From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Sun Nov 11 2001 - 22:10:33 MST
Thanks! I've glanced at your criticism, and it looks like food for thought.
I'm not delving deeply into Bartley until I get ahold of his second edition
a fortnight from now. I find myself looking for decent heuristics, not
absolute truth; but I'll try to remain as intellectually honest as possible
in the process.
In your work cited, you say
"I believe other philosophies can answer the skeptic, but only ones that
provide a system that goes further than pancritical rationalism allows."
I look forward to reading more of your stuff to see what I make of it, but
I'm not sure Bartley's skeptic is your skeptic. :) That verb, "is", sure can
be tricky. :)
What do you make of Lakoff and Johnson? Apologies if you've already said.
I think Lakoff is doing something interesting, even if I disagree with his
interpretations or emphases.
Mike
Technotranscendence wrote:
> I was impressed by Bartley's book when I read it about a decade ago. (I
> still ahve yet to read his book on Wittgentstein, but I did read and like
> his, I believe, final book, _Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth_.)
>
> On the subject of the book, see my very brief "Comments on Pancritical
> Rationalism" at http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/PCR.html , though it's not
> an attempt to utterly refute the whole book...
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel Ust
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
-- My moronic mnemonic for smart behavior: "DICKS" == diplomacy, integrity, courage, kindness, skepticism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:56 MST