?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Philosophy on LJ
I'm currently writing a thesis that I'd like to receive criticism on.… 
5th-Jul-2005 10:57 am
I'm currently writing a thesis that I'd like to receive criticism on. Hopefully, I can return the favor in kind with some work of yours.

To give a brief synopsis, I seek to place anti-realist explanations of human existence on a non-transcendental, non-relativistic (you can substitute non-solipsistic) ground, that is freely and openly chosen as an ethical choice in how we decide between competing explanations. I use parsimony (the idea that the best explanation is the one with the fewest hypotheses) to argue that anti-realist explanations ought to be preferred over those that presume that humans have an epistemological connection to nature such that they can know nature or perceive an intelligible order in nature. Then I systematically explicate the necessary consequences for how one interprets human existence if one does not assume this epistemological connection.

Please contact me by email if interested: grm5 @ pitt . edu
Comments 
5th-Jul-2005 03:23 pm (UTC)
Your icon is killing me. lol
5th-Jul-2005 03:36 pm (UTC) - A fellow almost after my own heart
Huh:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/philosophy/1149619.html

I wouldn't reject relativism, but I like the rest of it.
6th-Jul-2005 12:36 am (UTC) - Re: A fellow almost after my own heart
It's not a rejection of relativism per se, but an argument that we can have other grounds upon which to take arguments seriously. But the choice of this ground ultimately rests with the one deciding between explanations.

Or the non-analytic-philosophy-department-safe version of that exact statement: the choice of this ground ultimately rests with the one deciding how to interpret the ontic. There's a lot of self-censorship that goes on if you are part of the University of Pittsburgh's philosophy department.
7th-Jul-2005 10:20 pm (UTC)
Ye? I always heard good things about U-Pitt's undergraduate program.
6th-Jul-2005 12:36 am (UTC)
Isn't this thesis...rather, self-defeating?

I mean, antirealism = truth is a delusion... So how can one write a defense of such a belief, exactly? To me a thesis on antirealism is kind of an oxymoron. But then, I like the dadaists so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at first.

And how can your antirealism not fall into the trap of solipsism when you retain no episto connection to intelligible nature? It completely rejects science. I'm an artist, by trade, before I am a scientist, but I still find this a difficult proposition.

I suppose you could do this as an ethics thing, but it seems to say, "it is ethically correct to deny that it might be possible to find this intelligible order." --And ehh, I can't go for that. I don't think that leads to anything ethical. It further implies: the outside is not relevant to us, or we are not relevant to the outside. I believe both positions are false.
6th-Jul-2005 12:41 am (UTC)
Well, I offer a ground freely and openly chosen upon which one can prefer an explanation to another. Then I argue that anti-realist accounts would be preferable to realist ones.

The implications of what I write apply only to the person making the choice between explanations. I suggest parsimony as a ground for a possible hermeneutic. One can choose that ground in interpretting existence, or not. What I say basically amounts to: if we want our hermeneutics of existence to preserve openness, well then, we should try to be parsimonious.

And if we deny that hermeneutic grounding, then the rest of what follows in the paper is basically hogwash and you might as well not read the rest of it. That's why I'm only sending the persons who have responded to my posting the first dozen or so pages which explicate that part of the paper. The realism dispute only applies later, when parsimony is applied to evaluate realist and anti-realist beliefs when they compete.
6th-Jul-2005 07:33 pm (UTC)
On what basis do you offer this ground?
This page was loaded Sep 17th 2019, 2:36 am GMT.