Chris Locke (whose surname guarantees philosophical rigor) raised an interesting question about ten days ago when he commented (via his alter ego RageBoy, a matter which itself raises dozens of interesting questions about identity, psuche, and pneuma) on my first psuche and pneuma post,
hmmm, the essential antipathy of psyche and spirit... Has it occurred to you to render this as: just plain wrong?as to whether these terms were translated "correctly" or not, the error has passed down the centuries with as little resistence as a greased pig at a county fair -- though what a simile to interject into such otherwise erudite hermeneutic exegesis. my god! anyway, speaking from unspeakably nasty personal experience from childhood on, I'd say the antipathy has been all too well preserved. if we're going to yell at Descartes, shouldn't *his* sources be taking part of the rap?
Well, somewhat, although I take myt assignment in this commentary to involve elucidating the grammar and lexicography of this letter — not whether it’s right about anthropology or psychology. But the point is well taken, especially with regard to the complexities that envelope discourses of identity after Descartes (and Locke the elder) (not that Chris Locke is any spring chicken). As I puzzled over the ramifications of all of this — and I’m still musing, not at all decided about most of it — what should come to my attention, courtesy of wood s lot, but Mary Midgeley’s article on “Souls, Minds, Bodies & Planets.” I’ll spare you my undigested thoughts after this article, Chris’s comment, the Digital ID World conference, and the epistle of James — but the bookstore is waiting for my reading list for Michaelmas Term, and I need more time to think hard.
Posted by AKMA at September 3, 2004 09:35 AM | TrackBackThank you for posting the question about the soul etc. At every opportunity I get whenever this gets talked about seriously I point to S.T. Coleridge and his discussions about Descartes and his (C's) dynamic philosphy ... his "opus maximum"... which of course was never completed.
He was deeply distressed by the dualism of Descartes and for himself attempted to derive the senses from the mind, rather than the mind as a result of any sort of material evolution.
He was, I believe, a truly helpful thinker for those of us today who are still asking about these things. His perceptions regarding consciousness, the subject and object, the inherently active nature of the personality acquiring knowledge are acute.
The Biographia Literaria is still helpful, though I personally find his Philosophical Lectures, Aids to Reflection, and Lay Sermons more accessible.
More recent disciples of Coleridge include the likes of Owen Barfield and Kathleen Coburn. Barfield was also a student of Rudolf Steiner. Steiner himself offers a non-material monistic theory of existence.
Perhaps these idealists are no longer in fashion, if they ever were. I came to this study via a fondness for the Inklings and the little door that Lewis opened when he dedicated his Allegory of Love to Owen Barfield, his "wisest and best of unoffical teachers." Coleridge on the soul and consciousness is exceptional; and his grasp of the importance of discussing subject and object on target.
I think that one of the faculty at the Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest is a Coleridge student.
Posted by: Mark Diebel at September 4, 2004 04:01 PM