When I need to give Example of "Essences", I can give the following example:
1. Intentional Essence, Epistemic Essence.
Now the first group of investigation is a peculiar thing to do, as it must already presuppose the following:
a) One must have a way to clarify things, to make distinctions.
b)But this requires one to have an idea what is a GOOD and adequate Analysis.
c) This requires one to have a kind of KNOWLEDGE. But this requires one to know what Count as Knowledge. But this requires one to have a conception of EPISTEMIC ESSENCE at first.
d)Therefore, one employs the standard and concepts one is ready to clarify, in order to clarify the to be clarified concepts.
This is like this: When one anylyses the concept of INTENTIONALITY, one must always use intentional concepts.
When one writes about Knowledge, one must know what counts as Knowledge.
Do I PRESUPPOSE a true understanding before I start clarify? If this is so, what is the point to clarify?
Is this circular? Maybe, but what is the problem with Circularity?
I have the particular conception. Though not clearly and systematically.
What is the difference before and after the Clarification.
a. Clarity is Obtained.
b. Before that, I use somewhat not so sharp tool to analyze a concept. In the process, our concept gets clearer and our tool gets sharper.
c.I must already have some conception of Knowledge, among other things. I use this conception, to get a clearer conception, and this clearer conception is now in my reserve. It becomes a useful tool.
The Same Can be said about Intentionaltiy. Eidetic Method.
2.Essence of Perception, and Imagination as founded form of Consciousness
3. Essence of Material Thing.
4. Essence of Dependent and Independent Parts, considered purely formally.
1. Intentional Essence, Epistemic Essence.
Now the first group of investigation is a peculiar thing to do, as it must already presuppose the following:
a) One must have a way to clarify things, to make distinctions.
b)But this requires one to have an idea what is a GOOD and adequate Analysis.
c) This requires one to have a kind of KNOWLEDGE. But this requires one to know what Count as Knowledge. But this requires one to have a conception of EPISTEMIC ESSENCE at first.
d)Therefore, one employs the standard and concepts one is ready to clarify, in order to clarify the to be clarified concepts.
This is like this: When one anylyses the concept of INTENTIONALITY, one must always use intentional concepts.
When one writes about Knowledge, one must know what counts as Knowledge.
Do I PRESUPPOSE a true understanding before I start clarify? If this is so, what is the point to clarify?
Is this circular? Maybe, but what is the problem with Circularity?
I have the particular conception. Though not clearly and systematically.
What is the difference before and after the Clarification.
a. Clarity is Obtained.
b. Before that, I use somewhat not so sharp tool to analyze a concept. In the process, our concept gets clearer and our tool gets sharper.
c.I must already have some conception of Knowledge, among other things. I use this conception, to get a clearer conception, and this clearer conception is now in my reserve. It becomes a useful tool.
The Same Can be said about Intentionaltiy. Eidetic Method.
2.Essence of Perception, and Imagination as founded form of Consciousness
3. Essence of Material Thing.
4. Essence of Dependent and Independent Parts, considered purely formally.
No comments:
Post a Comment