Oh yes it's definitely weird. I don't know exactly what to make of the notion that there is more than analogy here. — Moliere

I mean, there is a set or a series of possibilities here, however you wish to construe such a thing from a purely formal (i.e. mathematical) point of view. But that doesn't mean anything to me, math and logic (symbolic logic in general) have no meaning, they have no semantics whatsoever. They are purely syntactical languages. The problem is, human speech does not work like that. Ordinary speech does not work like that. The "map" (the semantics of a word) is connected to the "territory" (the thing that the word refers to), even though the map itself not connected to the territory itself. So, in some sense, there is a map-territory relation, since I can express that in first-order predicate logic like so:

∃x∃y(Rxy)

It should be parsed like so: there is an x, and there is a y, such that x is related to y by the relation R.

However, that tells us nothing about R itself, the relation here. Is it a symmetrical relation, yes or no? Is it a transitive relation, yes or no? Is it a reflexive relation, yes or no? Etc.

So, unless we can talk about the notion that there is more than an analogy here, using a language that has semantics (such as ordinary language), there is nothing meaningful we can say about it, because meaning occurs in the semantics of a language, not in its syntax (and, like I said, purely formal languages like logic and math are entirely syntactical, they have no semantics, though this last point is controversial, surprisingly, and many logicians argue against it).

The best I can come up with is that a person listening to a vinyl record and a person reading a poem are both experiencing the record of human experience. — Moliere

Yes, that would be the case, if it is true that there is more than an analogy here.

So while I understand the OP to be asking after something like a sci-fi version where I could plug a USB into my neck and re-experience the world at some point before exactly as I did then -- I want to suggest we already have the means of accomplishing exactly that, only not in the fantastical way which might tempt us.

Rather, we only need read and think about books, and they transport us to other worlds. — Moliere

Yes, I think you're right. 100%. Poetry is a recording in that sense, it is a recording of an individual human experience. And, just as you can listen to a person "sing" when you are listening to a song on an MP3 file or whatever, you can also listen to a person "talk" when you are reading a poem that they wrote. Fully agree with you on that point.

What I'm not so sure about is if this can be generalized to include every type of written communication. To read Emily Dickinson is to look at the beauty of her own soul, and I say that as an atheist. By contrast, I don't know if I would compare her to someone that has a "drier" tone, such as Willard van Orman Quine. I mean, Quine writes like a tax lawyer writes. There's nothing poetic about it. And I say that as a fan of Quine's work. So, I suppose that Emily Dickinson is on the "Spirit of the Law" team, while Willard van Orman Quine is on the "Letter of the Law" team. He did coin a strange term, though: "Pegasizing". And he famously said that Pegasus does not exist because "nothing Pegasizes", there is no object or creature in the world that "Pegasizes" as an act. Now the question here is: if nothing Pegasizes, can we say that something "Trumanizes" when we talk about President Truman? This is what people told Quine like way back in the 50's.

And the scientistic idea of a record is the only reason we'd dismiss the whole of human literature as evidence of a record. — Moliere

I'm not sure if I understand the idea here. What's the underlying concept in this case? I'm struggling just to understand it.

(Edited for clarity)

Who would like to try and change my mind? — Bob Ross

I'll take that bet. I can't promise anything, though. Hello, by the way.

Now, I will end this OP by noting that I see the obvious downsides of nationalism (when it becomes radical), like fascism, but it seems wrong to go to the opposite extreme and deny any nationalism and imperialism whatsoever. — Bob Ross

Hmmm... Well, we should distinguish ethnic nationalism from civic nationalism. If that's what it boils down to, then I prefer civic nationalism myself.

However, here is the main point of disagreement between you and me on this topic: I believe in continentalism, because I think that continentalism is to the continent what nationalism is to the nation. Non-Europeans and Non-North-Americans (what you call "The West", which is now a "global thing") would do better to just embrace Europeism and Northamericanism (respectively) instead of imperialism (and, of course, Europeans should embrace Europeism instead of imperialism, and North Americans should embrace Northamericanism instead of imperialism, as well). As for Western Supremacy, I don't believe in that concept, because I don't believe in Eastern Supremacy either, nor do I believe in Northern Supremacy, nor do I believe in Southern Supremacy.

So, to summarize my point: Continentalism (not imperialism) is the highest stage of nationalism. And Worldism (not Western Supremacy) is the highest stage of Westernism (in the sense of "Occidentalism", if you will, as distinct from "Orientalism").

EDIT:

remanens capax mutationem — Heidegger

EDIT 2: On the topic of Argentine Nationalism, here is the song that I like the most:



On the topic of South American Continentalism (Southamericanism), my favorite song is the following one:

Thanks. I'll see if I can understand those papers, it seems like I won't be able to, so I can't clam that I will (understand him, that is).

I said that Rödl is like the 'current incarnation of German idealism'. 'Incarnate' means 'in the flesh'. He's representing Hegelian idealism for the current audience. That's all I meant — Wayfarer

Sure, and all I'm saying is that Absolute Idealism, as Hegel himself understood it, entails that whoever believes in Absolute Idealism in a literal sense must also believe in reincarnation in a literal sense. Hegelianism without reincarnation is like decaffeinated coffee: it's not the real thing.

This is a contradiction; and makes no sense at all. You can't say you believe in X sans a Hegelian interpretation (and that you have good reasons for it) and then turn around and say X is the Hegelian interpretation (which has no good reasons for it).

I am now thoroughly convinced you are either a sophist or incapable of admitting that you clearly cannot explain any of the concepts that you believe in. This is turning into the same problem we had with the fact that you don't know what "factiality" means... — Bob Ross

Hmmm... maybe, maybe not. I'm not convinced. Can you elaborate on what you just said there?

EDIT:

incapable of admitting that you clearly cannot explain any of the concepts that you believe in — Bob Ross

I can explain most of them, actually. For example, I believe in the concept that science is the best tool that humanity has for understanding how the Universe works. I call that belief "scientism". See? It's an easy concept to explain. I can do the same for the other main pillars of my personal philosophy.

Realism: By this I mean that there is an external world, that exists independently of our thought. See? Easy concept to explain.

Materialism: This is the belief that all objects are material, from the quark to the galaxy, and everything in between.

Atheism: this is the belief that no divine entities exist, in any way, shape, or form.

Literalism: This one is the newest addition to my core philosophical premises (what you call "beliefs", apparently). I understand literalism in the following way. Imagine for a second what lawyers say about "The Letter of the Law" versus "The Spirit of the Law". In that polarization, I'm on the side of the Letter of the Law, not the Spirit. So, in that sense, literalism is opposed to spiritualism, at least in the context of my own philosophy.

Australians do have a preference for socialist policy — Banno

Australian philosophers nowadays seem to have a preference for the work of Alain Badiou. Except for the rogue Deleuzians and rogue post-Deleuzians that seem to visit this Forum regularly, which seem to be much more joyful than Badiou-ians.

I'm trying to point out that there's more than an analogy between the literal grooves in a vinyl record and the ink marks a writer makes with a pen on paper. — Moliere

I see what you're saying there, and I've heard that idea somewhere before, I've heard people suggest it and argue for it. But it's kind of... well, weird, isn't it? For example, I don't know what to make of it myself. I don't know if it's true or not. I don't know if sounds entirely reasonable or not. It's a strange thing to point out, that idea, it seems. That there could be more than an analogy here.

You get "trapped in it". Like being "trapped" is a bad thing. You lose sight of the great outdoors, wilderness, the thing-in-itself in a substantive sense. — fdrake

Well but hold on here a second, Mr. F. Drake. That sort of talk (i.e. "trapped in it", "being trapped", "great outdoors", "wilderness") is the talk of a Poet. If that's how you wish to formulate the problem (and it is a legitimate formulation of the problem under consideration here), then what I would say is that correlationists have stepped on their own bear trap, and now, like bears, are howling in pain in the great outdoors, the metaphysical wilderness that we call the thing-in-itself, which is arguably the Absolute in the sense of that "Great Outdoors".

So, what would you make of that? Those are surely pretty words, if I may say so myself. Do they mean anything, in a substantive sense? I don't think so.

All of those seem like bad things with that way of describing them. — fdrake

Yeah, but are they? "Bad things", that is. Honest question.

But you can adopt the position as if it's a good thing still, on its terms even. You probs won't though, if you're in the bucket of fans of so-called correlationist philosophers, since it seems like a distortion and a slur. — fdrake

But that's the point that I'm making here. The same thing happened with the word "scientism". It was a distortion and a slur. The same thing happens with ethnic slurs and racial slurs, for example. They start out as negative terms, then someone starts using them in a positive way. Sometimes there are community restrictions (i.e., you can't use racial slurs if you're not of that race yourself), sometimes there aren't (i.e., anyone can use the term "scientism", including the people that hold views that can only be described as anti-scientism).

Yeah! And I think that's how Joshs is construing "correlationism" as a term. Right? — fdrake

Yeah, but it's like, I use the word "scientism" in a positive way. Mario Bunge himself championed that use, he used the word "scientism" positively. So why can't I? I believe in scientism, I have no problem saying such a philosophically loaded phrase like "I believe in scientism", because I say it as an ordinary person would (or at least, to the best of my ability to reconcile ordinary thought with philosophical thought).

So, if Bunge and I can do just that, I see no reason why correlationists can't use the word "correlationism" in a positive way. And some of them seem to be on the brink of doing exactly that. Now, I'm not the one to "give them a little push" in that direction, far from it. All I'm saying is, correlationism is something far more complicated than what Meillassoux would have you believe. That does not mean that correlationism is "a bad thing" or "a good thing". It just means that we have to study it more.

You give me green stop-sign vibes Arcane. **sigh** — Bob Ross

I mean, have you read my pseudonym for this Forum?

But then I have to ask: am I breaking the law here? I don't think so. So, you can't say that I'm completely chaotic. I'm not causing a disturbance, or at least I think not.

What I don't have, which I also acknowledge is that I lack good reasons to believe that the Absolute in the Hegelian sense exists. — Arcane Sandwitch

Christ, I didn't even write this correctly. I'm not going to edit it, this kind of stuff has historical importance (to me) and it must be preserved (for my own purposes). That phrase should read: What I don't have, which I also acknowledge, is that I lack good reasons to believe that the Absolute in the Hegelian sense exists.

I just want to know what you are meaning by the Absolute and not Hegel. — Bob Ross

Right, here's the problem: I mean the same thing that Hegel meant. And since he's dead, we can't ask him what he meant. So, interpretations are the only thing we have. But an interpretation (of anything) is not the literal truth. However, I do not agree with Nietzsche when he suggests that "there are no facts, that there are only interpretations", if you will. I say that there are facts, in addition to interpretations. What would Hegel say to that? No idea, really.

I want to know what this "Absolute" is of which you clearly affirm you have good reasons to believe in, and what those good reasons are. Could you please elaborate on that for me? — Bob Ross

Yes, I think I might. What I think that this "Absolute" is, is something like the symbol of the ying and the yang. It is something greater than black or white. It is absolute.



But look, you cannot see it with your eyes. What your eyes see (what my eyes see as well, what anyone's eyes see) is just black and white. We do not physically see the Absolute, but we Understand it in some sense.

Does that help in any way?

The basic idea is that when you look at a paper map of an area you ought be able to distinguish between the map you're holding in your hand from the land you're trying to figure out. — Moliere

Yes, I agree. One should not confuse the semantics of a term with what that term represents. That was Alfred Korzybski's point, if I understood correctly. When one confuses them, one is "mistaking the map for the territory". And it is a logical fallacy. Indeed, I agree with all of that (I think?).

I don't know if there even are map-territory relations. — Moliere

Deleuzians and post-Deleuzians have some strange things to say about that. Not sure about Manuel DeLanda, though. He probably does.

I think it's mostly just a basic idea that there's a difference between our representations and what they represent, however we end up parsing that. — Moliere

Yes, I agree (I think?).

So, to bring it back to the OP, there's certainly a difference between poems and human experience — Moliere

Yes, there is.

and even poems which record human experience. "Record" being a vinyl scratching from sound, poems are an ink scratching from pressure to represent sound to represent experience. — Moliere

Here is where I got completely lost. Can you explain this last part if you have the time, please?

Would you also agree with

...the recording is not the recorded. — jorndoe


? — Moliere

I think that I lack the knowledge to answer that question, honestly. I don't know anything about "map-territory relations", that sounds so abstract to me. I would have to study it for years just to be able to give a somewhat coherent opinion.

Would you agree that this poetic expression records human experience? — Moliere

Yes, I would. 100%.

I let science try to explain the physical world. — Rob J Kennedy

Science and Philosophy do not necessarily exclude each other. They have the same origin, in fact. The pre-Socratics were scientists as well as philosophers. Think of Thales of Miletus, or Pythagoras, for example.

So it's one of these cases, I believe, that adopting the vocabulary can prejudice your perspective. — fdrake

Ok, but we can all agree that this is a problem, right? This is what I would call "a bad thing" in @Joshs's sense of the term.

The wikipedia entry says, quoting the book we're discussing, 'His main influence is Hegel, and he sees himself as introducing and restating Hegel's Absolute Idealism in a historical moment that is wrought with misgivings about the merits and even the mere possibility of such a philosophy.' He's kind of an incarnation of German idealism. — Wayfarer

Pardon me. The only way for him to be correct, is if he is indeed the reincarnation of Hegel, in a literal sense. Otherwise, he's interpreting Hegelian Idealism in a figurative, metaphorical way. But Hegelianism can only be true if one of the following is the case:

1) It ended with Hegel himself (Absolute Idealism, that is).
2) It did not end with Hegel himself, because Absolute Idealism can be turned into Dialectical Materialism.
3) It did not end with Hegel himself, because reincarnation exists, so Hegel has reincarnated and is alive today, just with a different name. But the photograph of that man looks a bit like Hegel himself, doesn't it?

What option do I choose? The first one: Absolute Idealism ended with Hegel himself. Absolute Idealism cannot be turned into Dialectical Materialism. Those are two different philosophies. And there is no such thing as reincarnation.

Since we're sharing poetry, this one speaks volumes to me:

These parties have not died nor will they ever die; because they represent two legitimate tendencies, two necessary manifestations of the life of our country: the federal party, the spirit of locality concerned and still blind; the unitarian party, centralism, national unity. Should the influential men of these parties disappear, others will come representing the same tendencies, who will work to make them predominate as before and will convulse the country to reach both the results they have obtained. The logic of our history, then, is calling for the existence of a new party, whose mission is to adopt what is legitimate in both parties, and dedicate itself to finding a peaceful solution to all our social problems with the key of a higher, more rational synthesis, and more complete than theirs, which, satisfying all legitimate needs, embraces them and melts them in its unity. — Esteban Echeverría

This is the original Spanish version:

Esos partidos no han muerto ni morirán jamás; porque representan dos tendencias legítimas, dos manifestaciones necesarias de la vida de nuestro país: el partido federal, el espíritu de localidad preocupado y ciego todavía; el partido unitario, el centralismo, la unidad nacional. Dado caso que desapareciesen los hombres influyentes de esos partidos, vendrán otros representando las mismas tendencias, que trabajarán por hacerlas predominar como anteriormente y convulsionarán al país para llegar uno y otro al resultado que han obtenido. La lógica de nuestra historia, pues, está pidiendo la existencia de un partido nuevo, cuya misión es adoptar lo que haya de legítimo en uno y otro partido, y consagrarse a encontrar la solución pacífica de todos nuestros problemas sociales con la clave de una síntesis alta, más racional y más completa que la suya, que satisfaciendo todas las necesidades legítimas, las abrace y las funda en su unidad. — Esteban Echeverría

When Sappho was a living girl,
And Beatrice wore
The gown that Dante deified.
Facts, centuries before,

He traverses familiar,
As one should come to town
And tell you all your dreams were true;
He lived where dreams were sown.

His presence is enchantment,
You beg him not to go;
Old volumes shake their vellum heads
And tantalize, just so. — Emily Dickenson

What a beautiful thing to say.

Amazing. That's the best joke I've heard this month!

Every reference to correlationism in After Finitude pits it in a negative light. — Joshs

And you just say that as if it were a fact, like the fact that physicists study an actual thing called "gravity"?

EDIT: Here's your proof, @Joshs:

We will henceforth call correlationism any current of thought which maintains the unsurpassable character of the correlation so defined. — Quentin Meillassoux

That, is the very first occurrence of the word "correlationism" in After Finitude. It is literally a definition. That very reference to correlationism does not pit it in a negative light, in any way, shape, or form.

Satisfied?

15 minutes of my life I will never get back… — Joshs

Then I take it that you don't know what's bad about it.

Oh man, this next one is really dark. @Banno check it out:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=paterson%2Clawson%2Cwestminster&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

This one is even worse, whatever it may signify:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/

EDIT: I'll summarize the one about "Albert Einstein, Sherlock Holmes, Frankenstein" as search terms, to the best of my ability. The current results are, more or less: 1) Frankenstein, 2) Sherlock Holmes, 3) Albert Einstein.

So, the lesson here is that people today pay more attention to fictional characters than to real people. Right? Or is there a different moral lesson to this particular story?

So? What's bad about it? I don't get your point. Explain it to me like I'm a dumbass.

I've generally held that opposition leaders don't win elections, governments lose them. — Tom Storm

In other words, you believe in Westminster wisdom, so to speak.

I'm not really a graph guy. — Tom Storm

Me either, but @Banno is the one who appealed to that instrument, so, that's what we're using right now. It doesn't mean anything by itself, the instrument. Because that is what a graph is: an instrument.

Have you actually read After Finitude? — Joshs

Of course I have. I've written a book about it, as well as several different articles about it.

I don’t find a single
positive statement about correlationism in it. Do you? — Joshs

Define "positive statement". What do you mean by that?

WTF? I am never 100% sure of anything and I don't use percentages to qualify any ideas i hold. — Tom Storm

OK. Sure, you do you. And I will do me. Fair enough.

Bear in mind Billabong has been a popular brand of sports wear so the name has recognition if nothing else. — Tom Storm

Yeah but I just found one that has nothing to do with that. @Banno check this out:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=paterson%2Clawson&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

Could you give a quote from Meillassoux supporting this assertion? — Joshs

Why would I need one?

Are you surprised? Think about it. — Banno

But then why are you on Lawson's side instead of Paterson's? I don't get it. Can you explain it to me?

Fairly sure. — Tom Storm

What do you mean by that? 100% sure? Or less than 100%?

I added "bush", check it out:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=billabong%2Coutback%2Cbush&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

Woa...

Ciao. — Leontiskos

Bella ciao.

then I will [in]effectively engage you — Arcane Sandwich


Fixed. — Leontiskos

Don't misquote me either, that's not the way to argue about anything.

Sure, I will accept your apology, — Leontiskos

Thanks for accepting my apology, then. You need to apologize yourself for calling me a "dumbass", but I can't force you to do that, nor would I want to. That's on you.

know that I am not planning to engage you on the forum. — Leontiskos

Then don't engage me. It's as simple as that. I won't engage you either. But please understand that if you just say that I'm " ", and then you cite as evidence for your case that I embrace five personal philosophies (realism, materialism, atheism, scientism, literalism), then I will effectively engage you, @Leontiskos. Like, why are you using my name in your discussions? Keep my name out of your discussions, or expect to be engaged by me. It's real simple.

(Edited for technicality)

↪Arcane Sandwich
- I don't believe Bob Ross counseled you to go into threads that are not about Thomas Aquinas, — Leontiskos

That's not the point, but OK.

and tell people there to "kindly fuck off" for doing things that haven't been done. — Leontiskos

That's fair, I take that back then. I apologize. Will you accept my apology, yes or no?

Could you just tell me what words you would replace “is a bad thing” with? I’m dying to know. — Joshs

There are none. No such words, I mean. I have an email by Braisser himself telling me that people always get that part wrong (among other parts that they get wrong).

There is nothing bad about correlationism. And there is nothing that can replace the word "bad" there in such a way that we would be able to say "Correlationism is to be rejected because of X".

Correlationism is a live option in today's Continental debates. It is also a live option in the Analytic tradition. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. There is nothing bad about it. The whole point of Meillassoux's philosophy (and of Speculative Realism more generally, even though 3 of the 4 "founding members" no longer feel associated with it) is to keep what is True in correlationism, and to augment it further. Perhaps some aspects of it have to be reformulated, perhaps others discarded, perhaps others reinforced. It's more like making an oil painting, instead of being like doing your taxes.

More food for thought:

Ya got me there. — Joshs

But that's my point, Josh. Language can't be a sort of free-for-all game. It needs rules. And I think that those rules are something akin to what lawyers call "Letter of the Law", as something different than the "Spirit of the Law". Interpretations (Spirit of the Law) are all fine and dandy, but sometimes we just have to go back to the Letter of the Law.

Do you disagree?