What about the idea that the same endures by continuing to be itself differently? I would say that this is the essence of deconstruction. — Joshs
A lifelong student of the likes of Freddy, Witty & Peirce, I still find 'p0m0 post/structuralism' as redundant as it is rhetorically obscurant. — 180 Proof
Concepts evolve, they have a life, a vitality which you can kill if you try to trap them. — Olivier5
Granted 100% that there is no 'truly' enduring self (and that one cannot step into the same river twice), I'd make the opposite point and say that making unequal things equal is automatic and properly presupposed. So one can step into the same river twice, because 'river' organizes or captures a flux — igjugarjuk
If you haven’t read him, you might enjoy Husserl’s analyses of the constitution of a real spatial object.
The real object is never completely fulfilled. It is a concatenation of memory , actual appearance and anticipation. So the object is an idealization, a kind of faith in a total unity that is never fully achieved. — Joshs
“The "object" of consciousness, the object as having identity "with itself" during the flowing subjective process, does not come into the process from outside; on the contrary, it is included as a sense in the subjective process itself and thus as an "intentional effect" produced by the synthesis of consciousness.”(Husserl 1973) — Joshs
I would maybe say here though that concepts evolve because we try to trap them. They have a life because we keep trying to put them death. — igjugarjuk
The Sokal Affair is relevant here, in case you haven't heard of it: — ZzzoneiroCosm
:up:Thanks for the quotes. I'll have to give them a close reading when I have time. — ZzzoneiroCosm
:up:Heh, you say that -- but from my perspective it seems you keep coming back! :D — Moliere
The supreme works of beautiful sculpture are sightless, and their inner being does not look out of them as self-knowing inwardness in this spiritual concentration which the eye discloses. This light of the soul falls outside them and belongs to the spectator alone; when he looks at these shapes, soul cannot meet soul nor eye eye. — Hegel
I'm far from anti-pomo but appreciate iconoclasm of any kind. — ZzzoneiroCosm
It makes you wonder how many other journals would have been fooled. So it has something to say about the pomo echo chamber. — ZzzoneiroCosm
... Or more broadly about the various echo chambers and sins of convergent thinking in Academia. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.
Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing.
Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary…. They are not skillful considerers of human things who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin.
Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making. — Milton
Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? — Milton
It was a great prank, and some French thinkers have been guilty of playing fast and loose with concepts from other fields — igjugarjuk
In 1997, Sokal and Jean Bricmont co-wrote Impostures intellectuelles (US: Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science; UK: Intellectual Impostures, 1998).[14] The book featured analysis of extracts from established intellectuals' writings that Sokal and Bricmont claimed misused scientific terminology.[15] It closed with a critical summary of postmodernism and criticism of the strong programme of social constructionism in the sociology of scientific knowledge.[16] — wiki
For all his vision he hadn't the vision - can't blame him, of course - to forsee something like Facebook. — ZzzoneiroCosm
f you're willing to spit it out I'm willing to hear it. How does Hume undermine all of this? I believe that's basically last we left off. — Moliere
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.