interesting, but i don't care much about their analytic distinctions. for
just one example, hume says:
"All ideas are copies of impressions...it is impossible for us to think of
anything which we have not antecedently felt by our senses....".
isn't this flagrantly contradicting our experiences as designers? don't we
create new ideas? it seems that hume, as evident in this statement,
conceives of the mind as a sense recorder, a mechanical device, perhaps
imperfect but still measured against the perfection of (the ideal of)
mechanism (or theatrical performance).
moreover, these statements do not reflect on language. i may be wrong by
not being familiar with all of his writing, but many philosophers at that
time took language for granted, as meta-phenomenon, not real and therefore
not worth attending. in my view. wittgenstein, austin, and bahktin have
essentially buried the monologism of that time.
klaus
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
usa
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Keith Russell
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Hume, Kant and error
For those interested in a snippet of historical comparison between "English"
(Hume) and "German" (Kant) models of error, take a look at this site:
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/humekant.html
Hume and Kant by Dr. C. George Boeree
This is a very interesting period of modern thought.
keith russell
OZ newcastle
|