* There's a new Secular Philosophy blog up; right now it doesn't have much, but it might eventually be interesting.
The First Carnival Against Pornography and Prostitution is up at "The Burning Times". (ht)
* Those who have an interest in MacIntyre's discussions of Tradition, Genealogy, and Encyclopaedia will also find Abraham Kuyper's Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology (1898) interesting; the work opens with several chapters discussing the history and idea of Encyclopaedia as a field of inquiry. Fascinating material.
* Paul Redding, The Relation of Logic to Ontology in Hegel (PDF)
James K. A. Smith, Continental Philosophy of Religion: Recommended Practices for the Future of the Field (PDF)
P. Gaffney, Saint Louis Marie de Montfort and the Bérullian School at the Montfortians Spirituality pages
Rahman & Carniellie, The Dialogical Approach to Paraconsistency (PDF)
Delphine, Kolesnik, L’union de l’âme et du corps selon Malebranche
* glach at FQI on Robert Boyle's distinction between qualities.
* Historical examples of letters of marque. In the U.S. Congress has the constitutional authority to issue such letters, authorizing and commissioning privateers as agents of the U.S. government. (Most European states gave up authority to do so with the 1856 Declaration of Paris.)
* Jen of "Et tu?" has a post on how she became pro-life.
ADDED LATER
* Harriet Beecher Stowe, A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, Presenting the Original Facts and Documents upon which the Story is Founded, Together with Corroborative Statements Verifying the Truth of the Work.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Login
?
Anonymous
0 points
13 years ago
What would it mean to "think with one's body"?
B
branemrys
0 points
13 years ago
The real question is what it would mean not to think with one's body. Some ways in which we do:
- We estimate heights relative to eye-level.
- Goal-directed movement involves constant kinaesthetic feedback -- it's not a mere brain-to-hand thing, for instance, but a complex interaction.
- We develop motor learning skills.
- We count with our fingers, thus using our bodies directly as cognitive instruments.
- When trying to rotate imaginary shapes, we can use our hands to simulate the rotation, thus keeping track of the sides.
- When trying to understand what someone else's feelings are, it often helps to go physically through the same motions and facial expressions.
- We make use of 'gut feelings'.
- We analogize things to our bodies (Roger Scruton has some good discussion of this, if I recall correctly, in the context of music).
In other words, we measure with our bodies, simulate with our bodies, train our bodies to give the right solutions to problems, use our bodies as metaphors, not to mention sense with them. The list could be made very long. Despite the fact that we do this a lot, we don't do it very systematically, nor do we take full advantage of the potential. And despite that only very specific kinds of cognitive activity, a much smaller number than our full cognitive panoply, can be located wholly in the brain, we still tend to think of ourselves as stuck inside our skulls somehow. But when I am counting with my fingers, my cognitive act of counting is not in the brain; it's a brain-nervous system-muscular system interaction involving brain, arm, and hand.
B
branemrys
0 points
13 years ago
Hmm. MrsDarwin had a comment, but it seems to have bypassed Disqus somehow. Here it is:
I was going to protest "Love is drama", but on further consideration this makes sense. Drama is change, and love (at least human love) requires constant change and alteration to thrive. Even an externally happy, peaceful love demands constant internal self-abegnation and readjustment of priorities on the part of the individual lovers - "dying to self" is the traditional religious description of the drama of love.
?
Anonymous
0 points
13 years ago
For research purposes: sent that comment from my cell phone.