|
|
 |
Dewey wanted to be as naturalistic as Locke and as historic as Hegel. This can indeed be done. One can say with Locke that the causal process that go in the human organism suffice, without the intrusion of anything non-natural, to explain the acquisition of knowledge (moral, mathematical, empirical, and political). One can only say, with Hegel, that rational criticism of knowledge-claims is always in terms of the problems that human beings face at a particular epoch. These two lines of thought neither intersect nor conflict. Keeping them separate has the virtue of doing just what Dewey wanted to do-preventing the formulation of the traditional, skeptically motivated "problems of epistemology." (Rorty, qtd, in Cahn P. 82)
Pausanias discusses different kinds of Common Love. He says that if a person marries for money and gratifies his lover, this is Common ugly love. The wealthy person's love is not, because he was deceived. The deceiver still maintains Virtue. Pausanius says the same is true of the older Aphrodite's Love. The deceived maintains virtue as long as their intentions were seeded in virtue. For Pausanias virtue is the key to love. Love without virtue is inferior, Common Love.
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList