Posted by alexandra_k on July 25, 2005, at 17:02:32
In reply to Re: Yet another rave... » alexandra_k, posted by cricket on July 25, 2005, at 15:49:39
> This is really over my head too.
Yeah. I'm thinking that the writing style really isn't helping... I wrote this years ago now. It was the first bit of research I had done. The longest thing I had ever written. And I picked the topic all by myself :-)
But... I get that it is fairly incomprehensible... Probably too much editing trying to get it perfect. End up with about 5 or 6 ideas to one highly convoluted sentance...
> "Some theorists say that the self is a fiction or a construct, so actually, nobody has a self."
> Is that Dennett?Um... Dennett ends up saying that the self is a fiction, yes. This is the main psychology / philosophy line. That there isn't any such thing as a self. I pretty much agree with Dennett... But...
With respect to the mind he tried to 'achieve the mid-point between realism and anti-realism'. Thats a hard place to be... Everyone tries to push you off and classify you one way or the other. But I like what he has to say there (although I managed to go from behaviourism -> dennett -> functionalism). Most people classify him as a fictionalist / interpretationist about the mind and I would say to them 'have you read "Real Patterns"? Yes? Still think he is a fictionalist / interpretationist? Then read HARDER!' Because it is obvious that he is not. He says that quite clearly...
Anyway... My point is that he 'tries to achieve the mid-point between realism and anti-realism' regarding what minds are.
So... Given his account of what selves are (which I don't think I can explain simply...)
selves must have the same metaphysical status as the mind...
Thus: there is a realist aspect to the self that has been largely ignored.
So... In order to be consistent he really needs to say that selves have equivalent metaphysical status to minds.I wrote him an email and told him so...
I didn't dare send the paper
(I can see that it isn't very well written).
I got a response :-)
Something like
'Interesting...'
I'm sure he gets a lot of emails.> That's exactly what my therapist would say.
Yeah. Most psychologists and most philosophers...
> You've certainly intrigued me. Which would be a good book by Dennett to start with? I think my therapist once recommended Consciousness Explained.I LOVE that book... Some parts / chapters are a terrific read. Some parts / chapters are a bit technical... He is one of those authors who attempt to write 'for the general educated reader' but seeing as he is a philosopher he doesn't quite manage to pull it off...
I would suggest that a place to start would be online... I'll see if I can find a link to some of his easier going stuff on the self... (Not to say it will be easy but it should be fairly comprehensible with a lot of effort).
'The Origins of Selves'
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/originss.htmGot it from here:
poster:alexandra_k
thread:531104
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050725/msgs/533349.html