Sellars and the History of Philosophy - Sellars’s Kant

SELLARS AND THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY - James O’Shea - Sellars’s Kant
WORKSHOP - PADUA, JUNE 23/24, 2016
“Philosophy without the history of philosophy, if not empty or blind, is at least dumb.”
W. Sellars
Sellars’ ideas play a central role in many areas of to- day’s debates - from philosophy of mind to theory of perception, and from theories of concepts to theories of action. Sellars’ views developed in close dialogue with the history of philosophy: above all in relation to Kant, but also to Aristotle, Leibniz and Wittgenstein. These figures served not only as inspiration but also offered Sellars crucial insights for developing his own perspective. Sellars, in turn, opened up new ways of understanding their classical texts through the appli cation of his conceptual apparatus. This workshop aims at exploring Sellars’ relationship to the history of philosophy and its potential for today’s concerns, with the aim of expanding our frameworks for understand- ing the contemporary Sellars-renaissance.
Playlist: • Sellars and the Histor...

[@williamcallahan5218]

"A person is a bundle of processes but the concept of a person isn't the concept of a bundle of processes" Wilfrid Sellars

[@patrickcrosby3824]

Hard to say, since I couldn't see what was on the slide, but it sounded as though Prof. O'Shea was taking a very sharp Fichtean turn in the last few seconds of his talk. (PS: I am the "hero/'bum you decide" who recorded the 1974 John Dewey Lectures. :)

[@galek75]

Can you describe this Fichtean turn?

[@michaelhaag3367]

very lucid talk, i have been wondering about these things

[@emilyfee1878]

Is there a recording of the slides ?

[@brandgardner211]

There is nothing "non-natural" or "mysterious" about Husserl's intentionality, nor Descartes' either. Sellars was a totally confused person, and his recent fans are likewise.

[@williamcallahan5218]

And yet Jay Garfield calls him one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. go figure.

[@szefszefow7562]

@@williamcallahan5218 and rorty, brandom, Putnam, Mcdowell and many more

[@findbridge1790]

"...there are no yellow bananas, red apples..." so stupid. Unbelievable.

[@williamcallahan5218]

what do you mean? are you suggesting there are yellow banana's and red apples in nature? no you couldn't be saying that in 2022

[@Summalogicae]

Please articulate what is “so stupid” and “unbelievable.”

[@kvaka009]

​@williamcallahan5218 is there "nature" in nature? I don't see how "nature" can be scientifically defined so as not to entail its various appearances within the manifest image. If by "nature" we mean the ideal of a complete scientific picture, then we also can't be sure right now that things like time, particles, or perhaps even laws exist in nature. It seems a little strange to say that the gravity or mass of the yellow banana exists in nature, yet the yellow banana doesn't.