tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post4852629123261122378..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Subject, desire and actionelisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-457109835541110332010-06-23T11:10:10.616+02:002010-06-23T11:10:10.616+02:00By the way, I just found a passag where Chisholm h...By the way, I just found a passag where Chisholm himself acknowledges the link with Moore:<br />I assume that we should be guided in philosophy by those propositions we all do presuppose in our ordinary activity […] A list of the propositions constituting our data would be very much like the list of truisms with which G.E. Moore began his celebrated essay "A Defence of Common Sense".elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-47941799485719883872010-06-21T09:42:13.416+02:002010-06-21T09:42:13.416+02:00Thanks skholiast, I did not notice the link was no...Thanks skholiast, I did not notice the link was not there! I added it on my cv, and here it is: http://uniroma.academia.edu/elisafreschi/Papers/ (you have to scroll down until you find it).<br /><br />I am also close to Chisholm's position. I do not think common sense is a priori right, but I think that, if it is not, one has to explain why an error is shared by many. In short, the ontological aspect (e.g.: the existence of an ontologically distinct self) might be wrong, but one has still to explain why the phenomenology of something (e.g.: our own perception of ourselves as lasting over time) led to the allegedly wrong common-sense notion one wants to dispute (e.g.: the assumption of an eduring self distinct for each of "us"). As for desire, I am inclined to think that it has a phenomenological role apart from its psychoanalitical one. We do perceive ourselves as desiring, isn't it? And, if one thinks at children or psychic handicapped people, desire may be the case when one is more aware of oneself.elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-21634842692525353602010-06-20T22:41:23.959+02:002010-06-20T22:41:23.959+02:00I cannot venture a competent opinion on the Mīmāṃs...I cannot venture a competent opinion on the Mīmāṃsakas, but I have been reading Chisholm, and have some sympathy with his 'innocent til proven guilty' line; it seems to me a bit like Moore's Common-sensism, or (in a very different key), like Buber's philosophy of encounter: there is some aspect of experience that is just taken as a datum. The theorizing of the subject-as-the-desiring-subject also seems potentially modern, but the analogy is more with something out of psychoanalysis. But as I say, I am in unfamiliar territory here.<br /><br />Incidentally, I looked for the link in yr CV for the paper you reference but could not find it. I'm very interested in the theorization of the Vedic sacrifices and the way this plays out later. Did I just miss it?skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.com