tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post7926628822809503835..comments2023-10-30T12:26:15.822+01:00Comments on Research as a Second Language: Social EpistemologyThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-11105683003391213742014-03-25T18:40:46.497+01:002014-03-25T18:40:46.497+01:00No idealism, like realism, is a doctrine. Cartesia...No idealism, like realism, is a doctrine. Cartesian doubt, however, is an activity (indeed, a "method").Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-72549669177240211052014-03-25T15:10:25.520+01:002014-03-25T15:10:25.520+01:00I understand and I agree. I am merely finding hair...I understand and I agree. I am merely finding hair in a well-seasoned social epistemological soup...<br /><br />(((So it's hardly relevant, but the "hair" is the following: Could you disambiguate the inference "if 'realism' is a philosophical doctrine, then 'phenomenology' is a philosophical activity."? <br /><br />Is it alike in structure to "If 'the objectivity of transcendental categories' [some sub claim] is a philosophical doctrine, then 'idealism' [some general position] is a philosophical activity.'? And are such inferences "reasonable"?))) Presskornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03480116067878605339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-57361522365944623242014-03-25T13:41:17.057+01:002014-03-25T13:41:17.057+01:00Yes, what Wittgenstein said about philosophy in ge...Yes, what Wittgenstein said about philosophy in general, i.e., that it "is not a body of doctrine but an activity", I'm here saying about a specific "philosophy", namely, social epistemology. I'm not using phenomenology as an argument here, but as an example. I'm saying that if it is reasonably (I think it is) to call "realism" a philosophical doctrine, then "phenomenology" is an philosophical activity. Likewise, I don't think of SE as a set of claims about knowledge, but as a way of engaging with the problem of knowledge.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-46524048639664027402014-03-25T12:53:35.486+01:002014-03-25T12:53:35.486+01:00While agreeing with the point, I am, for some reas...While agreeing with the point, I am, for some reason, bothered by the denomination of 'phenomenology' as an activity rather than a doctrine - is that true? And if so, in what sense? Your point, is overtly paraphrasing W (Early, TLP 4.112 and late, BT - TS 213, ยง86-93), so why not indicate him rather than phenomenology? Presskornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03480116067878605339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-62787624855113177772014-03-24T08:43:27.220+01:002014-03-24T08:43:27.220+01:00His Theory of Science. I'm not a big Bolzano s...His <i>Theory of Science</i>. I'm not a big Bolzano scholar, actually. So I'll have to get back to you on the secondary literature.<br />Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-76501117420655958202014-03-24T08:18:37.710+01:002014-03-24T08:18:37.710+01:00What title by Bolzano should one read? What title ...What title by Bolzano should one read? What title about Bolzano should one read?Andrew Shieldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02804655739574694901noreply@blogger.com