tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post15746371100032942..comments2024-01-16T09:31:45.073-04:00Comments on Anderson Brown's Philosophy Blog: Spinoza and FodorAnderson Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18358008464457746997noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-69441184109465760802011-04-27T20:17:03.788-04:002011-04-27T20:17:03.788-04:00I am a student of Philosophy from the University o...I am a student of Philosophy from the University of Buenos Aires, and, having seen just a brief introduction to Fodor's theory, I have the following impressions, and would like to share them with this blog:<br /><br />In as much as mental contents have a physical correlation in the brain (syntactically determined), this could be somehow read under the Spinozean Theory as "what is the realm of thought has its counterpart in the physical universe". Parallelism of two attributes (thought and extension, the only two we can capture out of the infinite ones from the substance) of only one substance with no causality between them. Given, besides,the fact that LOT acquires meaning directly from the world in an externalistic semantic, given the paralellism of thought and physical instantiation in the brain, and given the fact that our behaviour changes the physical environment through conduct, the causal line would become an enclosed circle, in which the world feeds meaning as feedback which we may read as thought but which has a physical dimension too, and that physical dimension would join the natural causality returning to the world<br />through our conduct. This would derive, to me, in some sort of strong determination.<br /><br />There would be no mental causality, but just a physical one which can be read, as in Spinoza, either in the thought level or in its equivalent one, entirely physical, without any necessary interaction between those two dimensions.<br /><br />veronica_allievi@yahoo.com.arAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-34415267845701778362011-01-27T16:04:24.111-04:002011-01-27T16:04:24.111-04:00I loved your synthesis. I am particularly interest...I loved your synthesis. I am particularly interested however, in the issue of rationalism and empiricism particularly in terms of creativity. I do research on creativity and themes and run into jargon, and non-operationalized uses of the term. Spinoza might call this Nature as "naturing" but in more contemporary terms, I would like to define creativity as a mental process where one can visualize and experience novel ideas in the mind before realizing the ideas in existance. It represents the ability to bridge philosophical rationalism with existentialism. Your thoughts?<br /><br />Catherine DauphineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com