Hard to say, since I couldn't see what was on the slide, but it sounded as though Prof. O'Shea was taking a very sharp Fichtean turn in the last few seconds of his talk. (PS: I am the "hero/'bum you decide" who recorded the 1974 John Dewey Lectures. :)
There is nothing "non-natural" or "mysterious" about Husserl's intentionality, nor Descartes' either. Sellars was a totally confused person, and his recent fans are likewise.
@williamcallahan5218 is there "nature" in nature? I don't see how "nature" can be scientifically defined so as not to entail its various appearances within the manifest image. If by "nature" we mean the ideal of a complete scientific picture, then we also can't be sure right now that things like time, particles, or perhaps even laws exist in nature. It seems a little strange to say that the gravity or mass of the yellow banana exists in nature, yet the yellow banana doesn't.
"A person is a bundle of processes but the concept of a person isn't the concept of a bundle of processes" Wilfrid Sellars
Is there a recording of the slides ?
Hard to say, since I couldn't see what was on the slide, but it sounded as though Prof. O'Shea was taking a very sharp Fichtean turn in the last few seconds of his talk. (PS: I am the "hero/'bum you decide" who recorded the 1974 John Dewey Lectures. :)
Can you describe this Fichtean turn?
very lucid talk, i have been wondering about these things
There is nothing "non-natural" or "mysterious" about Husserl's intentionality, nor Descartes' either. Sellars was a totally confused person, and his recent fans are likewise.
And yet Jay Garfield calls him one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. go figure.
@@williamcallahan5218 and rorty, brandom, Putnam, Mcdowell and many more
"...there are no yellow bananas, red apples..." so stupid. Unbelievable.
what do you mean? are you suggesting there are yellow banana's and red apples in nature? no you couldn't be saying that in 2022
Please articulate what is “so stupid” and “unbelievable.”
@williamcallahan5218 is there "nature" in nature? I don't see how "nature" can be scientifically defined so as not to entail its various appearances within the manifest image. If by "nature" we mean the ideal of a complete scientific picture, then we also can't be sure right now that things like time, particles, or perhaps even laws exist in nature. It seems a little strange to say that the gravity or mass of the yellow banana exists in nature, yet the yellow banana doesn't.