I have a feeling catachrestic has something to say about this (given the task he's set before himself to shift the objective to the metaphorical and the subjective to the literal), and that I should have something absolutely gravity-defying and wonderful to say as well, but at the moment I'm tired, and the words are not coming to me.
I've always found parsimony to be a poet's trick--and a good one, but one I rarely engage in, though I aspire to it--E.B. White and all that jazz. It's a tool of rhetoric, which is a high praise coming from me. One day it will form a portion of the center of my philosophy--once I get the hang of it.
I would say that the a priori/a posteriori distinction is itself unparsimonious--it creates two things where one is probably sufficient. (I think sophiaserpentia said basically the same thing.) I'll wait around for Bryan to dissolve that distinction, perhaps (I hope he can pull it off).
I think the trick may be to reconsider the (rhetorical) value of justification. Once we see that truth that is unconvincing simply does us no
( ... )
Comments 1
I've always found parsimony to be a poet's trick--and a good one, but one I rarely engage in, though I aspire to it--E.B. White and all that jazz. It's a tool of rhetoric, which is a high praise coming from me. One day it will form a portion of the center of my philosophy--once I get the hang of it.
I would say that the a priori/a posteriori distinction is itself unparsimonious--it creates two things where one is probably sufficient. (I think sophiaserpentia said basically the same thing.) I'll wait around for Bryan to dissolve that distinction, perhaps (I hope he can pull it off).
I think the trick may be to reconsider the (rhetorical) value of justification. Once we see that truth that is unconvincing simply does us no ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment