I think the key term is experience. Sensory input is one thing. Sensory experience is another. It always already implies thought.
Paul Allen Miller
Director, Program in Comparative Literature
Assoc. Prof. Classics
Co-editor Intertexts
Department of French and Classics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pamiller@xxxxxx
(Ph) 803-777-0473
(Fax) 803-777-7514
>>> JBCM2@xxxxxxx - 2/1/2001 4:13 PM >>>
In a message dated 02/01/2001 4:00:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
millerpa@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
There would be no sensory experience recognized as such if there were no
thought, hence you can argue thought is prior to experience. This is an
essentially Kantian position. The categories of experience are prior to the
content of experience.
>>
well, according to the above (I'm splitting hairs, perhaps) one can only
really argue that thought is prior to recognized sensory experience. but
this eludes the problem of a distinction of sensory experience from thought,
as if thought is something other...
joe brennan
Paul Allen Miller
Director, Program in Comparative Literature
Assoc. Prof. Classics
Co-editor Intertexts
Department of French and Classics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pamiller@xxxxxx
(Ph) 803-777-0473
(Fax) 803-777-7514
>>> JBCM2@xxxxxxx - 2/1/2001 4:13 PM >>>
In a message dated 02/01/2001 4:00:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
millerpa@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
There would be no sensory experience recognized as such if there were no
thought, hence you can argue thought is prior to experience. This is an
essentially Kantian position. The categories of experience are prior to the
content of experience.
>>
well, according to the above (I'm splitting hairs, perhaps) one can only
really argue that thought is prior to recognized sensory experience. but
this eludes the problem of a distinction of sensory experience from thought,
as if thought is something other...
joe brennan