Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!rlgvax!cliff
From: cliff@rlgvax.UUCP (Cliff Joslyn)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Logic and Coercion
Message-ID: <573@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 21:16:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.573
Posted: Mon Jul 27 21:16:20 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jul-87 01:33:29 EDT
References: <68@thirdi.UUCP> <9962@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc, Reston VA
Lines: 20
Keywords: belief, proof, explanation, Nozick
Summary: Kant

In article <9962@duke.cs.duke.edu>, mps@duke.cs.duke.edu (Michael P. Smith) writes:
> The basic idea
> is that instead of trying to *prove* philosophical position P true,
> one should try to *explain* how P is possible.  Besides being nicer,
> Nozick argues (explains?), the explanatory approach tends to produce
> understanding, as opposed to mere conviction, and so fits better the
> end of philosophy. 

I believe that this is very similar to something expressed by Kant in the
Prolegmonena (although it has been many years since I read it), that
explaning how something might be possible is really the task of metaphyics.
 Wish I could recall more.



-- 
O----------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Computer Consoles Inc., Reston, Virgnia, but my opinions.
| UUCP: ..!seismo!rlgvax!cliff
V All the world is biscuit liz1