As I see it, both PoMo and AP are essentially reductionist and never escape that monism - whether they fetishise the monism of the one or the many. — apokrisis
Interesting discussion so far.
Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
— Richard Feynman — 180 Proof
I don't know if you include Hegel in PoMo, but Braver's charting of the journey of 'anti-realism' from Kant to Hegel to Heidegger to Derrida features holism prominently. — jas0n
In Saussure, every language user has an (imperfect) copy of the language system in his brain. For Feuerbach, thinking is not a function of the individual. I think in terms of a distributed, self-updating operating system — jas0n
For him , in the beginning there was the mark , trace , gramme, differance ( these terms are interchangeable).
They refer to an identity , subject or ipseity divided within itself in the very act of returning back to itself to repeat itself. Put differently, in order to constitute itself , the ‘I’ must borrow from what is other than itself. In this way there is at once a formal, transcendental , structural aspect to the mark ( that a meaning is being carried forward by being repeated or reflected back to itself) and an empirical, genetic aspect( in the very act of repeating itself or turning back around to glimpse itself it is exposed to alterity). This origin is not a vagueness or an indeterminacy but an undecidability . The mark is undecidable because there is no question of choosing between presence and absence, genesis and structure, form and content , the ideal and the empirical. Both are indissociable in a single mark. This is the complexity of the origin, its hinged articulation. — Joshs
Derrida writes — Joshs
My own line would be Anaximander => Aristotle => Peirce. And I wouldn’t feel as if I was missing much just sticking to those three. — apokrisis
Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all men have not the same writing, so all men have not the same speech sounds, but the mental experiences, which these directly symbolize, are the same for all, as also are those things of which our experiences are the images.
But signs have their meaning only differentially (in relation to other signs), and the entire context/system drifts, so that the 'same' salute or secret handshake is not quite the same, anymore than the 'same' knight on a chessboard maintains some constant 'meaning' as the game advances. — jas0n
Let’s translate this into something more concrete. — Joshs
how would we parse the ‘dance’ that takes place on this philosophy forum among its participants, or just between you and me in the present discussion? — Joshs
Is there an overall third-person ( or perhaps second person) logic that can be employed to depict the organizational dynamics of this I-thou system , or the larger system that includes all participants in a thread? — Joshs
Foucault would say yes, Derrida would say no. He and Heidegger wouldnt deny that we can point to cultural
hegemonies and world-views, but they wouldn’t analyze these in such a way that they would take the overarching group dynamic as primary or even complementary to the personalistic perspective. — Joshs
Curious that you would answer me in this roundabout fashion. — apokrisis
I see nothing but a web of organisation dynamics that has the usual social complexity of any game. PF has some kind of rules of conduct, some kind of shared spirit and mission, to which all its participants would contribute in terms of their own contingencies of personality, experience and habit.
Even on PF, which is as about as informally structured in terms of “how to productively behave” as it gets, some larger pattern of engagement emerges over time. And the expectations and agendas of participants are reciprocally shaped by that. — apokrisis
But it seems to me that the shared agreed on rules and shared spirit only really exists as it is animated and redefined each actual engagement at each moment of time by individual participants. — Joshs
What the forum stands for may change for me in a good way or a bad way, making me more or less enthusiastic about wanting to continue participating, or may inspire me to change my strategies of argumentation, or become more or less intense or serious. I may become more or less focused on politically or empirically or spiritually oriented topics on here due to the unfolding interchanges. Other participants, meanwhile, are forming their own changing attitudes and interests. — Joshs
Is there some meta-level or vantage from which to characterize how the site ‘as a whole’ changes along with each participant’s changing experience of it , one that wouldn't simply be one more subjective perspective? — Joshs
Pragmatism. What use is knowledge that ain't useful. — apokrisis
Even poetry is supposed to be useful according to its promoters. — apokrisis
If the question was whether knowledge always has to be useful, then you would want to deconstruct the perfectly clear sense of the question by either disputing the definition of knowledge, and/or of use? — apokrisis
Since saying that knowledge, to be of any use, must be useful, is not really saying anything, — Janus
Context for Derrida begins and ends with the singular mark. — Joshs
The drift originates with time, not interpersonal language , from one element to the next to the next. — Joshs
Is there an overall third-person ( or perhaps second person) logic that can be employed to depict the organizational dynamics of this I-thou system , or the larger system that includes all participants in a thread? — Joshs
Foucault would say yes, Derrida would say no. He and Heidegger wouldnt deny that we can point to cultural
hegemonies and world-views, but they wouldn’t analyze these in such a way that they would take the overarching group dynamic as primary or even complementary to the personalistic perspective. — Joshs
while I insist that bodies in the same world are more or less foundational. — jas0n
The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth.
Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.
The very first lesson that we have a right to demand that logic shall teach us is, how to make our ideas clear; and a most important one it is, depreciated only by minds who stand in need of it.
“…out of a contrite fallibilism, combined with a high faith in the reality of knowledge, and an intense desire to find things out, all my philosophy has always seemed to me to grow.
Yep. In case you hadn't seen it, this is Peirce's theory of truth as the limit of communal inquiry. — apokrisis
In fact this whole set of lecture notes on Peirce and his grave misrepresentation by the likes of Rorty and Russell makes a damn fine response to the concerns raised in the OP. — apokrisis
Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. — Richard Feynman
And what is meaning itself supposed to mean if I'm alone? — jas0n
Yep. Everyone wants to be an influencer. TikTok is truly the crucible for the development of your "more ideal community of tomorrow". — apokrisis
The age of rationality is ending, the age of irrationality and emotional incontinence is at hand. — apokrisis
Is there some meta-level or vantage from which to characterize how the site ‘as a whole’ changes along with each participant’s changing experience of it , one that wouldn't simply be one more subjective perspective? — Joshs
The age of rationality is ending, the age of irrationality and emotional incontinence is at hand. — apokrisis
They understand themselves to be truth-seeking and truth-sharing. What do we make of that? A universal urge to weave myth/science ? — jas0n
Do you think that's a good thing? You know, evolutionarily...? — Agent Smith
:up:Isn’t it a case of the science answer becoming too complex and sounding much more like nonsense than the “facts” one can make up to justify one’s own theories. — apokrisis
Yeah, your well-reasoned positions, apok, seem very consistent with this "line" (genealogy). :cool:My own line would be Anaximander => Aristotle => Peirce. And I wouldn’t feel as if I was missing much just sticking to those three. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.