[Milton-L] historicism, formalism, etc. (Skulsky)

[jfleming at sfu.ca]

Maybe not. But I'm arguing against that trope. The history of philosophy
(Hume, Quine, Rorty) makes pretty clear, it seems to me, that simply or
roundly asseverating against it won't really do -- if only because it leads
to a predictable and interminable stalemate (objectivism and deconstruction
going round and round the mulberry-bush). All I'm trying to argue here is
that if we really want to find a way to more productive inquiries we cd do
worse than to abandon the whole business, and look instead at the account of
understanding given in philosophical hermeneutics. JDF 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:06:38 -0500 milton-l at lists.richmond.edu wrote:
> My position is that the idea of method -- objective, or
> > non-interpretative, adequation of the understanding -- can never give a
> > satisfactory account of understanding (basically because it begs the
> > question)
> 
> Are there really any difficulties with this "adequation" beyond the
> standard skeptical how-can-we-really-know-anything trope?
> 
> Alan H.
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> 
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> 


James Dougal Fleming
Associate Professor
Department of English
Simon Fraser University
778-782-4713
cell: 604-290-1637

"Not always, nor of necessity, nor for the most part."