I need a nervous system to see a tree, but I also need eyes and a tree in an encompassing world. Or are we to claim that the eyes create themselves? — plaque flag
You and Wayfarer both seem to want to emphasize the primacy of the subject and make the world as mere spectacle for or ex nihilo creation of some kind of constituting transcendental subject.
But serious objections to this claim are (it seems to me) simply ignored. For instance:
I need a nervous system to see a tree, but I also need eyes and a tree in an encompassing world. Or are we to claim that the eyes create themselves ? — plaque flag
Again, it depends on what kind of thinking you want to do. — Janus
Artists may also create novel cultural concerns. — Janus
:up:the dependence of world as well as subjectivity on a reciprocity that leaves no room for the coherence of any ‘material’ aspect of world independent of this reciprocal interaffecting. — Joshs
I think in relation to this synthetic structure, the biggest problem from your point of view isnt just Husserl’s treatment of the subject, but what he has in common with Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze, and has led to the charge of linguistic idealism against post-structuralists leveled by the realist-materialist crowd. — Joshs
The living flesh is as primordial as language and world and tribe. — plaque flag
As I preach from the perch of my soap box, one cannot yank out either the subject or the object and still have the real thing. The true is the whole : promises, sassy looks, and earthquakes; checkmates, wankbanks, quarks, and continuous functions. — plaque flag
I agree with you in the abstract, but in practice there is just too much detail for the finite individual to master. The world has too much richness, too much depth. — plaque flag
Even though I see a construction of a grand metaphysics as still possible and worthwhile, such a construction has to be a severe lossy compression of the world. It's not obvious whether it's better to be a Hegel, a Coltrane, a Chappelle, a Napoleon, or just a person who puts their parental role before all else, etc. — plaque flag
What I'm looking at is how the metaphysics might model its own creator and how it accounts for its own role. For instance, does the correct metaphysics accelerate the heat death ? I like to see how theories account for their own engendering. — plaque flag
Exactly. Except lossy is the feature and not the bug when progressing from analytical intelligence to synthetic wisdom. — apokrisis
instead the necessary tradeoff involved in having any finite personality. — plaque flag
To be what I am is to also to not be what someone else is. — plaque flag
Were Hegel, Coltrane, Chappelle, Napoleon good dads?
Of course in practice that doesn't really matter either way as their few offspring were immediately swallowed up in the anonymity of a much vaster pool of population growth. But likewise, even their achievements were something else someone would have done - or at least done similarly enough not for it to count as a material difference in the unfolding of larger human history. — apokrisis
Why the "similarly enough"? Why did the universe or human history need someone Coltrane-ish? Why did it need jazz at all? — Srap Tasmaner
And why also frame this as what kind of historical individual would you like to be? Knowledge is collective. — apokrisis
But that is how you could even construct a grounding sense of selfhood. — apokrisis
So do you want to be famous to history or a great dad? I would reply a good life is going to understand that these ought to be complementary goals, and that we should start by being satisfied by striking the right dynamical balance. — apokrisis
Amen brother Flag! — wonderer1
I've talked endlessly about this. Anaximander and his Apeiron. Peirce and his cosmic growth of reasonableness. The Big Bang as a symmetry-breaking of an "everythingness". — apokrisis
But mortals are haunted by opportunity cost, to name just one ghost. Is it better to be Beethoven or Kant ? — plaque flag
Kojeve's book on Hegel makes explicit this 'getting on' the escalator by assuming that a certain kind of conceptuality is the king's highway. Given that first step, the rest follows. But that first step is 'irrational.' — plaque flag
In the finite amount of time and brief attention span of my life, I've never considered pursuing an intellectual or cultural project of consequence. — Tom Storm
And I suspect that no matter how many years most of us are given to live, we are never going to be Beethoven or Kant. — Tom Storm
Maybe being Peter the electrician, or Mary the accountant is a finer and more rewarding experience in the living of it (certainly compared to Beethoven). Even as a half-baked romantic, I think I would much prefer an 'enjoyable' life to an influential, or prodigious one. — Tom Storm
The question of a realist theory of language and all that this might imply may well be a decadent and nugatory pursuit. — Tom Storm
If that magisterial view of rational inquiry seems a bit sweeping, well it works. So believe it until a better method comes along. — apokrisis
The mouth of the funnel can be as wide as you want to imagine. It is all going to narrow down to the method of pragmatic reason - the semiotic modelling relation - in my view. — apokrisis
Sure. But what I am stressing is that art is not a solitary enterprise. It doesn’t exist unless it is shared. — apokrisis
Technology, as logic paired with fossil fuel, is what has actually put human society on its exponential path of becoming the global planetary organism. The domestication of the Earth with a metabolism of concrete, cows and corn.
Philosophy barely talks about this with any insight. Economics and sociology are only waking up to it. — apokrisis
There is a metaphysics here where biology > physics.
Now that is what counts as a paradigm shift and a social surprise. But also one that aligns with mind > matter if you squint just right and understand this in terms of Peircean immanence rather than Cartesian transcendence. — apokrisis
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. I really want to clarify the issue. — plaque flag
Is Shakespeare a better philosopher than Peirce ? Why or why not ? — plaque flag
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.