Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

From: Bill Powers <>
Date: Tue Mar 17 2009 - 10:04:48 EDT

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Schwarzwald wrote:
I haven't looked at Ted Peters' piece. But what is more important than
getting a particular perspective completely correct, is the laying out of
various (hopefully exhaustive) paradigms. It is useful, of course, in
such an explication to offer paradigmatic examples. If in those examples
the paradigm has been badly misconstrued, perhaps the author doesn't
understand the paradigm, or the group used is too diverse to be enlisted.
As you say, picking Buddhism would seem like a poor choice, something like
picking Christianity. It's too diverse. Better to pick a sect or perhaps
better a particular author, whose views are made explicit.

bill powers

> Heya Chuck, >
> I'm not a professional philosopher, but one glance at that summary and I
> can't help but recoil. Lumping Aquinas in the substance dualist category, as
> if all dualists are pretty much the same thing, is a tremendous mistake.
> Buddhism is oversimplified, and I can only imagine how many buddhists would
> react to being considered atheist materialists - the truth is that just what
> the "self" is happens to be one of (many) things debated amongst various
> buddhist schools.
> I appreciate someone attempting to explain the various schools of thought,
> but there comes a point where watering down explanations to make them easier
> to understand does more harm than good. At least for me, this paper zooms
> right past that point.
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Austerberry, Charles <
>> wrote:
>> is a very readable overview by Ted
>> Peters on the spectrum of views regarding the human soul.
>> Chuck
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:46:14 -0400
>> From: Schwarzwald <>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?
>> I'm pretty sure C. S. Lewis was aware of the great scientific discovery
>> that is 'drinking booze has a noticeable effect on subjective experience
>> and reasoning.' More often, the scientifically inclined just don't know
>> enough philosophy on the point.
>> Moreover, the idea that dualists of all varieties (or even most) don't
>> see the brain as necessary for many/most mental operations doesn't ring
>> true. Hylemorphic dualists would emphatically disagree. As would, I
>> believe, very many dualists of cartesian, property, emergentist, and
>> other varieties. A functioning brain could be a necessary but not
>> sufficient requirement for thought, and 'the classical physical can do
>> it all!' position is fraught with problems, some of which make the "but
>> what about alcohol?" objection pale in comparison.
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 17 10:05:28 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 17 2009 - 10:05:28 EDT