Is this where philosophical naturalism leads?
If so, in the last analysis it ends up denying that reason really exists.
posted by Victor Reppert @ 10:40 AM
4 Comments
Dangerous Idea 2
A blog to discuss the argument from reason.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
About Me
- Name: Victor Reppert
- Location: Glendale, Arizona, United States
I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.
Previous Posts
- Reforumulating the argument from reason
- Lewis and computers
- Extreme naturalism or consistent naturalism?
- Is God a precondition for knowledge
- Hasker, sensible naturalism, and causal closure
- My question for Paul Draper
- Plantinga and the argument from intentionality
- Mental Representation on intentional content: a fa...
- Vallicella on the indeterminacy of the physical
- Gilson's defense the AFR
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
4 Comments:
One of the worst Wikipedia entries I have ever seen. Piaget, a brilliant scientist, is rolling over in his grave, being lumped in with the likes of these postmodernist flappers. It seems like they found every use of the word 'construction', such as Piaget's, and attempt to assimilate it to their strange relativistic worldview.
Most naturalists don't subscribe to this nonsense.
And, indeed, most social constructionists are not naturalists!
I was wondering about that. However, some people have pursued naturalistic analyses of mind to the extent of rejecting some traditional conceptions in epistemology, and here I have Churchland in mind from his "pragmatist" days.
Good point. Some pragmatists (e.g., Rorty) and social construcivism have strong affinities.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home