[Textop-en-phil] "Human being" section

[Dr. Clea F. Rees]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> These categories seem relatively "obvious" because we can say with relative
> ease what relation they have to the broader topic 'human being'.  We say
> that (1) concerns the nature, essence, definition, or broadest
> characteristics of human beings; (2) concerns the human mind taken by
> itself; (3) concerns human action.  The distinction between (2) and (3) is
> that between "passions" and "actions" in the early modern sense, or "things
> that happen to us" and "things we cause to happen."

So, some accounts of emotions will be under (2), some under (3) and
some (which discuss emotions in animals more generally) elsewhere?

Is it even possible to put everything into this sort of hierarchical
outline? Some of this currently strikes me as suggesting that any such
outline may inevitably beg important questions. I'm not saying this is
correct. I think I maybe just don't quite understand how you see the
project developing...

- - Clea


- -- 

Dr. Clea F. Rees
Visiting Assistant Professor

Department of Philosophy
Cowell College
University of California
Santa Cruz
CA 95064
U.S.A.

Tel:	+1-831-459-5045
 	+1-831-459-2609 (msg)
Fax:	+1-831-459-4880

NB:  From UK, dial 00 before the appropriate number to access the
international system.

cfrees at imapmail.org
http://people.ucsc.edu/~cfrees/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Dr. Clea F. Rees

iD8DBQFEzBtSz89yvazbspYRAtXgAJ93HnaK3V/aaqSxmkWS/0OrdYvAiQCdGFY5
FFivSnjOWry+djOiJ+fcX+o=
=K8RA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----