🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1584@botter.cs.vu.nl> hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) writes:
>[Transcendental psychology] has nothing to do with metaphysics, but it is
>looking for the bounds of reason, science(s) and experience in
>general. Examples are Kant's transcendental ideas of time and space,
>or Heidegger's notion of being-in-the-world. Some time ago
>there was a short discussion about whether an omnipotent being
>could also change our logic. A transcendental critique of this
>question should start by circumscribing the boundary conditions
>for our logic, and then discover that the question does not
>make any sense.

Interesting!  I had never heard of Transcendental Psychology, though I did try
to read Heidegger once, and Husserl more than once.  But it sounds like a
workable approach.  I only wish those following this approach weren't such
terrible writers and/or complex thinkers.  Didn't we decide that the truth is
likely to be simple?

>A typical
>method of transcendental critique is investigating paradoxes,
>or trying to create them . These tend to be
>very revealing about where the limits are. Examples are the Liar
>paradox, Zeno's paradox and the hermeneutical circle.

I also have never heard of the nermeneutical circle.  (I thought Hermeneutics
meant interpretation of scriptures!)  Could you let me know what this is, or
send email if it's too stupid a question.  Thanks.
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge