On 01/03/2007, at 5:09 PM, Moose wrote:
>> To be contrary would be to have a particular disposition, a tendency
>> to disagree with any particular suggestion or instruction.
> And absent any particular suggestion or instruction, there is no
> contrariness. No object, no action. We could have a nice existential
> discussion about latent, as opposed to active, contrary behavior,
> but I
> don't think that would fit in with your next topic. :-)
A 'disposition' is the potential to act in a particular way.
Existential definitions of latent behaviours? - oh I love it when you
talk dirty! Given that existentialism is about choices made, latency
would seem to me to be irrelevant except in rather archaic concepts
of will.
> Stimulus/response is a model of.... But I suppose I am confusing the
> psychological school of behaviorism with a philosophical school.
> That's
> probably an empty bag too, but I withhold judgment, sort of, pending
> further information.
Yes it is and it is different although one often informs the other.
It is a way that materialists of the behaviourist type explain the
idea that a behaviour may be consider but not be enacted. For
instance, a wineglass has the dispostion of brittleness even though
it may never be smashed. Even by an object.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|