointless. Oh well.
Pingbacks are closed.