2 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2021
    1. The results of this introspective difficulty are baleful. If to hold fast and observe the transitive parts of thought's stream be so hard, then the great blunder to which all schools are liable must be the failure to register them, and the undue emphasizing of the more substantive parts of the stream. Now the blunder has historically worked in two ways. One set of thinkers have been led by it to Sensationalism. Unable to lay their hands on any substantive feelings corresponding to the innumerable relations and forms of connection between the sensible things of the world, finding no named mental states mirroring such relations, they have for the most part denied that any such states exist; and many of them, like Hume, have gone on to deny the reality of most relations out of the mind as well as in it.

      This reminds me of Behaviorism in a way, but not exactly. The denial of mental states due to their general inability to be truly observed is very much the same. But whereas Behaviorism is strongly empirical in a scientific sense, this Sensationalism often gives way to a Humean type of philosophical empiricism.

    2. Next, in a world of objects thus individualized by our mind's selective industry, what is called our 'experience' is almost entirely determined by our habits of attention. A thing may be present to a man a hundred times, but if he persistently fails to notice it, it cannot be said to enter into his experience.

      I've heard many reports of people failing to experience pain, especially in sudden and traumatic situations (such as being shot by a rifle or having a limb torn off) until they take notice to what has happened visually. Though I believe that there is a clear physiological explanation for this delay, I wonder if this idea could somehow apply.