Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
So....anyone want to help me understand Dabney in his The Sensualistic Philosophy?
Dabney writes out an argument of a relativist: "The essential condition of all consciousness is the distinction of the 'Me' and the 'Not-Me.' Hence, all cognition is a relation: hence the conclusion of the relativity of all knowledge. Now, there is a sense in which this is, of course, true.... But the vicious sense put upon this almost truism is another thing, namely: that our knowledge is all only a relation; in such a sense that the modification of the nearer term, or pole thereof, namely, of the modes of consciousness of the 'Me,' would change the whole of the cognitions."(p.157 from NaphtaliPress edition) "Has my mind a true, spiritual, seeing power? or is it only a term, a pole, of a relation between the 'Me' and the 'Not-Me?'" (p.159-160)
What does he mean by "spiritual, seeing power"? And more importantly, what does he mean by "pole," and how does his argument flow, using that word (in case knowing what the word means isn't enough to understand his argument)?
Dabney writes out an argument of a relativist: "The essential condition of all consciousness is the distinction of the 'Me' and the 'Not-Me.' Hence, all cognition is a relation: hence the conclusion of the relativity of all knowledge. Now, there is a sense in which this is, of course, true.... But the vicious sense put upon this almost truism is another thing, namely: that our knowledge is all only a relation; in such a sense that the modification of the nearer term, or pole thereof, namely, of the modes of consciousness of the 'Me,' would change the whole of the cognitions."(p.157 from NaphtaliPress edition) "Has my mind a true, spiritual, seeing power? or is it only a term, a pole, of a relation between the 'Me' and the 'Not-Me?'" (p.159-160)
What does he mean by "spiritual, seeing power"? And more importantly, what does he mean by "pole," and how does his argument flow, using that word (in case knowing what the word means isn't enough to understand his argument)?