[hist-analytic] Hume's Pitchfork
Roger Bishop Jones
rbj at rbjones.com
Fri Apr 3 06:56:05 EDT 2009
On Tuesday 31 March 2009 17:44:14 Jlsperanza at aol.com wrote:
>Roger Bishop Jones: you don't have to take me seriously,
ah, but I do...
>but the image of Hume with the fork is becoming a memory
>(I'm using Humean terminology, 'idea
> of sensation', 'idea of memory', etc.).
>--- The idea of dealing with metaphysics like that is all right for a
>positivist, but recall Cervantes in the 'condemning this or that book' to
> the flames. "No book is so bad that we cannot draw some good from it!".
I find myself pitched into the middle here.
I'm not entirely averse to metaphysics, but am intent on
doing away with the necessary synthetic kind
I don't hold with burning metaphysics but I can't go all the
way with Cervantes. I am often inclined to bin a book,
and more often unable to finish one.
I like the pitchfork.
It has the advantage over table forks of being bi-fur-ked,
and the advantage over forks in the road of being handy.
It is also an instrument of revolution, thus suitable
for Hume's project and mine.
My title: "Fundamental Triple-Dichotomy", will of course
have to go, it is incompatible with my target readership
who are not exclusively philosophers.
I expect to take a long time deciding the final title,
the following candidates come to mind:
Hume's Fork (but not enough Hume in the book for this)
The Fork (perhaps a bit obscure?)
Or things to do with reason, which is what it is really
Roots of Reason?
I should wait until I am much closer to a full
draft before even thinking about this.
(only the title is up for grabs, not the content)
More information about the hist-analytic