Robin,
I think Bishop B. has been misunderstood, and if not misunderstood then not
given an unbiased attention. There are problems that he brought up that have
yet to be resolved, if they haven't been totally ignored. Not many modern
philosophers talk about sensation and he really had some important stuff to
say about it. Now i don't agree with everything he said but I do feel that
there is something very tricky and really insightful about his account of
the non-existence of matter.
and I'll look up Radford; what is his field?
d
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:11:23 -0000, Poetryetc provides a venue for a
dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote:
> From: Daniel Jab <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Yea, I've read a bit of Hume but never got into him. I did like Bishop
> > Berkeley's style (though i don't think he was a Scot's man) and at
times a
> > bit of Bradely. On the whole I associate more with the moderns. tis to
be
> > expected...
> >
> > d
>
> Daniel:
>
> You're running secondary sources if you associate The Bish with Hume --
> Berkley was barking mad even before he started drinking tar-water (and
would
> be ignored if he hadn't come up with the tree-in-the-forest quip) -- Hume
> (au contraire, and you're right that Berkley wasn't Scots -- he was
Welsh)
> had a wit to match Swift.
>
> As to associating with the Moderns, you seem to be stuck somewhere in the
> forties. Try reading Andrew Radford.
>
> Robin
>
> (And the Bradleys -- FH or AC? Well, obviously FH. About what I'd expect
> from a metapataphysician.)
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
|