I would kill to see a mega discussion between Kerr, Madden and the McGrews just on epistemology... this would be beyond epic... I'd like to see where they agree, disagree, what their takes are on foundationalism, inernalism, externalism, rationalism, empiricism etc
@@PhilosophyforthePeople thanks! I think that we would all benefit from it since the McGrews have their own internalist foundationalist take while Kerr and Madden have their own distinct and interesting takes on epistemology (I myself lean both to Kerr's and the McGrew's view, I am kinda undecided). To have all their perspectives in one place and to see them interact on this issue would be truly beneficial.
Great to see McDowelll and Anscombe being brought into the picture. Aquinas' objective Being' might well overlap with Kant's existential 'object' (as per Pittsburg school) in as much as they are always present in an active intellect. But there the distinction ends, for objective being for the latter school the existential is intrinsically essential, the suppositum the term of the universal (1:05:04 & 1:16:22); the essential 'web of beliefs' (47:45ff answer to a key question) is different for a horse in a field and a horse in a novel. There's an 'disjunction' (28:50 ff) concerning the existential and pragmatic realms. Existence is in no way really distinct from essence (unlike in Scholasticism).
The intelligibility of the world makes sense only if the world's constitution is analogous to the mind. If you negate that you are stuck with skepticism or epistemological idealism where we can't know reality as it is which is a self-refuting position by the way.
Gonna have to listen a couple of times! Top quality content, really! Do you have any recommandations of readings to continue on that subject? Would love one with the strongest formulation of thomist realism and theory of knowledge according to you.
@@PhilosophyforthePeople it is indeed the dream team. I have come back some times already to listen to that old Mind and World episode you uploaded about a year ago. Each time I learn new things.
1:04:29 "Experience is always an experience of a formed substance." Hmmm. If I experience a cat chasing a mouse, does my agent intellect become unified with each creature or the whole scene? I.E: Does this theory of human knowing of substances (i.e. the intellect being united with the object through the 'intelligible species'/verbum mentis/concept) apply mutatis mutandi when the objects are accidents and genera? if so why bother with the Aristotelian ontological priority of "formed substance".
It seems that other contemporary philosophers of mind are finding similarities between Aquinas and Kant. According to T.A. Pendlebury, who just so happens to have a post at the University of Pittsburgh: Aquinas regards sense and intellect as essentially unified even as he regards them as distinct. His is not an assimilative conception of their unity, as are, according to Kant, the doctrines of Locke and Leibniz. Might Kant’s philosophy of mind resemble, in this respect, that of Aquinas? An indication to this effect is to be found in the Metaphysik Mrongovius, in which we are told that ‘the use of the lower cognitive powers depends on the higher, and indeed the higher govern over the lower by means of the imagination’ [29:887]. This is not, moreover, the only moment at which Kant uses metaphors of governance and service, familiar from the Aristotelian tradition. The article is titled "The Shape of the Kantian Mind", and it can be found in the journal, "Philosophy & Phenomenological Research".
45:04 bookmark
37:46 Kant&Imagination
57:49 Reading tips
1:30:22 bookmark
13:17 Kant as key figure
I would kill to see a mega discussion between Kerr, Madden and the McGrews just on epistemology... this would be beyond epic... I'd like to see where they agree, disagree, what their takes are on foundationalism, inernalism, externalism, rationalism, empiricism etc
I would love that as well. If I can make it happen, I will.
@@PhilosophyforthePeople thanks! I think that we would all benefit from it since the McGrews have their own internalist foundationalist take while Kerr and Madden have their own distinct and interesting takes on epistemology (I myself lean both to Kerr's and the McGrew's view, I am kinda undecided). To have all their perspectives in one place and to see them interact on this issue would be truly beneficial.
Great to see McDowelll and Anscombe being brought into the picture. Aquinas' objective Being' might well overlap with Kant's existential 'object' (as per Pittsburg school) in as much as they are always present in an active intellect. But there the distinction ends, for objective being for the latter school the existential is intrinsically essential, the suppositum the term of the universal (1:05:04 & 1:16:22); the essential 'web of beliefs' (47:45ff answer to a key question) is different for a horse in a field and a horse in a novel. There's an 'disjunction' (28:50 ff) concerning the existential and pragmatic realms. Existence is in no way really distinct from essence (unlike in Scholasticism).
Great video.
Was just thinking, it’d be cool to have Madden and Kerr on to discuss Hegel vs Kant.
Yes, trying to get the dream team back together soon. Glad you enjoyed this one.
This was very educational 🙏 Thank you both! God Bless
The intelligibility of the world makes sense only if the world's constitution is analogous to the mind. If you negate that you are stuck with skepticism or epistemological idealism where we can't know reality as it is which is a self-refuting position by the way.
This is so important.
Comment for traction. Gavin’s an amazing person
Gonna have to listen a couple of times! Top quality content, really! Do you have any recommandations of readings to continue on that subject? Would love one with the strongest formulation of thomist realism and theory of knowledge according to you.
I’ll just reiterate the book I mentioned on air: Thought and World by James Ross. Will have to let Gaven give his own recommendations.
@@PhilosophyforthePeople it is indeed the dream team. I have come back some times already to listen to that old Mind and World episode you uploaded about a year ago. Each time I learn new things.
What are the names of the exact authors that Gaven is speaking about at 1:22:00? Can't find any books from theses authors on Amazon!
I would love to see a book from Gaven on these epistemological issues
That would be great.
1:04:29 "Experience is always an experience of a formed substance." Hmmm. If I experience a cat chasing a mouse, does my agent intellect become unified with each creature or the whole scene? I.E: Does this theory of human knowing of substances (i.e. the intellect being united with the object through the 'intelligible species'/verbum mentis/concept) apply mutatis mutandi when the objects are accidents and genera? if so why bother with the Aristotelian ontological priority of "formed substance".
It seems that other contemporary philosophers of mind are finding similarities between Aquinas and Kant. According to T.A. Pendlebury, who just so happens to have a post at the University of Pittsburgh:
Aquinas regards sense and intellect as essentially unified even as he regards them as distinct. His
is not an assimilative conception of their unity, as are, according to Kant, the doctrines of Locke and
Leibniz. Might Kant’s philosophy of mind resemble, in this respect, that of Aquinas? An indication to
this effect is to be found in the Metaphysik Mrongovius, in which we are told that ‘the use of the lower
cognitive powers depends on the higher, and indeed the higher govern over the lower by means of the
imagination’ [29:887]. This is not, moreover, the only moment at which Kant uses metaphors of governance and service, familiar from the Aristotelian tradition.
The article is titled "The Shape of the Kantian Mind", and it can be found in the journal, "Philosophy & Phenomenological Research".
Watched 6 min and again it’s confirmed, it’s all Occum’s fault lol
Ha!