analytic philosophy
atto
necessarily at logger-heads? Is it possible for postmodernism to become
analytic? Postmodernism does seem aversed to argument, which is why so many
find it unsatidfying. Can analytic philosophy become postmodern? Perhaps
analytic philosophy is unable to admit to the reality of the postmodern
landscape. Or do they both simply speak different languages.
I write as a student learning philosophy in the analytic school. Much as I
prefer postmodernism to analytic philosophy, the latter being dry and dull,
the former being exciting, whenever I read postmodern philosophy a little
voice at the back of my mind keeps nagging 'yes, but what would my Professor
of Logic think about that? Do you have a crucial point you are attempting to
make, which can be expressed in no other way?'
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
like to check out "Continental Philosophy - A very short Introduction"
Oxford University Press - which attempts to show the source of
antagonism between Continental Philosophy and analytical philosophy.
A common ground between Analytical and Continental philosophy might be
possible, in my own opinion i would say that analytic philosophy and
post-modernism are necessarily opposites. From the Analytic point of
view i think post-modernism will always look wrong - because it probably
is.
--
James Whitehead
atto
> In article <9mefna$92h$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>, atto
> <ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
> >What's the relation between analytic philosophy and post-modernism? Are
they
> >necessarily at logger-heads? Is it possible for postmodernism to become
> >analytic? Postmodernism does seem aversed to argument, which is why so
many
> >find it unsatidfying. Can analytic philosophy become postmodern? Perhaps
> >analytic philosophy is unable to admit to the reality of the postmodern
> >landscape. Or do they both simply speak different languages.
> >
> >I write as a student learning philosophy in the analytic school. Much as
I
> >prefer postmodernism to analytic philosophy, the latter being dry and
dull,
> >the former being exciting, whenever I read postmodern philosophy a little
> >voice at the back of my mind keeps nagging 'yes, but what would my
Professor
> >of Logic think about that? Do you have a crucial point you are attempting
to
> >make, which can be expressed in no other way?'
> >
> >
> I've just read an interesting little book by Simon Critchley you might
> like to check out "Continental Philosophy - A very short Introduction"
> Oxford University Press - which attempts to show the source of
> antagonism between Continental Philosophy and analytical philosophy.
I think lots of contintental philosophy is accepted as being credible and
coherent, existentialism for instance. Are the problems with postmodernsim
traceable to contintental philosophy in general?
>
> A common ground between Analytical and Continental philosophy might be
> possible,
Well for instance, how would analytic philosophy address issues of
simulation and the media ('hyperreality')? It would want to assert that
there /was/ an 'original', yet could it make this position credible in a
rigorous fashion?
I read ''Philosophy Now" this month, which included a look at the 'Truman
Show" in its film reviews. The author's position was generally: well
obviously we're /not/ the victims of a massive television show, just think o
f the morality and the organisational difficulties, but the film provides
good philosophical food for thought and we should stop to think just how
much we believe of what we see on television. This sort of haughty, blase
'rationalist' attitude really annoys me. Instead the article could have used
the opportunity to discuss the problem of simulation and its claimed
ubiquity.
Yet as I say, I've seen a very good analytic treatment of Sartre: "Using
Sartre", McLuhan.
> in my own opinion i would say that analytic philosophy and
> post-modernism are necessarily opposites. From the Analytic point of
> view i think post-modernism will always look wrong - because it probably
> is.
I do sympathise! A serious short-coming one would think. My problem is that
I don't understand it as much as I would like (reading Baudrillard) so one
never knows whether the problem is lack of understanding or lack of proper
argument. You also start to get the worrying feeling that to reason
something through would be to miss the whole point, paradox being such an
open feature of the work. Yet you also get the idea that /they/ know what
they're talking about, because otherwise they wouldn't be so intricate and
appear so blase about paradox. Its almost an open abuse of Derrida's
'there's nothing outside the text'.
But on another note much as analytic philosophers like to make a show of
solidarity, believing in good old-fashioned rationality, they all refute and
contradict one another in any case. Has over 2000 years of broadly
understood 'analytic' philosophy made any more progress than a few decades
of postmodernism?
atto [disillusioned]
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
[...]
>> >
>> I've just read an interesting little book by Simon Critchley you might
>> like to check out "Continental Philosophy - A very short Introduction"
>> Oxford University Press - which attempts to show the source of
>> antagonism between Continental Philosophy and analytical philosophy.
>
>I think lots of contintental philosophy is accepted as being credible and
>coherent, existentialism for instance. Are the problems with postmodernsim
>traceable to contintental philosophy in general?
Perhaps so - as post-modern writers are often from this tradition. A
definitive list is of these might be difficult but certainly Baudrillard
and Lyotard? I think one source in post-modernism is that of multiple
views of a given object, which arises in some continental philosophy,
and is contrasted by the reductionism of analysis. In a sense Po-Mo is
anti philosophy as philosophy is/if philosophy is about truth - as truth
is used to dominate and oppress - but also the idea of truth expresses
an underlying idea or wish for the world being able to be explained
truthfully - again this might be seen in the writings of Nietzsche and
Co. Here the analogy is with critical theory and literature - as it may
be possible to explain away a novel - but that might would miss the
point(s). And here we sense that such analysis - even if true - might
not be ethical.
>
>>
>> A common ground between Analytical and Continental philosophy might be
>> possible,
>
>Well for instance, how would analytic philosophy address issues of
>simulation and the media ('hyperreality')? It would want to assert that
>there /was/ an 'original', yet could it make this position credible in a
>rigorous fashion?
I'm not certain how much that is a problem - if it was it would be its
problem - better *is* its problem. This rigour seems in effect baseless
- just a faith that somehow a rigorous process is good.
>
>I read ''Philosophy Now" this month, which included a look at the 'Truman
>Show" in its film reviews. The author's position was generally: well
>obviously we're /not/ the victims of a massive television show, just think o
>f the morality and the organisational difficulties, but the film provides
>good philosophical food for thought and we should stop to think just how
>much we believe of what we see on television. This sort of haughty, blase
>'rationalist' attitude really annoys me. Instead the article could have used
>the opportunity to discuss the problem of simulation and its claimed
>ubiquity.
And counter *philosophical* in away. The 'obvious' shows that the
reviewer failed to see how the show could be a metaphor - how we live
our lives as if we are in such a show, regarding ourselves as the
subject of a book - with significant events - how we regard and use
other people - "friends" - "wives" - an escape from this would be to
escape a predominant world view - that our lives are such a chain of
events marked incidents which hopefully achieves something. Such
individual histories in which the world is out there - is what truman
might wish to escape, the story, with the author - God / Kristos? - to
some primitive (sic) state of being which does not recognise
individuality or linear time. I think i'm still being rationalist... and
another feature of the film is how the viewers in fact live less-
authentic lives than Truman, and once the drama finishes seek other
"entertainment" without so much as a second thought. Still being
rationale and commenting on what the film means the next step would be
to blur the ideas, Truman was an actor playing a real person living in a
world of actors playing real people who were in fact actors... "in fact"
Is the myth of truman more real than its audience, - which audience -
the one in the film or the one not in the film.
I am the victim of a massive world of culture... now where's the
boat....
>
>Yet as I say, I've seen a very good analytic treatment of Sartre: "Using
>Sartre", McLuhan.
In analytic philosophy however the subject and object never seem to be
confused.
>
>> in my own opinion i would say that analytic philosophy and
>> post-modernism are necessarily opposites. From the Analytic point of
>> view i think post-modernism will always look wrong - because it probably
>> is.
>
>I do sympathise! A serious short-coming one would think. My problem is that
>I don't understand it as much as I would like (reading Baudrillard) so one
>never knows whether the problem is lack of understanding or lack of proper
>argument.
This ambiguous state is unpleasant - but maybe authentic. If i can make
a convincing argument for what the truman show is about - does it
matter, Derrida - who is not in his terms po-mo - i think attempts
something like this in his Deconstruction. When you reading Baudrillard
is it in order to pass an exam written and marked by him, its possible
to use Freud to criticise or explore Shakespeare - though he would not
be aware of the theory... would this be therefore proper?
>You also start to get the worrying feeling that to reason
>something through would be to miss the whole point, paradox being such an
>open feature of the work. Yet you also get the idea that /they/ know what
>they're talking about, because otherwise they wouldn't be so intricate and
>appear so blase about paradox. Its almost an open abuse of Derrida's
>'there's nothing outside the text'.
I don't know, maybe its like Jazz - rather than try to take down the
notes we are expected to improvise with it? If its valid to see in art
something that the artist was not aware of - why not so in philosophy?
What we are then talking about is what rules are there - in Jazz they
are clearly some structures - except in free Jazz.
>
>But on another note much as analytic philosophers like to make a show of
>solidarity, believing in good old-fashioned rationality, they all refute and
>contradict one another in any case. Has over 2000 years of broadly
>understood 'analytic' philosophy made any more progress than a few decades
>of postmodernism?
>
>atto [disillusioned]
>
I think its a great edifice based on the idea of individuality but has
in order to be made sublimated individuals - and this edifice now
appears to you as an illusion.
--
James Whitehead
Chikara
development of the concept of rhizome as a branch (or I should say "node")
of semiotic. This would be a good reconciliation of the multiplicity and
logic. I looked for work about this and didn't found much... but I'm sure
there is a lot of similar work out there, probably in information theory,
communication studies or cybernetic. Reading suggestions / opinions on this
topic would be très appreciated!
Amicably, Chikara
"atto" <ajw...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
9mefna$92h$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Eric Henriksen
"atto" <ajw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9mefna$92h$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> What's the relation between analytic philosophy and post-modernism? Are
they
> necessarily at logger-heads? Is it possible for postmodernism to become
> analytic? Postmodernism does seem aversed to argument, which is why so
many
> find it unsatidfying. Can analytic philosophy become postmodern? Perhaps
> analytic philosophy is unable to admit to the reality of the postmodern
> landscape. Or do they both simply speak different languages.
You might -- with a little coaxing and the services of a mediator and
translator -- get the philosophers to speak to one another, but I think
there is a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting the analytical
philosophers and the loonies from the cultural studies sector to stand in
the same room together, much less get them speaking the same language.
> I write as a student learning philosophy in the analytic school. Much as I
> prefer postmodernism to analytic philosophy, the latter being dry and
dull,
> the former being exciting, whenever I read postmodern philosophy a little
> voice at the back of my mind keeps nagging 'yes, but what would my
Professor
> of Logic think about that? Do you have a crucial point you are attempting
to
> make, which can be expressed in no other way?'
>
[I'm not quite sure whom you intend to denote by "postmodernism". I detest
the term. It is commonly used in such a loose and broad sense that it ends
up ultimately meaning nothing at all. Since your comparison concerns
philosopher's, I'll assume you mean post-Kantian Continental philosophers --
or at least those of a roughly post-structuralist variety.]
While much has been made over the supposed gulf of understanding dividing
the Continental philosohpical tradition and the Anglo-American Analyticical
school, an undue reliance on this over-convenient generalization can serve
to veil what are interesting points of convergence between many of the
continentals and some of their analytic peers on the other side of the
channel and across the pond. Specifically, the notion of reference,
especially in natural language, has proven to be problematic for analytic
philosophy and, on this issue, many of the analytics seem more like some of
their continental foes than their supossed compatriots. For instance,
Wittgenstein. How do we deal with him? I, for one, find it contrived and
unsatisfactory to cleave him in half placing the younger Wittgenstein with
ole Bertie and company, while deporting the older Wittgenstein and sending
him back to the continent -- this is, I think, the preferred solution for
those who find his older self something of an embarrasment.
You might also look at Susanne Langer. Another prominent defector from
Russell's camp, she found the analytic school's sweeping dimissal of the
problemic nature of reference in natural language to be short sighted and so
ventured forth into the realm where symbolic logic, religion, art, and
mythology intersect.
And, of course, Quine and Austin often failed to tow the analytic party
line.
Over on the continental side of the fence there are post-structuralist and
phenomenological philosophers whom, I'd wager, your prof. might not agree
with, but she probably wouldn't throw you out of her lecture hall for
reading them either. There is little hope of a reconciliation between
Kristeva or Lacan with any perspective which values cogent argument, but
Merleau-Ponty, Cassirer, Ricoeur, Barthes, Heidegger, and Deleuze, among
others, are
all, to a greater or lesser extent, embraced by many of those who are
self-professed postmoderns as well as being widely accepted as, at least,
somewhat legitimate
philosophers by those in the analytical camp -- I say somewhat because the
Anglo-Americans are traditionally pretty insistant about keeping their
acadamies tidy and their disciplines clearly differentiated, wheareas the
Continentals tend to play a little fast and loose with departmental
boudaries. I'd also place Derrida, Foucault, and Levinas in the
aforementioned group, but they're a little on the controversial side.
If you are looking for a single philosopher to bridge the gap, I think you
might want to take a look at Umberto Eco. Over the course of his academic
career he has been claimed by both sides as a brother-in-arms. Conversely,
he has proven a disappointment to each. Very early in his career, he was
one of the first to articulate a reader response theory of literary
interpretation, but he thought most of those who followed him with reader
response theories of their own abused the texts they critiqued and so he
then spent the better part of next 35 years developing a rigorous semiotics
to establish the limits of interpretative activity -- a semiotics which
attempts to account for both natural and formal lanugages; verbal, gestural,
and iconic signs; symbolic logic, common sense, and poetics; and most
recently pre-cognitive sensory perception.
Eric Henriksen
la lutinerie
the solidly entrenched position sometimes expressed as "Wogs
starts at Calais."
--
-- Lutin
...hereditatis columna erecta,
hagion chiton eraphon....
Joyce: Finnegan's Wake
James Whitehead
<cpu_th...@hotmail.com> writes
>A common language between analytic philosophy and postmodernism could be the
>development of the concept of rhizome as a branch (or I should say "node")
>of semiotic. This would be a good reconciliation of the multiplicity and
>logic. I looked for work about this and didn't found much... but I'm sure
>there is a lot of similar work out there, probably in information theory,
>communication studies or cybernetic. Reading suggestions / opinions on this
>topic would be très appreciated!
>
>Amicably, Chikara
An interesting idea - but aren't their aims so different that a
communication even using a common language wouldn't work - i seem to
remember Wittgenstein saying something about if Lions could speak we
still wouldn't understand them...
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
lutinerie <lu...@hrgi.net> writes
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>You might -- with a little coaxing and the services of a mediator and
>translator -- get the philosophers to speak to one another, but I think
>there is a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting the analytical
>philosophers and the loonies from the cultural studies sector to stand in
>the same room together, much less get them speaking the same language.
>
Well from the loonies point of view they think the obsession with medium
sized dry goods in the philosophy department is strange.
>
>[I'm not quite sure whom you intend to denote by "postmodernism". I detest
>the term. It is commonly used in such a loose and broad sense that it ends
>up ultimately meaning nothing at all.
in which case calm down - its a sign of madness to be emotional about
nothing at all?
> Since your comparison concerns
>philosopher's, I'll assume you mean post-Kantian Continental philosophers --
>or at least those of a roughly post-structuralist variety.]
>
>While much has been made over the supposed gulf of understanding dividing
>the Continental philosohpical tradition and the Anglo-American Analyticical
>school, an undue reliance on this over-convenient generalization can serve
>to veil what are interesting points of convergence between many of the
>continentals and some of their analytic peers on the other side of the
>channel and across the pond. Specifically, the notion of reference,
>especially in natural language, has proven to be problematic for analytic
>philosophy and, on this issue, many of the analytics seem more like some of
>their continental foes than their supossed compatriots. For instance,
>Wittgenstein. How do we deal with him? I, for one, find it contrived and
>unsatisfactory to cleave him in half placing the younger Wittgenstein with
>ole Bertie and company, while deporting the older Wittgenstein and sending
>him back to the continent -- this is, I think, the preferred solution for
>those who find his older self something of an embarrasment.
>
I think po-mo represents a period after philosophy - including
continental philosophy.
But bridging the gap in effect understands that which intends to be
incomprehensible - (and so more *realistic*).
--
James Whitehead
Eric Henriksen
"la lutinerie" <lu...@hrgi.net> wrote in message
news:PDFj7.412$_I.6...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
Not being a Brit, I had to do a little research on the phrase "Wogs start at
Calais", but I am still unclear as to your meaning. Who is blowing smoke?
And where resides the Anglocentrism?
Eric Henriksen
"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t7vsoFAY...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>
> I think po-mo represents a period after philosophy - including
> continental philosophy.
>
For the sake of speaking of something specific, would you care to name
those -- or, at least, a representative sampling -- whom you consider pomo?
And in what fashion are they *after* philosophy. Has philosophy, generally
speaking, ended? So that they are after philosophy by the simple accident
of their birth. Or, did you intend that what they practice is other than
philosophy? So that they are after philosophy as a result of their having
abandoned it.
> >If you are looking for a single philosopher to bridge the gap, I think
you
> >might want to take a look at Umberto Eco. Over the course of his
academic
> >career he has been claimed by both sides as a brother-in-arms.
Conversely,
> >he has proven a disappointment to each. Very early in his career, he was
> >one of the first to articulate a reader response theory of literary
> >interpretation, but he thought most of those who followed him with reader
> >response theories of their own abused the texts they critiqued and so he
> >then spent the better part of next 35 years developing a rigorous
semiotics
> >to establish the limits of interpretative activity -- a semiotics which
> >attempts to account for both natural and formal lanugages; verbal,
gestural,
> >and iconic signs; symbolic logic, common sense, and poetics; and most
> >recently pre-cognitive sensory perception.
>
> But bridging the gap in effect understands that which intends to be
> incomprehensible - (and so more *realistic*).
Who is intending to be incomprehensible? And by your measure, is being
incomprehensible, in itself, sufficient to establish realism? Or, would it
only be a certain type of the incomprehensible which best mimics reality?
Eric
la lutinerie
meaning "a foreigner, esp. a
non-White one." I think the quoted expression actually belongs to a time of
British imperialism that
is largely obsolete but still retains a foothold among 'analytic philosophy
scholars' referring to those
not within their pale.
--
-- Lutin
...hereditatis columna erecta,
hagion chiton eraphon....
Joyce: Finnegan's Wake
"Eric Henriksen" <henrik...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:Dzxk7.495$3P1.2...@news.uswest.net...
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:t7vsoFAY...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> I think po-mo represents a period after philosophy - including
>> continental philosophy.
>>
>
>For the sake of speaking of something specific, would you care to name
>those -- or, at least, a representative sampling -- whom you consider pomo?
you want what's called a "nice knock down argument"? and some kind of
definition like an entomology of human thought - six legs - thorax,
wings.... so it must be an analytical philosopher...
>
>And in what fashion are they *after* philosophy. Has philosophy, generally
>speaking, ended? So that they are after philosophy by the simple accident
>of their birth. Or, did you intend that what they practice is other than
>philosophy? So that they are after philosophy as a result of their having
>abandoned it.
yes an accident - like not being much need for lamp lighters or vestal
virgins these days. What are they doing? have you ever been to a steam
tractor rally- how the experts enthuse about redundant artefacts, we
decorate our pubs with old farm implements, in the same way as
universities have departments of philosophy, in a few museums the
attendants dress in Victorian costume.. but what makes them authentic is
not the costume but their paid job in the museum. Imagine now a visitor
dressing up in costume also - ridiculous - so no more "philosophy" or
even natural science outside the museums.
The image of abandoning is interesting - as in some are drowning - or
drowned - others have crawled up on to the stern of particle physics
(or evolutionary biology) in order to philosophise and some are in small
boats writing fiction and appearing on TV. (i suppose god is going down
with the ship)
>
>> >If you are looking for a single philosopher to bridge the gap, I think
>you
>> >might want to take a look at Umberto Eco. Over the course of his
>academic
>> >career he has been claimed by both sides as a brother-in-arms.
>Conversely,
>> >he has proven a disappointment to each. Very early in his career, he was
>> >one of the first to articulate a reader response theory of literary
>> >interpretation, but he thought most of those who followed him with reader
>> >response theories of their own abused the texts they critiqued and so he
>> >then spent the better part of next 35 years developing a rigorous
>semiotics
>> >to establish the limits of interpretative activity -- a semiotics which
>> >attempts to account for both natural and formal lanugages; verbal,
>gestural,
>> >and iconic signs; symbolic logic, common sense, and poetics; and most
>> >recently pre-cognitive sensory perception.
>>
>> But bridging the gap in effect understands that which intends to be
>> incomprehensible - (and so more *realistic*).
>
>Who is intending to be incomprehensible? And by your measure, is being
>incomprehensible, in itself, sufficient to establish realism? Or, would it
>only be a certain type of the incomprehensible which best mimics reality?
>
As to who i'll leave that for awhile - but the idea is not that this
mimics reality - but it is reality - for reality is as such - compare
this to the idea of a reality that can be understood by logic,
represent this by the painter and model, where as the situation is more
like a jackson pollock. Now go back to the who list - it becomes
everyone... in that the mistake was to think that philosophy could write
about the world at a distance - at one remove - where for instance ones
ability to get on with girls or get on a horse had nothing to do with a
theory of physics or metaphysics.
--
James Whitehead
Kristian Kirsfeldt
of the 'posts', 'guerrilas' and 'urbans' were up more than 20%. Oh yes, the
crisis in the Stock Exchange of Terms seems to be dying down -- the new
sector is blooming quite well.
But yes, it is also true that most of these terms don't stand up to much
knocking about. They break very easily nowadays and most of the people who
tinker with them yearn after cast-iron toys. 'Come-come', I tried to comfort
one of these tinkers,'don't be let down by modern times, becouse I have some
*wink* inside information, that in the following years there will be an
upward movement in the old sector.' 'Um, inside information?' the tinker
asked. 'Yes, inside information based on the fact that at the cost of making
today's great thoughts at least ten acres of rainforest is rendered extinct
and some half a dozen children are killed in the third world.' 'Oh yes,' a
clear understanding creeped over the tinker's ageworn face,'now I do see
that all I have to do meanwhile is to give unbridled lectures and use coarse
language!'
And I do fancy they seem to be doing it rather well.
Eric Henriksen
> In article <Uzxk7.497$3P1.2...@news.uswest.net>, Eric Henriksen
> <henrik...@qwest.net> writes
> >
> >"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:t7vsoFAY...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> I think po-mo represents a period after philosophy - including
> >> continental philosophy.
> >>
> >
> >For the sake of speaking of something specific, would you care to name
> >those -- or, at least, a representative sampling -- whom you consider
pomo?
>
> you want what's called a "nice knock down argument"? and some kind of
> definition like an entomology of human thought - six legs - thorax,
> wings.... so it must be an analytical philosopher...
Actually, I didn't request an argument at all, much less a "nice knock down"
one. I didn't ask for a taxonomic account of postmoderism, I asked for a
representative sampling of those you consider postmodern. If you can't
provide such, then any further argument -- whether of the "nice knock down"
type or any other type -- would be futile. It does no good to progress any
further in our discussion of your assertion "po-mo represents a period after
philosophy" if you fail to provide any indication of what you believe pomo
is. Toward this end, you could provide a taxonomic definition, although I
would highly prefer that you simply list some of those who represent a
postmodernism which takes place after philosophy. If you provide a
taxonomy, then we have to deal with what might very well be James' very own
private pomo. Whereas, providing a sampling of representative pomos gives
us something other than your understanding on which to focus. Unless, of
course, you wish to assert the primacy of your personal understanding of
pomo over and against the writings of others labeled postmodern by
themselves or others. So, I entreat you, please just provide a list of
those you consider representative pomos.
> >And in what fashion are they *after* philosophy. Has philosophy,
generally
> >speaking, ended? So that they are after philosophy by the simple
accident
> >of their birth. Or, did you intend that what they practice is other than
> >philosophy? So that they are after philosophy as a result of their
having
> >abandoned it.
>
> yes an accident - like not being much need for lamp lighters or vestal
> virgins these days. What are they doing? have you ever been to a steam
> tractor rally- how the experts enthuse about redundant artefacts, we
> decorate our pubs with old farm implements, in the same way as
> universities have departments of philosophy, in a few museums the
> attendants dress in Victorian costume.. but what makes them authentic is
> not the costume but their paid job in the museum. Imagine now a visitor
> dressing up in costume also - ridiculous - so no more "philosophy" or
> even natural science outside the museums.
We have an assertion: philosphy is dead (you also seem to suggest the same
is true for natural science). And an analogy: the philosopher is to the
university as the tour guide is to the museum. I think you are going to
have to provide something much more substantive than your treadbare analogy
to argue for your assertion.
Eric
James Whitehead
<noo...@netexpress.ee> writes
waiting for godot?
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:32P6rJAE...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <Uzxk7.497$3P1.2...@news.uswest.net>, Eric Henriksen
>> <henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>> >
>> >"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:t7vsoFAY...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >> I think po-mo represents a period after philosophy - including
>> >> continental philosophy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >For the sake of speaking of something specific, would you care to name
>> >those -- or, at least, a representative sampling -- whom you consider
>pomo?
>>
>> you want what's called a "nice knock down argument"? and some kind of
>> definition like an entomology of human thought - six legs - thorax,
>> wings.... so it must be an analytical philosopher...
>
>Actually, I didn't request an argument at all, much less a "nice knock down"
>one. I didn't ask for a taxonomic account of postmoderism, I asked for a
>representative sampling of those you consider postmodern.
"A representative sampling" a pseudo scientific list? You want a
discussion of what post modernism is - in modernist terms. Much as i
would like to provide one it wont work. Cant you see even the logic of
the question 'what philosophers do after philosophy' is strange? If
their essence precedes their existence then they like fish out of water
will die, or if essence follows existence they will like telephone
sanitisers on a desert island make a career change.
>If you can't
>provide such, then any further argument -- whether of the "nice knock down"
>type or any other type -- would be futile.
exactly the modernist view- how can you live without a credit card? The
fact that most human relationships are not based on logical argument is
ignored?
> It does no good to progress any
>further in our discussion of your assertion "po-mo represents a period after
>philosophy" if you fail to provide any indication of what you believe pomo
>is.
Again your quite right the idea of progress is suspect! A chief suspect
at that. And in asking what "that" is - is the boundary drawing that po-
mo resists - Cpt Cook to native - "WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL IS THAT" Native
Australian "Kangaroo" (I don't understand your language)
>Toward this end, you could provide a taxonomic definition, although I
>would highly prefer that you simply list some of those who represent a
>postmodernism which takes place after philosophy. If you provide a
>taxonomy, then we have to deal with what might very well be James' very own
>private pomo.
Excellent - now your making progress... as in if a gang of thugs decided
what it was and they went round beating up everyone who thought
otherwise we would have a clearer idea of post-modernity.
> Whereas, providing a sampling of representative pomos gives
>us something other than your understanding on which to focus.
Again your quite right - get the natives to appoint a leader - then lock
this leader in prison.
> Unless, of
>course, you wish to assert the primacy of your personal understanding of
>pomo over and against the writings of others labeled postmodern by
>themselves or others. So, I entreat you, please just provide a list of
>those you consider representative pomos.
I provided a list "everything" was in it... Its better to see that its
the very lack of *new* characters which differentiates po-mo. The lack
of definite lists - lets take Dickens for one example....
>
>> >And in what fashion are they *after* philosophy. Has philosophy,
>generally
>> >speaking, ended? So that they are after philosophy by the simple
>accident
>> >of their birth. Or, did you intend that what they practice is other than
>> >philosophy? So that they are after philosophy as a result of their
>having
>> >abandoned it.
>>
>> yes an accident - like not being much need for lamp lighters or vestal
>> virgins these days. What are they doing? have you ever been to a steam
>> tractor rally- how the experts enthuse about redundant artefacts, we
>> decorate our pubs with old farm implements, in the same way as
>> universities have departments of philosophy, in a few museums the
>> attendants dress in Victorian costume.. but what makes them authentic is
>> not the costume but their paid job in the museum. Imagine now a visitor
>> dressing up in costume also - ridiculous - so no more "philosophy" or
>> even natural science outside the museums.
>
>We have an assertion: philosphy is dead
Yes - made by modernists...
>(you also seem to suggest the same
>is true for natural science).
I do - the assertion science is dead is the last statement of science -
as God is dead is a (the last) theological proposition. What comes after
is post-
> And an analogy: the philosopher is to the
>university as the tour guide is to the museum. I think you are going to
>have to provide something much more substantive than your treadbare analogy
>to argue for your assertion.
>
What philosophy or Science is produced outside of universities these
days - as your into numbers a percentage of major scientific ideas would
do. As far as i understand most major scientific theories - Einstein and
before were made outside university. (at best the occupation of the
scientific or philosophic author was neutral) Today the importance re a
scientific idea is the post held by the person propagating it and not
the truth of the idea.
If we take the term scientist we can amplify it by adding NASA as in
Nasa Scientists say the moon is in fact cheese.... in much the same way
as French in front of Prostitute adds a certain cache?
--
James Whitehead
Eric Henriksen
> In article <exRk7.365$gX1.2...@news.uswest.net>, Eric Henriksen
> <henrik...@qwest.net> writes
> >
> >"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:32P6rJAE...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <Uzxk7.497$3P1.2...@news.uswest.net>, Eric Henriksen
> >> <henrik...@qwest.net> writes
> >> >
> >> >"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:t7vsoFAY...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> >> >>
> >> >> I think po-mo represents a period after philosophy - including
> >> >> continental philosophy.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >For the sake of speaking of something specific, would you care to name
> >> >those -- or, at least, a representative sampling -- whom you consider
> pomo?
> >>
> >> you want what's called a "nice knock down argument"? and some kind of
> >> definition like an entomology of human thought - six legs - thorax,
> >> wings.... so it must be an analytical philosopher...
> >
> >Actually, I didn't request an argument at all, much less a "nice knock down"
> >one. I didn't ask for a taxonomic account of postmoderism, I asked for a
> >representative sampling of those you consider postmodern.
>
> "A representative sampling" a pseudo scientific list? You want a
> discussion of what post modernism is - in modernist terms. Much as i
> would like to provide one it wont work.
Fer Chrissakes, James, can't you do any better than quibbling over the
semantics of simple phrases. I didn't ask for anything remotely
scientific -- pseudo or otherwise. You want to fling the the term
"postmodern" around. I just want some idea of what in the hell it is
you are talking about. I'd prefer we work with a definition of the
type "so and so is a postmodern and this is what they say". I'd like
to avoid a definition of the type "postmodernism is such and such,
insofar as I, James Whitehead, understand it". I'd really, really
like to avoid a definition of the type "postmodernism is whatever I,
James Whitehead, feel it is at this moment, but don't hold me to that
because postmodernism is a slippery beast which resists any attempt to
define it". You seem hellbent on sticking with a definition of the
latter type.
And asking you to clarify what it is you are talking about is not a
modernist tactic. That's pure balderdash! People have been asking
since time immemorial that the incoherent and the rambling clearly
state just what in the hell it is they are talking about.
>Cant you see even the logic of
> the question 'what philosophers do after philosophy' is strange? If
> their essence precedes their existence then they like fish out of water
> will die, or if essence follows existence they will like telephone
> sanitisers on a desert island make a career change.
>
I see very clearly the strange logic of the question: what do
philosophers do after philosophy. In fact, it is partially that very
strangeness which causes me to reject your assertion: I think po-mo
represents a period after philosophy - including continental
philosophy. To be clear, my objection to your assertion is two-fold:
1. My understanding of postmodernism consists of nothing pertaining
to its being "after philosophy" I might be wrong. I don't pretend to
know for sure. What I do know is that our respective understandings
of postmodernism differ on this point. Seems to me we should seek to
resolve -- or, at least, clarify -- our differences by resorting to an
analysis of something other than our personal opinions on the matter.
I just want to know what in the world it is that you are talking about
-- a fundamental pre-requisite to communication.
2. I suspect that your notion of "after philosophy" is nonsense, but
I want you to clarify what it is that you are talking about. As it
stands, you haven't offered enough in the way of explanation for me to
venture an opinion.
>
> >If you can't
> >provide such, then any further argument -- whether of the "nice knock down"
> >type or any other type -- would be futile.
>
> exactly the modernist view- how can you live without a credit card? The
> fact that most human relationships are not based on logical argument is
> ignored?
Again, I must ask -- and I know this getting repetitive -- what in the
hell are you talking about here?
>
> > It does no good to progress any
> >further in our discussion of your assertion "po-mo represents a period after
> >philosophy" if you fail to provide any indication of what you believe pomo
> >is.
>
> Again your quite right the idea of progress is suspect! A chief suspect
> at that. And in asking what "that" is - is the boundary drawing that po-
> mo resists - Cpt Cook to native - "WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL IS THAT" Native
> Australian "Kangaroo" (I don't understand your language)
>
The Tao Te Ching, which begins by telling us that the true Tao cannot
be named, consists of 64 entries that attempt to communicate something
about the unnameable. I'd be extremly happy if you could do 1/100 th
the job.
>
> >Toward this end, you could provide a taxonomic definition, although I
> >would highly prefer that you simply list some of those who represent a
> >postmodernism which takes place after philosophy. If you provide a
> >taxonomy, then we have to deal with what might very well be James' very own
> >private pomo.
>
> Excellent - now your making progress... as in if a gang of thugs decided
> what it was and they went round beating up everyone who thought
> otherwise we would have a clearer idea of post-modernity.
>
> > Whereas, providing a sampling of representative pomos gives
> >us something other than your understanding on which to focus.
>
> Again your quite right - get the natives to appoint a leader - then lock
> this leader in prison.
>
> > Unless, of
> >course, you wish to assert the primacy of your personal understanding of
> >pomo over and against the writings of others labeled postmodern by
> >themselves or others. So, I entreat you, please just provide a list of
> >those you consider representative pomos.
>
> I provided a list "everything" was in it... Its better to see that its
> the very lack of *new* characters which differentiates po-mo. The lack
> of definite lists - lets take Dickens for one example....
Are you proposing Dickens as a representative pomo? Strange choice.
If so, care to show how he is after philosophy?
>
> >
> >> >And in what fashion are they *after* philosophy. Has philosophy,
> generally
> >> >speaking, ended? So that they are after philosophy by the simple
> accident
> >> >of their birth. Or, did you intend that what they practice is other than
> >> >philosophy? So that they are after philosophy as a result of their
> having
> >> >abandoned it.
> >>
> >> yes an accident - like not being much need for lamp lighters or vestal
> >> virgins these days. What are they doing? have you ever been to a steam
> >> tractor rally- how the experts enthuse about redundant artefacts, we
> >> decorate our pubs with old farm implements, in the same way as
> >> universities have departments of philosophy, in a few museums the
> >> attendants dress in Victorian costume.. but what makes them authentic is
> >> not the costume but their paid job in the museum. Imagine now a visitor
> >> dressing up in costume also - ridiculous - so no more "philosophy" or
> >> even natural science outside the museums.
> >
> >We have an assertion: philosphy is dead
>
> Yes - made by modernists...
>
> >(you also seem to suggest the same
> >is true for natural science).
>
> I do - the assertion science is dead is the last statement of science -
> as God is dead is a (the last) theological proposition. What comes after
> is post-
And yet, theology continues on totally unconcerned with those who have
announced its demise.
>
> > And an analogy: the philosopher is to the
> >university as the tour guide is to the museum. I think you are going to
> >have to provide something much more substantive than your treadbare analogy
> >to argue for your assertion.
> >
>
> What philosophy or Science is produced outside of universities these
> days - as your into numbers a percentage of major scientific ideas would
> do. As far as i understand most major scientific theories - Einstein and
> before were made outside university. (at best the occupation of the
> scientific or philosophic author was neutral) Today the importance re a
> scientific idea is the post held by the person propagating it and not
> the truth of the idea.
>
> If we take the term scientist we can amplify it by adding NASA as in
> Nasa Scientists say the moon is in fact cheese.... in much the same way
> as French in front of Prostitute adds a certain cache?
Sorry to say James, but this is complete and total nonsense. To begin
with, you claim that science was at one time conducted outside the
university, whereas it is now conducted within primarily within the
university. You then go on to use "Nasa Scientists" as an example.
Problem is: Nasa is not an academic institution. Neither are JPL,
Bell Labs (now Lucent something or other), Los Alamos Labratories,
etc... If anything, science is conducted almost primarily -- whether
directly or by exclusive research agreements -- under the auspices of
private industry. Read around a little and you will find a growing
alarm among many in the scientific community concerning the
privitazation of research and the consequential transformation of
scientific knowledge into intellectual property.
Eric
James Whitehead
Henriksen <cre...@hotmail.com> writes
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<N2s0bNAPAJl7Ewv
>m...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
Only because i prefer it, but OK is this what you want - Jean
Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Emberto Ecco, Michel Foucalt, Robert
Venturi , Jean Lyotard, Frederic Jameson....
"The term postmodernism appears in a range of contexts from academic
essays to clothing advertisements ... its meaning differs with context
to such an extent that it seems to function like Levi-Strauss' 'floating
signifier'... multivalent challenge to various founding assumptions of
western European culture since the 15th C (or 5th C) ... assumptions
...from physics to philosophy, from politics to art ... related to
seismic changes in the way we register the world and communicate with
each other... To grasp what is at stake in postmodernism it is necessary
to think historically and broadly, in the kind of complex terms that
inevitably involve multidisciplinary effort... although diverse and
eclectic, postmodernism can be recognised by two key assumptions.
First, the assumption that there is no common denominator - in 'nature'
or 'truth' or 'God' or 'future'- that guarantees either the Oneness of
the world or the possibility of neutral or objective thought. Second,
the assumption that all human systems operate like language, being self-
reflexive rather than referential systems... " Elizabeth Deeds Ermarth
Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy -
or try www.jameswhitehead.org
>
>And asking you to clarify what it is you are talking about is not a
>modernist tactic.
maybe trait not tactic-
> That's pure balderdash! People have been asking
>since time immemorial that the incoherent and the rambling clearly
>state just what in the hell it is they are talking about.
Some have others have found transcendence and mysticism in their
ramblings - our tramps (hobos US?) are in India holy men.
>
>>Cant you see even the logic of
>> the question 'what philosophers do after philosophy' is strange? If
>> their essence precedes their existence then they like fish out of water
>> will die, or if essence follows existence they will like telephone
>> sanitisers on a desert island make a career change.
>>
>
>I see very clearly the strange logic of the question: what do
>philosophers do after philosophy. In fact, it is partially that very
>strangeness which causes me to reject your assertion: I think po-mo
>represents a period after philosophy - including continental
>philosophy. To be clear, my objection to your assertion is two-fold:
>
>1. My understanding of postmodernism consists of nothing pertaining
>to its being "after philosophy" I might be wrong. I don't pretend to
>know for sure.
But you think that there is a "correct position" which philosophy
aspires to - "there is no common denominator - in 'nature' or 'truth' or
'God' or 'future'- that guarantees either the Oneness of the world or
the possibility of neutral or objective thought"
> What I do know is that our respective understandings
>of postmodernism differ on this point. Seems to me we should seek to
>resolve -- or, at least, clarify -- our differences by resorting to an
>analysis of something other than our personal opinions on the matter.
Fine - lets phone an expert - how about God?
>I just want to know what in the world it is that you are talking about
>-- a fundamental pre-requisite to communication.
>
>2. I suspect that your notion of "after philosophy" is nonsense, but
>I want you to clarify what it is that you are talking about. As it
>stands, you haven't offered enough in the way of explanation for me to
>venture an opinion.
You need to define nonsense - in logical positivism's terms that's just
what philosophy is. I'd say with no objectively some ideas of philosophy
might have problems.
>
>
>>
>> >If you can't
>> >provide such, then any further argument -- whether of the "nice knock down"
>> >type or any other type -- would be futile.
>>
>> exactly the modernist view- how can you live without a credit card? The
>> fact that most human relationships are not based on logical argument is
>> ignored?
>
>Again, I must ask -- and I know this getting repetitive -- what in the
>hell are you talking about here?
That there is not "AN EXPLANATION"
>
>>
>> > It does no good to progress any
>> >further in our discussion of your assertion "po-mo represents a period after
>> >philosophy" if you fail to provide any indication of what you believe pomo
>> >is.
>>
>> Again your quite right the idea of progress is suspect! A chief suspect
>> at that. And in asking what "that" is - is the boundary drawing that po-
>> mo resists - Cpt Cook to native - "WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL IS THAT" Native
>> Australian "Kangaroo" (I don't understand your language)
>>
>
>The Tao Te Ching, which begins by telling us that the true Tao cannot
>be named, consists of 64 entries that attempt to communicate something
>about the unnameable. I'd be extremly happy if you could do 1/100 th
>the job.
First the books(') for dummies - unfortunately i cant even make you take
this first step.
>
>>
>> >Toward this end, you could provide a taxonomic definition, although I
>> >would highly prefer that you simply list some of those who represent a
>> >postmodernism which takes place after philosophy. If you provide a
>> >taxonomy, then we have to deal with what might very well be James' very own
>> >private pomo.
>>
>> Excellent - now your making progress... as in if a gang of thugs decided
>> what it was and they went round beating up everyone who thought
>> otherwise we would have a clearer idea of post-modernity.
>>
>> > Whereas, providing a sampling of representative pomos gives
>> >us something other than your understanding on which to focus.
>>
>> Again your quite right - get the natives to appoint a leader - then lock
>> this leader in prison.
>>
>> > Unless, of
>> >course, you wish to assert the primacy of your personal understanding of
>> >pomo over and against the writings of others labeled postmodern by
>> >themselves or others. So, I entreat you, please just provide a list of
>> >those you consider representative pomos.
>>
>> I provided a list "everything" was in it... Its better to see that its
>> the very lack of *new* characters which differentiates po-mo. The lack
>> of definite lists - lets take Dickens for one example....
>
>Are you proposing Dickens as a representative pomo? Strange choice.
>If so, care to show how he is after philosophy?
Well here is Dickens - and we are living in a period after philosophy...
I'm not proposing anything - you want a representative - anyone will do.
As long as it is it seems NOT the person you are talking to or yourself.
Which is kind of strange that we have to communicate via third parties,
Only in the steam tractor sense - the council of Nicea made CNN but the
Synod of the Church of England doesn't - or does it? It no longer offers
meaningful or useful propositions about the world, same for philosophy
and science...
>
>>
>> > And an analogy: the philosopher is to the
>> >university as the tour guide is to the museum. I think you are going to
>> >have to provide something much more substantive than your treadbare analogy
>> >to argue for your assertion.
>> >
>>
>> What philosophy or Science is produced outside of universities these
>> days - as your into numbers a percentage of major scientific ideas would
>> do. As far as i understand most major scientific theories - Einstein and
>> before were made outside university. (at best the occupation of the
>> scientific or philosophic author was neutral) Today the importance re a
>> scientific idea is the post held by the person propagating it and not
>> the truth of the idea.
>>
>> If we take the term scientist we can amplify it by adding NASA as in
>> Nasa Scientists say the moon is in fact cheese.... in much the same way
>> as French in front of Prostitute adds a certain cache?
>
>Sorry to say James, but this is complete and total nonsense. To begin
>with, you claim that science was at one time conducted outside the
>university, whereas it is now conducted within primarily within the
>university. You then go on to use "Nasa Scientists" as an example.
Not of the proposition - is it true? Einstein Faraday Newton Darwin
Galileo Mendel - some significant science pre 20th century seems to
have been done by amateurs - could the same be said or occur now?
>Problem is: Nasa is not an academic institution. Neither are JPL,
>Bell Labs (now Lucent something or other), Los Alamos Labratories,
>etc... If anything, science is conducted almost primarily -- whether
>directly or by exclusive research agreements -- under the auspices of
>private industry.
Even better for my argument - science is then about profit - now - and
no longer truth. The amateurs wanted the truth, the academics the kudos
and Nobel prizes, and now just the money! This maps nicely onto the
history of the church also! (first the apostles - fishermen and such -
amateurs - then the early church fathers - in it for the Sainthood -
poor pay.. then the Popes of the Renaissance...)
> Read around a little and you will find a growing
>alarm among many in the scientific community concerning the
>privitazation of research and the consequential transformation of
>scientific knowledge into intellectual property.
>
I'm well aware of this alarm - because anything not profitable will be
scrapped, more proof that science has become prostituted and so its
underlying paradigm is economics and not some idea of objective truth.
--
James Whitehead
Eric Henriksen
a return!
"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pSs9SBAM...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>
> Only because i prefer it, but OK is this what you want - Jean
> Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Emberto Ecco, Michel Foucalt, Robert
> Venturi , Jean Lyotard, Frederic Jameson....
>
Ok. Care to show how any of the above are "after philosophy"?
> "The term postmodernism appears in a range of contexts from academic
> essays to clothing advertisements ... its meaning differs with context
> to such an extent that it seems to function like Levi-Strauss' 'floating
> signifier'... multivalent challenge to various founding assumptions of
> western European culture since the 15th C (or 5th C) ... assumptions
> ...from physics to philosophy, from politics to art ... related to
> seismic changes in the way we register the world and communicate with
> each other... To grasp what is at stake in postmodernism it is necessary
> to think historically and broadly, in the kind of complex terms that
> inevitably involve multidisciplinary effort... although diverse and
> eclectic, postmodernism can be recognised by two key assumptions.
> First, the assumption that there is no common denominator - in 'nature'
> or 'truth' or 'God' or 'future'- that guarantees either the Oneness of
> the world or the possibility of neutral or objective thought. Second,
> the assumption that all human systems operate like language, being self-
> reflexive rather than referential systems... " Elizabeth Deeds Ermarth
> Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy -
> or try www.jameswhitehead.org
>
Well, that adds an awful lot to the discussion.
> >1. My understanding of postmodernism consists of nothing pertaining
> >to its being "after philosophy" I might be wrong. I don't pretend to
> >know for sure.
>
> But you think that there is a "correct position" which philosophy
> aspires to - "there is no common denominator - in 'nature' or 'truth' or
> 'God' or 'future'- that guarantees either the Oneness of the world or
> the possibility of neutral or objective thought"
>
Do I? And even if I did -- to be clear, I don't -- what does this have to
do with the objection stated above. I might be wrong about what
postmoderism is, but that doesn't do anything to support your assertion that
pomo is after philosophy.
> >2. I suspect that your notion of "after philosophy" is nonsense, but
> >I want you to clarify what it is that you are talking about. As it
> >stands, you haven't offered enough in the way of explanation for me to
> >venture an opinion.
>
> You need to define nonsense - in logical positivism's terms that's just
> what philosophy is. I'd say with no objectively some ideas of philosophy
> might have problems.
How about you give me some clear idea of what you intend by the phrase
"after philosophy". If I find it to be nonsense, I'll explain why. As it
is now, you haven't really offered any explanation.
> >> I do - the assertion science is dead is the last statement of science -
> >> as God is dead is a (the last) theological proposition. What comes
after
> >> is post-
> >
> >And yet, theology continues on totally unconcerned with those who have
> >announced its demise.
>
> Only in the steam tractor sense - the council of Nicea made CNN but the
> Synod of the Church of England doesn't - or does it? It no longer offers
> meaningful or useful propositions about the world, same for philosophy
> and science...
I guess all of the enthusiastic practitioners of theology, science, and
philosophy just don't realize that they are really living in the past and
desperately need to get with the times.
> Not of the proposition - is it true? Einstein Faraday Newton Darwin
> Galileo Mendel - some significant science pre 20th century seems to
> have been done by amateurs - could the same be said or occur now?
I'm really not up on my science history, but I'm pretty sure you can remove
Einstein from your list of amateurs. If I remember correctly, the theory of
general relativity was his doctoral thesis. I'm not sure what he was doing
when he published the thoery of special relativity, but the career paths of
many jews at that time in Germany took an unexpected turn or two. Once in
America, I believe he always held a position at Princeton.
Questions of Einstein's career path aside, what does the role of amateurs in
science have to do with its current relevance?
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>Sorry about the delay in my response. I have been out of the country. What
>a return!
Strange days - these...
>
>
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pSs9SBAM...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Only because i prefer it, but OK is this what you want - Jean
>> Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Emberto Ecco, Michel Foucalt, Robert
>> Venturi , Jean Lyotard, Frederic Jameson....
>>
>
>Ok. Care to show how any of the above are "after philosophy"?
To show this might require a book length reply - My question is for
someone to show philosophy occurring now - simply put philosophy began
with reason and logic applied to the nature of the world - this has been
shown to be both flawed and ignored. There is no logic in what took
place yesterday.
>
>> "The term postmodernism appears in a range of contexts from academic
>> essays to clothing advertisements ... its meaning differs with context
>> to such an extent that it seems to function like Levi-Strauss' 'floating
>> signifier'... multivalent challenge to various founding assumptions of
>> western European culture since the 15th C (or 5th C) ... assumptions
>> ...from physics to philosophy, from politics to art ... related to
>> seismic changes in the way we register the world and communicate with
>> each other... To grasp what is at stake in postmodernism it is necessary
>> to think historically and broadly, in the kind of complex terms that
>> inevitably involve multidisciplinary effort... although diverse and
>> eclectic, postmodernism can be recognised by two key assumptions.
>> First, the assumption that there is no common denominator - in 'nature'
>> or 'truth' or 'God' or 'future'- that guarantees either the Oneness of
>> the world or the possibility of neutral or objective thought. Second,
>> the assumption that all human systems operate like language, being self-
>> reflexive rather than referential systems... " Elizabeth Deeds Ermarth
>> Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy -
>> or try www.jameswhitehead.org
>>
>
>Well, that adds an awful lot to the discussion.
There is allot to discuss - the modern world has fundamentally changed -
from art through to politics. The inability of philosophy to provide
some reason being one.
>
>> >1. My understanding of postmodernism consists of nothing pertaining
>> >to its being "after philosophy" I might be wrong. I don't pretend to
>> >know for sure.
>>
>> But you think that there is a "correct position" which philosophy
>> aspires to - "there is no common denominator - in 'nature' or 'truth' or
>> 'God' or 'future'- that guarantees either the Oneness of the world or
>> the possibility of neutral or objective thought"
>>
>
>Do I? And even if I did -- to be clear, I don't -- what does this have to
>do with the objection stated above. I might be wrong about what
>postmoderism is, but that doesn't do anything to support your assertion that
>pomo is after philosophy.
How do you measure your "wrongness" - against some truth out there? The
idea of an objective truth is a modernist idea -
>
>> >2. I suspect that your notion of "after philosophy" is nonsense, but
>> >I want you to clarify what it is that you are talking about. As it
>> >stands, you haven't offered enough in the way of explanation for me to
>> >venture an opinion.
>>
>> You need to define nonsense - in logical positivism's terms that's just
>> what philosophy is. I'd say with no objectively some ideas of philosophy
>> might have problems.
>
>How about you give me some clear idea of what you intend by the phrase
>"after philosophy". If I find it to be nonsense, I'll explain why. As it
>is now, you haven't really offered any explanation.
After philosophy - after the period in which philosophy took place - po-
mo is just a label for now. Imagine a philosopher says "an object cannot
logically be in two places at once" This became in the 20thC conditional
on science, if some scientist says electrons do just this it
demonstrates the inability of the philosopher to talk about the truth.
This is just one example, in Wittgenstein esp. the whole project was
seen first as completed then as a mistake in the first place.
>
>> >> I do - the assertion science is dead is the last statement of science -
>> >> as God is dead is a (the last) theological proposition. What comes
>after
>> >> is post-
>> >
>> >And yet, theology continues on totally unconcerned with those who have
>> >announced its demise.
>>
>> Only in the steam tractor sense - the council of Nicea made CNN but the
>> Synod of the Church of England doesn't - or does it? It no longer offers
>> meaningful or useful propositions about the world, same for philosophy
>> and science...
>
>I guess all of the enthusiastic practitioners of theology, science, and
>philosophy just don't realize that they are really living in the past and
>desperately need to get with the times.
I think they realise what they are doing - They are all doing it in
universities and not the real world. One time philosophers were thought
wise *men*, kings and queens would seek their advice - do you think this
is still true? If so then see if they will talk to you and answer your
questions.
>
>> Not of the proposition - is it true? Einstein Faraday Newton Darwin
>> Galileo Mendel - some significant science pre 20th century seems to
>> have been done by amateurs - could the same be said or occur now?
>
>I'm really not up on my science history, but I'm pretty sure you can remove
>Einstein from your list of amateurs.
Oh No - Albert wrote the famous four papers in his spare time whilst
working in a patent office.
> If I remember correctly, the theory of
>general relativity was his doctoral thesis. I'm not sure what he was doing
>when he published the thoery of special relativity, but the career paths of
>many jews at that time in Germany took an unexpected turn or two. Once in
>America, I believe he always held a position at Princeton.
Yes like a prized specimen.. of genius.. i understand they kept his
brain in a jar. A holy relic of a great saint. You will see science
looking more and more like the renaissance church peddling the bones of
pigs as those of dead saints... cold fusion being one example.
>
>Questions of Einstein's career path aside, what does the role of amateurs in
>science have to do with its current relevance?
Science's current relevance you mean - its irrelevant. Like i think i
said only from inside institutions can the truth of science be
demonstrated- which is strange...
--
James Whitehead
Peter R.Spacey
So you are (i) defining "logic" and (ii) Making darn sure it doesn't account for something you can't account for? You may
care to consider that 'terrorism' is usually for a purpose that the perpetrator(s) believes needs to be considered by probably
the victim(s)? The symbolism of the WTO is obvious, while the Pentagon is a nasty word in many languages, including for
some of us Brits, English English. Regards, Peter
Eric Henriksen
> >> Not of the proposition - is it true? Einstein Faraday Newton Darwin
> >> Galileo Mendel - some significant science pre 20th century seems to
> >> have been done by amateurs - could the same be said or occur now?
> >
> >I'm really not up on my science history, but I'm pretty sure you can
remove
> >Einstein from your list of amateurs.
>
> Oh No - Albert wrote the famous four papers in his spare time whilst
> working in a patent office.
True, he did. allow me to modify my previous position a little bit and
state that at the time he wrote his famous theses, including those concerned
with general and special relativity, he was a failed academic. Einstein
graduated in 1900 from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich and
spent the better part of the next two years trying to secure a teaching
position at a university. He was briefly employed as a high school teacher
and then in 1902 he went to work in the patent office at Bern, where he
remained until 1909. During his tenure at the patent office he published
four physics papers -- one of which earned him his doctorate from the
University of Zurich. In 1908 he took a part time position at the
University of Bern as a lecturer. In 1909 he became a professor of physics
at the University of Zurich and went from there to Karl-Ferdinand University
in Prauge; then Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich; then the
Prussian Academy of Sciences at the University of Berlin; and then finally
in 1932 he accepted a postion at Princeton in the United States which he
held until his death in 1955.
I'd say Einstein was a true blue dyed-in-the-wool academic, even if he was a
bit of a late bloomer.
> > If I remember correctly, the theory of
> >general relativity was his doctoral thesis. I'm not sure what he was
doing
> >when he published the thoery of special relativity, but the career paths
of
> >many jews at that time in Germany took an unexpected turn or two. Once
in
> >America, I believe he always held a position at Princeton.
>
> Yes like a prized specimen.. of genius.. i understand they kept his
> brain in a jar. A holy relic of a great saint. You will see science
> looking more and more like the renaissance church peddling the bones of
> pigs as those of dead saints... cold fusion being one example.
If you'll remember, the church wasn't, in most cases, the peddler -- simony
being a sin and all that -- of the faux bits-o'-da-saints, rather they were
most often the sucker being parted from his purse.
> >Questions of Einstein's career path aside, what does the role of amateurs
in
> >science have to do with its current relevance?
>
> Science's current relevance you mean - its irrelevant. Like i think i
> said only from inside institutions can the truth of science be
> demonstrated- which is strange...
Patently untrue. We are quite literally ensconced in the products and
procedures of scientific technology. If science is anywhere percieved as
irrelevant it is only by virtue of its ubiquity.
And the truth of any scientific theory can be proven irrespective of whom
the theorem's proponent is. Without the proper credentials it might be a
little difficult -- though not impossible -- to get anyone to listen, but if
you've got a hot little discovery under your belt and the experimental data
to back it up you could very well get published in a honest-to-god peer
reviewed scientific journal.
Eric
Eric Henriksen
> >> Only because i prefer it, but OK is this what you want - Jean
> >> Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Emberto Ecco, Michel Foucalt, Robert
> >> Venturi , Jean Lyotard, Frederic Jameson....
> >>
> >
> >Ok. Care to show how any of the above are "after philosophy"?
>
>
> To show this might require a book length reply - My question is for
> someone to show philosophy occurring now - simply put philosophy began
> with reason and logic applied to the nature of the world - this has been
> shown to be both flawed and ignored. There is no logic in what took
> place yesterday.
True, you would need to pen a rather lengthy tome to sufficiently address
the assertion that postmoderism takes place after philosophy, but I'd be
tickled pink if you'd just take that first step and attempt something
resembling an argument. All you've produced so far is the claim that
philosophy is necessarily impossible in the contemporary world (codeword:
postmodern) and, as such, anyone claiming to be a philosopher is a fraud.
Sorry, I don't agree; you're going to have to convince me and simply
restating your claim from here to eternity isn't very persuasive.
As for your question/challenge, I'd be quite happy to take up the cause of
Umberto Eco's rightful inclusion within the domain known as philosophy. I
would present my case, but I honestly can't conceive of a cogent argument to
the contrary. The prima facie evidence is pretty compelling. Care to make
a case for his not being a philosopher?
> >How about you give me some clear idea of what you intend by the phrase
> >"after philosophy". If I find it to be nonsense, I'll explain why. As
it
> >is now, you haven't really offered any explanation.
>
> After philosophy - after the period in which philosophy took place - po-
> mo is just a label for now. Imagine a philosopher says "an object cannot
> logically be in two places at once" This became in the 20thC conditional
> on science, if some scientist says electrons do just this it
> demonstrates the inability of the philosopher to talk about the truth.
Nope. It just shows that your hypothetical philosopher was wrong.
> >I guess all of the enthusiastic practitioners of theology, science, and
> >philosophy just don't realize that they are really living in the past and
> >desperately need to get with the times.
>
> I think they realise what they are doing - They are all doing it in
> universities and not the real world. One time philosophers were thought
> wise *men*, kings and queens would seek their advice - do you think this
> is still true? If so then see if they will talk to you and answer your
> questions.
So universities are not of the "real" world, huh? What world are they of?
Having a tough time of it at university are we James?
Seems to me the university has always been a pretty popular option for
philosophers looking to make a living. Also, I think you have a pretty
romantic notion of the philosophers of yore. In addition to being thought
wiseman and sages, philosophers have down through the ages been thought
heretics, madmen, ne'er-do-wells, corruptors of youth, treasonous villians,
and all other manner of foul riff-raff. Oh yeah, I should also mention that
most people have always been of the opinion that whatever else philosophers
may be they are most certainly pedantic bores -- seems you agree.
Eric
Eric Henriksen
*Sorry if this is a repost, but the message was dropped from the Qwest
servers so I am reposting it*
> >> Not of the proposition - is it true? Einstein Faraday Newton Darwin
> >> Galileo Mendel - some significant science pre 20th century seems to
> >> have been done by amateurs - could the same be said or occur now?
> >
> >I'm really not up on my science history, but I'm pretty sure you can
> > remove Einstein from your list of amateurs.
>
> Oh No - Albert wrote the famous four papers in his spare time whilst
> working in a patent office.
True, he did. allow me to modify my previous position a little bit and
state that at the time he wrote his famous theses, including those concerned
with general and special relativity, he was a failed academic. Einstein
graduated in 1900 from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich and
spent the better part of the next two years trying to secure a teaching
position at a university. He was briefly employed as a high school teacher
and then in 1902 he went to work in the patent office at Bern, where he
remained until 1909. During his tenure at the patent office he published
four physics papers -- one of which earned him his doctorate from the
University of Zurich. In 1908 he took a part time position at the
University of Bern as a lecturer. In 1909 he became a professor of physics
at the University of Zurich and went from there to Karl-Ferdinand University
in Prauge; then Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich; then the
Prussian Academy of Sciences at the University of Berlin; and then finally
in 1932 he accepted a postion at Princeton in the United States which he
held until his death in 1955.
I'd say Einstein was a true blue dyed-in-the-wool academic, even if he was a
bit of a late bloomer.
> > If I remember correctly, the theory of
> >general relativity was his doctoral thesis. I'm not sure what he was
doing
> >when he published the thoery of special relativity, but the career paths
of
> >many jews at that time in Germany took an unexpected turn or two.
> >Once in America, I believe he always held a position at Princeton.
>
> Yes like a prized specimen.. of genius.. i understand they kept his
> brain in a jar. A holy relic of a great saint. You will see science
> looking more and more like the renaissance church peddling the bones of
> pigs as those of dead saints... cold fusion being one example.
If you'll remember, the church wasn't, in most cases, the peddler -- simony
being a sin and all that -- of the faux bits-o'-da-saints, rather they were
most often the sucker being parted from his purse.
> >Questions of Einstein's career path aside, what does the role of amateurs
in
> >science have to do with its current relevance?
>
> Science's current relevance you mean - its irrelevant. Like i think i
> said only from inside institutions can the truth of science be
> demonstrated- which is strange...
Patently untrue. We are quite literally ensconced in the products and
James Whitehead
R.Spacey <sear...@cix.co.uk> writes
I can see a logic in Perl Harbour - and some kind of end game in
those who planned it - even the "traditional" terrorist has a logic and
aim. The lone terrorist may not obey any logic but that of someone
suffering a mental disease. What do the people behind the Tuesdays
events want changed in the world? The symbolism might be obvious - too
obvious - such groups require funding and this comes from the sales of
oil to the very governments & associated multinationals that they
despise, and they employ, live in and off the technologies they see as
evil. If they see the west as evil - then they could turn their backs on
capitalism and live the life of holy aestheticism. Or do they think by
their actions they can bring down the whole capitalist system? Otherwise
in terms of the logic of terrorism ensuring ones extinction seems
strange. But maybe you could explain the objectives of Tuesdays events.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:DuI3dAAV...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>
>> >> Only because i prefer it, but OK is this what you want - Jean
>> >> Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Emberto Ecco, Michel Foucalt, Robert
>> >> Venturi , Jean Lyotard, Frederic Jameson....
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ok. Care to show how any of the above are "after philosophy"?
>>
>>
>> To show this might require a book length reply - My question is for
>> someone to show philosophy occurring now - simply put philosophy began
>> with reason and logic applied to the nature of the world - this has been
>> shown to be both flawed and ignored. There is no logic in what took
>> place yesterday.
>
>True, you would need to pen a rather lengthy tome to sufficiently address
>the assertion that postmoderism takes place after philosophy, but I'd be
>tickled pink if you'd just take that first step and attempt something
>resembling an argument. All you've produced so far is the claim that
>philosophy is necessarily impossible in the contemporary world (codeword:
>postmodern) and, as such, anyone claiming to be a philosopher is a fraud.
>Sorry, I don't agree; you're going to have to convince me and simply
>restating your claim from here to eternity isn't very persuasive.
I haven't restated - but at every prompting amplified and given a fairly
long definition from an encyclopaedia. Or am I in the business of
convincing anyone - you believe philosophy is still possible - fine - i
believe it isn't. I think i've said this before but i'll try to amplify
this. The non-continental forms of philosophy - especially those which
rely on logic have problems with both inherent contradiction and the
incompleteness theorem of Godel amongst others. Continental philosophy
is the pre-cursor of post-modernism, and in its subjectivity and
abandonment of reason is again - despite attempts to rescue it from
nihilism difficult to be seen as philosophy in a traditional sense.
Further all statements of fact issued as objective propositions - have
to combat refutation by science.
>
>As for your question/challenge, I'd be quite happy to take up the cause of
>Umberto Eco's rightful inclusion within the domain known as philosophy. I
>would present my case, but I honestly can't conceive of a cogent argument to
>the contrary. The prima facie evidence is pretty compelling. Care to make
>a case for his not being a philosopher?
I thought he was a novelist. Those bits of history i've read of his have
been factually wrong - but then in po-mo there are no facts.
>
>> >How about you give me some clear idea of what you intend by the phrase
>> >"after philosophy". If I find it to be nonsense, I'll explain why. As
>it
>> >is now, you haven't really offered any explanation.
>>
>> After philosophy - after the period in which philosophy took place - po-
>> mo is just a label for now. Imagine a philosopher says "an object cannot
>> logically be in two places at once" This became in the 20thC conditional
>> on science, if some scientist says electrons do just this it
>> demonstrates the inability of the philosopher to talk about the truth.
>
>Nope. It just shows that your hypothetical philosopher was wrong.
In logic he was not wrong. Not hypothetical either - its from
Wittgenstein. Why was he wrong, maybe electrons aren't objects.....
>
>> >I guess all of the enthusiastic practitioners of theology, science, and
>> >philosophy just don't realize that they are really living in the past and
>> >desperately need to get with the times.
>>
>> I think they realise what they are doing - They are all doing it in
>> universities and not the real world. One time philosophers were thought
>> wise *men*, kings and queens would seek their advice - do you think this
>> is still true? If so then see if they will talk to you and answer your
>> questions.
>
>So universities are not of the "real" world, huh? What world are they of?
>Having a tough time of it at university are we James?
For someone who believes that philosophical argument is possible - such
claims - unsupported at that - and erroneous - seem strange - the above
represents exactly a po-mo statement, well done - no regard for truth
whatsoever, just a subjective - will to power type statement.
>
>Seems to me the university has always been a pretty popular option for
>philosophers looking to make a living. Also, I think you have a pretty
>romantic notion of the philosophers of yore. In addition to being thought
>wiseman and sages, philosophers have down through the ages been thought
>heretics, madmen, ne'er-do-wells, corruptors of youth, treasonous villians,
>and all other manner of foul riff-raff. Oh yeah, I should also mention that
>most people have always been of the opinion that whatever else philosophers
>may be they are most certainly pedantic bores -- seems you agree.
Again your going for the player and not the ball - i'm use to this here
(alt.pomo) from my feline friend (who you could learn from) - and its
quite the opposite of a philosophical discussion - but amusing and
useful in provoking my reading and rousing me from a natural inertia -
from my meetings with professional "philosophers" boring they are not,
pedantic some are. And perhaps i need to be careful in being married to
one.
(pedantry was one thing LW didn't get up to in Cardiff docks)
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>
It the old fashioned sense - how many papers of even half of the
significance of Albert's are published by amateurs?
>
>> > If I remember correctly, the theory of
>> >general relativity was his doctoral thesis. I'm not sure what he was
>doing
>> >when he published the thoery of special relativity, but the career paths
>of
>> >many jews at that time in Germany took an unexpected turn or two. Once
>in
>> >America, I believe he always held a position at Princeton.
>>
>> Yes like a prized specimen.. of genius.. i understand they kept his
>> brain in a jar. A holy relic of a great saint. You will see science
>> looking more and more like the renaissance church peddling the bones of
>> pigs as those of dead saints... cold fusion being one example.
>
>If you'll remember, the church wasn't, in most cases, the peddler -- simony
>being a sin and all that -- of the faux bits-o'-da-saints, rather they were
>most often the sucker being parted from his purse.
They sold indulgences -
>
>> >Questions of Einstein's career path aside, what does the role of amateurs
>in
>> >science have to do with its current relevance?
>>
>> Science's current relevance you mean - its irrelevant. Like i think i
>> said only from inside institutions can the truth of science be
>> demonstrated- which is strange...
>
>Patently untrue. We are quite literally ensconced in the products and
>procedures of scientific technology. If science is anywhere percieved as
>irrelevant it is only by virtue of its ubiquity.
Patents apply to technology not to science :-) Most of the technology
around is based on pre 20thC theory...
>
>And the truth of any scientific theory can be proven irrespective of whom
>the theorem's proponent is. Without the proper credentials it might be a
>little difficult -- though not impossible -- to get anyone to listen, but if
>you've got a hot little discovery under your belt and the experimental data
>to back it up you could very well get published in a honest-to-god peer
>reviewed scientific journal.
Since Einstein this just doesn't seem to have occurred, and before him
(and including his first 4 papers) it did happen. So for getting on for
100 years we see the lack of accepted amateur theory?
--
James Whitehead
Peter R.Spacey
events want changed in the world? The symbolism might be obvious - too
obvious - such groups require funding and this comes from the sales of
oil to the very governments & associated multinationals that they
despise, and they employ, live in and off the technologies they see as
evil. If they see the west as evil - then they could turn their backs on
capitalism and live the life of holy aestheticism. Or do they think by
their actions they can bring down the whole capitalist system? Otherwise
in terms of the logic of terrorism ensuring ones extinction seems
strange. But maybe you could explain the objectives of Tuesdays events.
--
James Whitehead
Since I'm not in their confidence, it's not my brief to explain their actions. That wasn't my point, as you'll see from my post. I
was challenging your statement that the events lacked "logic". Since this *is* a postmodern forum, it must be expected that
some of the contributors might just be postmodernistic :-) Your "logic" may well be out of sync with that of the perpetrators?
There are all kinds of logic, after all. As for your sweeping totalities "the west" and "the whole capitalist system", I can see
that some of the postmodern rhetoric hasn't appealed to you? As for "sales of oil .." you are being nearly specific in your
identifying the "groups" involved. But do you run a car (automobile to you)? I don't. Are you enamoured with western
capitalism and democracy? I'm not. Recalling the Us presidential election farce I'd hardly regard the US as democratic in
the etymological sense of the term. The same criticism applies to most western states including the UK. And when will some
of you good folk take a cool, unhurried look at the situation and seek for the causes of the enmity and then aim to remove
such causes rather than trying (you may well not succeed) to remove those who you don't wish to listen to? Regards, Peter
Eric Henriksen
"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >True, you would need to pen a rather lengthy tome to sufficiently address
> >the assertion that postmoderism takes place after philosophy, but I'd be
> >tickled pink if you'd just take that first step and attempt something
> >resembling an argument. All you've produced so far is the claim that
> >philosophy is necessarily impossible in the contemporary world (codeword:
> >postmodern) and, as such, anyone claiming to be a philosopher is a fraud.
> >Sorry, I don't agree; you're going to have to convince me and simply
> >restating your claim from here to eternity isn't very persuasive.
>
> I haven't restated - but at every prompting amplified and given a fairly
> long definition from an encyclopaedia.
No. You have done nothing but restate your initial assertion in an
increasingly flamboyant fashion -- or, as you would have it, an
amplification of your assertion. What you haven't done is supply an
argument to back up that assertion. And the "definition" you quoted
contained absolutely nothing at all about the impossibility of philosophy.
>Or am I in the business of
> convincing anyone - you believe philosophy is still possible - fine - i
> believe it isn't.
It's obvious we disagree -- that might well be the only thing on which we do
agree. If you're content to leave it at that then, I must admit, I'm a
little confused as to why you initiated this discussion in the first place.
>I think i've said this before but i'll try to amplify
> this.
>The non-continental forms of philosophy - especially those which
> rely on logic have problems with both inherent contradiction and the
> incompleteness theorem of Godel amongst others. Continental philosophy
> is the pre-cursor of post-modernism, and in its subjectivity and
> abandonment of reason is again - despite attempts to rescue it from
> nihilism difficult to be seen as philosophy in a traditional sense.
> Further all statements of fact issued as objective propositions - have
> to combat refutation by science.
Ole' Bertie and Co. may have run into problems vis a vis Godel, but how does
that spell the end of philosophy as a whole? Whitehead and Russell moved
on... why can't you? And formal logic keeps on truckin' even if its
ontological status isn't entirely clear.
What's so difficult about seeing continental philosophy as being within the
philosophical tradition? And, for that matter, which continental
philosopher abandoned reason? What do you mean by subjectivity? Is
accounting for subjectivity the same as wallowing in it?
Tell you what, why don't you pick an essay or a representative selection
from a continental philosopher of your choice and then make a case for its
lack of reason, its subjectivity, and its not being philosophy as it is
traditionally understood. Or, if you prefer, I'll make the selection and
present my case. If you do decide to present a selection all I ask is that
it not be Lacan or Kristeva -- I've never been able to make the slightest
bit of sense out of either.
Oh, and as far as philosophy having to "combat refutation by science": I
don't think this would have surprised or upset either Locke or Hume and,
last I heard, both were still considered philosophers.
> >As for your question/challenge, I'd be quite happy to take up the cause
of
> >Umberto Eco's rightful inclusion within the domain known as philosophy.
I
> >would present my case, but I honestly can't conceive of a cogent argument
to
> >the contrary. The prima facie evidence is pretty compelling. Care to
make
> >a case for his not being a philosopher?
>
> I thought he was a novelist. Those bits of history i've read of his have
> been factually wrong - but then in po-mo there are no facts.
He is a novelist. He is also a semiotic theorist, a philosopher, a literary
critic, an academic, a pundit, and a celebrity. In my original post, I
suggested that atto look into Eco's semiotic works if he was interested in
bridging analytic philosophy and pomo. Apparently, you weren't paying much
attention.
Out of interest, what did you find to be factually wrong in those bits of
history of his that you've read?
> >> >How about you give me some clear idea of what you intend by the phrase
> >> >"after philosophy". If I find it to be nonsense, I'll explain why.
As
> >> >it is now, you haven't really offered any explanation.
> >>
> >> After philosophy - after the period in which philosophy took place -
po-
> >> mo is just a label for now. Imagine a philosopher says "an object
cannot
> >> logically be in two places at once" This became in the 20thC
conditional
> >> on science, if some scientist says electrons do just this it
> >> demonstrates the inability of the philosopher to talk about the truth.
> >
> >Nope. It just shows that your hypothetical philosopher was wrong.
>
> In logic he was not wrong. Not hypothetical either - its from
> Wittgenstein. Why was he wrong, maybe electrons aren't objects.....
Bingo... you nailed that one right on the head.
> >> >I guess all of the enthusiastic practitioners of theology, science,
and
> >> >philosophy just don't realize that they are really living in the past
and
> >> >desperately need to get with the times.
> >>
> >> I think they realise what they are doing - They are all doing it in
> >> universities and not the real world. One time philosophers were thought
> >> wise *men*, kings and queens would seek their advice - do you think
this
> >> is still true? If so then see if they will talk to you and answer your
> >> questions.
> >
> >So universities are not of the "real" world, huh? What world are they
of?
> >Having a tough time of it at university are we James?
>
> For someone who believes that philosophical argument is possible - such
> claims - unsupported at that - and erroneous - seem strange - the above
> represents exactly a po-mo statement, well done - no regard for truth
> whatsoever, just a subjective - will to power type statement.
I suppose your talking about my insinuation that your having a tough time of
it at university and that this explains your classification of the
university as not of the real world. That wasn't pomo, it was simply a good
old fashioned personal slight. But you didn't answer the question, what
world does the university belong to?
> >Seems to me the university has always been a pretty popular option for
> >philosophers looking to make a living. Also, I think you have a pretty
> >romantic notion of the philosophers of yore. In addition to being
thought
> >wiseman and sages, philosophers have down through the ages been thought
> >heretics, madmen, ne'er-do-wells, corruptors of youth, treasonous
villians,
> >and all other manner of foul riff-raff. Oh yeah, I should also mention
that
> >most people have always been of the opinion that whatever else
philosophers
> >may be they are most certainly pedantic bores -- seems you agree.
>
> Again your going for the player and not the ball
I suppose you're accusing me of an ad hominem. You're wrong. You
characterized philosophers as wisemen. I pointed out that they have been
seen as a good number of other things as well, many of them not so
complimentary. And your "argument" for the irrelavence of philosophy has so
far been to suggest that they are pedantic bores.
>- i'm use to this here
> (alt.pomo) from my feline friend (who you could learn from) -
I don't believe we are aquainted.
Eric
Eric Henriksen
You missing the point. Einstein wasn't an amateur. It just took a little
while for him to get a paying position in his choosen field.
> >If you'll remember, the church wasn't, in most cases, the peddler --
simony
> >being a sin and all that -- of the faux bits-o'-da-saints, rather they
were
> >most often the sucker being parted from his purse.
>
> They sold indulgences -
???
You're way off the irrelavance chart with that one.
> >> >Questions of Einstein's career path aside, what does the role of
amateurs
> >> >in science have to do with its current relevance?
> >>
> >> Science's current relevance you mean - its irrelevant. Like i think i
> >> said only from inside institutions can the truth of science be
> >> demonstrated- which is strange...
> >
> >Patently untrue. We are quite literally ensconced in the products and
> >procedures of scientific technology. If science is anywhere percieved as
> >irrelevant it is only by virtue of its ubiquity.
>
> Patents apply to technology not to science :-) Most of the technology
> around is based on pre 20thC theory...
Forgetting that whole solid state electronics thing aren't ya? And that
freaky little sheep you Brits built over there?
Oh, and by the way, you've still not answered what the role of amateurs in
science has to do with its relevance.
> >And the truth of any scientific theory can be proven irrespective of whom
> >the theorem's proponent is. Without the proper credentials it might be a
> >little difficult -- though not impossible -- to get anyone to listen, but
if
> >you've got a hot little discovery under your belt and the experimental
data
> >to back it up you could very well get published in a honest-to-god peer
> >reviewed scientific journal.
>
> Since Einstein this just doesn't seem to have occurred, and before him
> (and including his first 4 papers) it did happen. So for getting on for
> 100 years we see the lack of accepted amateur theory?
Couldn't really say for sure. I don't keep up with who's who in the
scientific world and what it is they do for a paycheck. We could always
cross post to a relevant scientific group. That will be a real hoot!
Eric
James Whitehead
>events want changed in the world? The symbolism might be obvious - too
>obvious - such groups require funding and this comes from the sales of
>oil to the very governments & associated multinationals that they
>despise, and they employ, live in and off the technologies they see as
>evil. If they see the west as evil - then they could turn their backs on
>capitalism and live the life of holy aestheticism. Or do they think by
>their actions they can bring down the whole capitalist system? Otherwise
>in terms of the logic of terrorism ensuring ones extinction seems
>strange. But maybe you could explain the objectives of Tuesdays events.
>--
>James Whitehead
>
First off a technical thing - if you post here - after my signature my
reader will not let me reply (without pasting into notepad) and also the
text format of your posts are difficult to read... it might be my reader
but everyone else's posts read ok - maybe its us though :-)
>Since I'm not in their confidence, it's not my brief to explain their actions.
>That wasn't my point, as you'll see from my post. I
>was challenging your statement that the events lacked "logic". Since this *is*
>a postmodern forum, it must be expected that
>some of the contributors might just be postmodernistic :-) Your "logic" may
>well be out of sync with that of the perpetrators?
I see your point - that in post modernism contradictions in logic are
allowed. I'd say this is then no longer logic. Further your not in their
confidence - cannot explain their actions - but can say my description
of them is wrong and that their logic is different from mine. This is
another contradiction - but maybe that's your point. However you can no
longer make a point... if we have a multiplicity of logics? I think it
best to say its not logical as it cant be shown - very subjective i
know.
>
> There are all kinds of logic, after all.
Really - some allow multiple meanings and contradiction -
in which your above assertion means both what it seemingly asserts and
the reverse.. is the assertion a sweeping totality i wonder?
> As for your sweeping totalities "the
>west" and "the whole capitalist system", I can see
>that some of the postmodern rhetoric hasn't appealed to you?
Logic ... the west .. and sweeping totalities - like rhetoric are
products of modernity. Post modernism doesn't appeal to me, i consider
we are living in a period which can be designated by the term - though
this itself is ironic. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by
postmodern rhetoric?
> As for "sales of
>oil .." you are being nearly specific in your
>identifying the "groups" involved.
I'm being very specific - in saying where the money for Islamic
fundamentalism comes from.
> But do you run a car (automobile to you)?
I borrow a micra - hardly an automobile as i live in a rural part of
england, on the two days i commute i could get a bus but have to walk 25
miles home. I would like to use the railway but Beeching did for it and
our station is now an orthodox church - i kid you not. There is in this
NG an increasing tendency to attack someone on the basis of an assumed
personality - e.g. "your a stupid college kid" which is normally
factually wrong and besides the point. Isn't there another newsgroup for
throwing insults - alt.bigotry or the like? I post here for amusement
but also practical reasons - it helps me think through things.
> I
>don't. Are you enamoured with western
>capitalism
i admit guilt - i love buying stuff - its my birthday soon and i'm
hoping to get an MD Walkman. I could justify this as its part of a
planned work project (here the word work could be replaced by play)
However i don't think i represent a typical consumer - i like to manage
on as little as possible but still try to enjoy life. You don't own a
car - do you live in a city i wonder and rely on its infrastructure
which we rural tax payers are happy to subsidise. Oh and i'm against fox
hunting - when the mice invade the house i catch them in traps which
does not kill them and release them in a nearby field. Then i worry
about the thing starving - bit of a moral dilemma. Should i tell my
neighbour who works in London and has a holiday cottage next door that
there are rats in his roof. Do they as being more often resident have a
greater right to be there?
>and democracy?
I'm english - so you should explain democracy to me. Here is another
dilemma - though a socialist i've noticed that those rural areas of the
countryside which are best kept belong to the aristocracy. I once worked
for Lord Reyliegh who was a benevolent employer - built the locals a
pub, and saw the countryside as something to be maintained, not
plundered for a quick profit. The business was overstaffed and no one
was ever sacked as far as i could see, timekeeping was slack - in the
summer most would spend the afternoons at the pool, my working class
work ethic could stand it! The Lord himself was kept in Terling Hall as
it was rumoured he had once been involved in some scandal with a
schoolboy - my boss was Sir Nigel Strutt (next inline) - who had one eye
and became an Anglican Minister ... I've seen other farmers house and
feed cattle in bag conditions and cut down all trees for profit and grub
up hedgerows. So its a problem for me - i think the aristocracy as being
wrong but what they do preferable to democracy.
> I'm not.
Well if you don't like the boat and its direction its not that difficult
to follow an alternative path.
>Recalling the Us presidential election
>farce I'd hardly regard the US as democratic in
>the etymological sense of the term.
The whole point of modern democracy is that the farce is exposed -
elections if held in totalitarian regimes are never an obvious farce.
> The same criticism applies to most western
>states including the UK.
However does this mean that there are some states elsewhere better?
Would you like to enumerate them.
> And when will some
>of you good folk take a cool, unhurried look at the situation and seek for the
>causes of the enmity and then aim to remove
>such causes rather than trying (you may well not succeed) to remove those who
>you don't wish to listen to? Regards, Peter
>
The good folk you address is not i think myself. I have not offered i
think a moral description of Tuesdays events - i have said i can't see
the logic in it. Please explain the causes. The removal of those is
possible for a power like the United States if it has the will - and
this again is not a moral but factual proposition. Historically the
British Empire was challenged by aggressive so called terrorist attacks
which failed. The way empires decline seems to be more from an inner
lack of faith - Tuesdays events have caused the opposite.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>
OK - If fall in love and marry someone - and later after a divorce they
become a prostitute it follows that you had sex with a prostitute. Gosh
and as the person was also once a child you had sex with a child. Albert
was paid after the event, modern scientists are paid before - so they
don't need to deliver - good advice would be to see the goods first.
Amazing as Einstein was professional scientist after he wrote the 4
papers, but still that means when he wrote them he was not amateur as he
became a professional, he also became dead - so he was dead when he
wrote them?
>
>> >If you'll remember, the church wasn't, in most cases, the peddler --
>simony
>> >being a sin and all that -- of the faux bits-o'-da-saints, rather they
>were
>> >most often the sucker being parted from his purse.
>>
>> They sold indulgences -
>
>???
>
>You're way off the irrelavance chart with that one.
Well its your instance that i am now a professional physicist as in the
future i might be employed at Princeton in my chosen field. String
theory and cosmic foam.
>
>> >> >Questions of Einstein's career path aside, what does the role of
>amateurs
>> >> >in science have to do with its current relevance?
>> >>
>> >> Science's current relevance you mean - its irrelevant. Like i think i
>> >> said only from inside institutions can the truth of science be
>> >> demonstrated- which is strange...
>> >
>> >Patently untrue. We are quite literally ensconced in the products and
>> >procedures of scientific technology. If science is anywhere percieved as
>> >irrelevant it is only by virtue of its ubiquity.
>>
>> Patents apply to technology not to science :-) Most of the technology
>> around is based on pre 20thC theory...
>
>Forgetting that whole solid state electronics thing aren't ya?
>
You mistake science and technology - the science in most technology is
100 years old. The computer older - all that's happened is refinement.
> And that
>freaky little sheep you Brits built over there?
The cloning of a sheep is a significant landmark in science - really?
One of the last scientific big things was DNA - 50 years ago... that's
the science - all those daft Scots are doing in a land of sheep which
don't need any help is to breed one via a novel and expensive means.
>
>Oh, and by the way, you've still not answered what the role of amateurs in
>science has to do with its relevance.
Science's relevance - well now we pay the girls first they don't give us
the trick.
>
>> >And the truth of any scientific theory can be proven irrespective of whom
>> >the theorem's proponent is. Without the proper credentials it might be a
>> >little difficult -- though not impossible -- to get anyone to listen, but
>if
>> >you've got a hot little discovery under your belt and the experimental
>data
>> >to back it up you could very well get published in a honest-to-god peer
>> >reviewed scientific journal.
>>
>> Since Einstein this just doesn't seem to have occurred, and before him
>> (and including his first 4 papers) it did happen. So for getting on for
>> 100 years we see the lack of accepted amateur theory?
>
>Couldn't really say for sure. I don't keep up with who's who in the
>scientific world and what it is they do for a paycheck. We could always
>cross post to a relevant scientific group. That will be a real hoot!
Yes - "dear scientist is your job significant?" - Not a fair test!
Did i tell you I've just read a book by a prof of astrophysics at
Princeton - a good laugh! "To allow time travel to the past, cosmic
strings with a mass per unit of about 10 million billion tons per
centimetre must each move in opposite directions at speeds of at least
99.999999996 percent of the speed of light... (i) wrote it up and sent
it to Physical Review Letters... an article about my research [!]
appeared in Time magazine"
Some whore!
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> >True, you would need to pen a rather lengthy tome to sufficiently address
>> >the assertion that postmoderism takes place after philosophy, but I'd be
>> >tickled pink if you'd just take that first step and attempt something
>> >resembling an argument. All you've produced so far is the claim that
>> >philosophy is necessarily impossible in the contemporary world (codeword:
>> >postmodern) and, as such, anyone claiming to be a philosopher is a fraud.
>> >Sorry, I don't agree; you're going to have to convince me and simply
>> >restating your claim from here to eternity isn't very persuasive.
>>
>> I haven't restated - but at every prompting amplified and given a fairly
>> long definition from an encyclopaedia.
>
>No. You have done nothing but restate your initial assertion in an
>increasingly flamboyant fashion
A *simple* restatement or increasingly flamboyant?
>-- or, as you would have it, an
>amplification of your assertion. What you haven't done is supply an
>argument to back up that assertion. And the "definition" you quoted
>contained absolutely nothing at all about the impossibility of philosophy.
"a sustained and multivalent challenge to the various founding
assumptions of Western European culture .. from physics to philosophy,
from politics to art, the description of the world has changed in ways
that upset some basic beliefs of modernity.. that there is no common
denominator in nature or truth or God "
How without a common denominator of truth can philosophy continue?
And now i'm having to repeat myself because you have cut this fairly
important point - then asked for something like it?
>
>>Or am I in the business of
>> convincing anyone - you believe philosophy is still possible - fine - i
>> believe it isn't.
>
>It's obvious we disagree -- that might well be the only thing on which we do
>agree. If you're content to leave it at that then, I must admit, I'm a
>little confused as to why you initiated this discussion in the first place.
I'm happy to discuss - but not prove... that's harder work. You could
perhaps offer some idea of philosophy without a common denominator of
truth - and show how it relates to what was once called philosophy.
>
>>I think i've said this before but i'll try to amplify
>> this.
>>The non-continental forms of philosophy - especially those which
>> rely on logic have problems with both inherent contradiction and the
>> incompleteness theorem of Godel amongst others. Continental philosophy
>> is the pre-cursor of post-modernism, and in its subjectivity and
>> abandonment of reason is again - despite attempts to rescue it from
>> nihilism difficult to be seen as philosophy in a traditional sense.
>> Further all statements of fact issued as objective propositions - have
>> to combat refutation by science.
>
>Ole' Bertie and Co. may have run into problems vis a vis Godel, but how does
>that spell the end of philosophy as a whole? Whitehead and Russell moved
>on... why can't you? And formal logic keeps on truckin' even if its
>ontological status isn't entirely clear.
They did not move on - it was a retreat or treading water at best. Can't
you see the philosophical significance of a dodgy ontology in the
traditional (Renee Descartes) sense of the practice.
>
>What's so difficult about seeing continental philosophy as being within the
>philosophical tradition? And, for that matter, which continental
>philosopher abandoned reason?
Nietzsche ... Deridda ... Baudrillard ... err want some more..
> What do you mean by subjectivity? Is
>accounting for subjectivity the same as wallowing in it?
your image implies the ability to stop wallowing in it and get out of it
- but you can't because your ontology's on the blink.
>
>Tell you what, why don't you pick an essay or a representative selection
>from a continental philosopher of your choice and then make a case for its
>lack of reason, its subjectivity, and its not being philosophy as it is
>traditionally understood.
Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed into one..
Deconstruction takes place, it is an event that does not await the
deliberation, consciousness, or organization of a subject, or even
modernity. It deconstructs itself. It can be deconstructed... All
sentences of the type "deconstruction is X" or "deconstruction is not X"
a priori miss the point, which is to say they are at least false...
the most extreme form of nihilism would be the view that every belief,
every considering-something-true, is necessarily false because there
simply is no true world... When one moves toward a goal it seems
impossible that " as such" is the principle of our faith.
> Or, if you prefer, I'll make the selection and
>present my case. If you do decide to present a selection all I ask is that
>it not be Lacan or Kristeva -- I've never been able to make the slightest
>bit of sense out of either.
But then they would be my best examples as by nature of their/your
subjectivity you cannot understand them. Yes? So you have provided the
proof.
>
>Oh, and as far as philosophy having to "combat refutation by science": I
>don't think this would have surprised or upset either Locke or Hume and,
>last I heard, both were still considered philosophers.
No its different as the territory of philosophy has been taken by
science - or if you like natural philosophy.
"Philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current
state of the world... only a God can save us ..The role of philosophy in
the past has been taken over today by the sciences..." Heidegger
>
>> >As for your question/challenge, I'd be quite happy to take up the cause
>of
>> >Umberto Eco's rightful inclusion within the domain known as philosophy.
>I
>> >would present my case, but I honestly can't conceive of a cogent argument
>to
>> >the contrary. The prima facie evidence is pretty compelling. Care to
>make
>> >a case for his not being a philosopher?
>>
>> I thought he was a novelist. Those bits of history i've read of his have
>> been factually wrong - but then in po-mo there are no facts.
>
>He is a novelist. He is also a semiotic theorist, a philosopher, a literary
>critic, an academic, a pundit, and a celebrity. In my original post, I
>suggested that atto look into Eco's semiotic works if he was interested in
>bridging analytic philosophy and pomo. Apparently, you weren't paying much
>attention.
>
>Out of interest, what did you find to be factually wrong in those bits of
>history of his that you've read?
In a newspaper article about medieval commerce.
>
>> >> >How about you give me some clear idea of what you intend by the phrase
>> >> >"after philosophy". If I find it to be nonsense, I'll explain why.
>As
>> >> >it is now, you haven't really offered any explanation.
>> >>
>> >> After philosophy - after the period in which philosophy took place -
>po-
>> >> mo is just a label for now. Imagine a philosopher says "an object
>cannot
>> >> logically be in two places at once" This became in the 20thC
>conditional
>> >> on science, if some scientist says electrons do just this it
>> >> demonstrates the inability of the philosopher to talk about the truth.
>> >
>> >Nope. It just shows that your hypothetical philosopher was wrong.
>>
>> In logic he was not wrong. Not hypothetical either - its from
>> Wittgenstein. Why was he wrong, maybe electrons aren't objects.....
>
>Bingo... you nailed that one right on the head.
That Philosophical notions of objects are not real... philosophy becomes
literature.
>
>> >> >I guess all of the enthusiastic practitioners of theology, science,
>and
>> >> >philosophy just don't realize that they are really living in the past
>and
>> >> >desperately need to get with the times.
>> >>
>> >> I think they realise what they are doing - They are all doing it in
>> >> universities and not the real world. One time philosophers were thought
>> >> wise *men*, kings and queens would seek their advice - do you think
>this
>> >> is still true? If so then see if they will talk to you and answer your
>> >> questions.
>> >
>> >So universities are not of the "real" world, huh? What world are they
>of?
>> >Having a tough time of it at university are we James?
>>
>> For someone who believes that philosophical argument is possible - such
>> claims - unsupported at that - and erroneous - seem strange - the above
>> represents exactly a po-mo statement, well done - no regard for truth
>> whatsoever, just a subjective - will to power type statement.
>
>I suppose your talking about my insinuation that your having a tough time of
>it at university and that this explains your classification of the
>university as not of the real world. That wasn't pomo, it was simply a good
>old fashioned personal slight. But you didn't answer the question, what
>world does the university belong to?
You didn't ask that question. And i don't understand it. Mental
hospitals and their patents are of the real world - in that sense
everything is, in another sense the real world is bound by certain
rights of passage which differ to those of a university.
>
>> >Seems to me the university has always been a pretty popular option for
>> >philosophers looking to make a living. Also, I think you have a pretty
>> >romantic notion of the philosophers of yore. In addition to being
>thought
>> >wiseman and sages, philosophers have down through the ages been thought
>> >heretics, madmen, ne'er-do-wells, corruptors of youth, treasonous
>villians,
>> >and all other manner of foul riff-raff. Oh yeah, I should also mention
>that
>> >most people have always been of the opinion that whatever else
>philosophers
>> >may be they are most certainly pedantic bores -- seems you agree.
>>
>> Again your going for the player and not the ball
>
>I suppose you're accusing me of an ad hominem. You're wrong. You
>characterized philosophers as wisemen.
Your right - Philosopher n. lover of wisdom.
>I pointed out that they have been
>seen as a good number of other things as well, many of them not so
>complimentary.
so?
> And your "argument" for the irrelavence of philosophy has so
>far been to suggest that they are pedantic bores.
No - that it can no longer be done. And i gave some reasons - and
examples - now more. Simply put that if philosophy is predicated on an
idea of ontology and of truth - then post-modernism challenges this -
examples given above.
>
>>- i'm use to this here
>> (alt.pomo) from my feline friend (who you could learn from) -
>
>I don't believe we are aquainted.
>
>Eric
>
>
--
James Whitehead
Peter R.Spacey
> reader will not let me reply (without pasting into notepad) and also the
> text format of your posts are difficult to read... it might be my reader
> but everyone else's posts read ok - maybe its us though :-)
I kept your sig so as to indicate the end of the quote - will not repeat (hopefully!). The text format is standard for email
communication, it's those who use mime encoding and html who ought to toe the line!
Now to the matter: Imo "logic" is a mental process (ideation) in which process a series of concepts is linked, satisfying the
user. Having said that, I glance at the glossary in my copy of Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy" and see: " Logic - the
study of reasoning, in Hegel the study of the origin and natural sequence of fundamental ideas". I guess my own take is closer
to the latter? Or maybe I'm equating logic with ideation or dialectic? So be it!
Only when a target audience is also satisfied will the process be seen interpersonally as logical (except in the case of
soliloquy). But the validation of such logic must lie in any conclusions reached - does the series have a compelling unity?
What kind of thematic constructs bind them together? Are there other possibilities, either from adding to or subtracting from
the given series? Or would a different series lead to the same conclusions?
Logical thought processes depend on individual preferences and so are many.
The inherent ambiguity of human speech is of little comfort to the would-be logician, who would have everything 'just so'.
That laws and statutes have to be interpreted and disputes arise shows just how impossible it is to insist on a universal logic
(dialectic) the application of which would settle all disputation for ever.
So the Moggin v. Jilliat correspondence here has no foreseeable resolution since two incompatible logical processes are being
followed. It's not my wish to interpose a third :-) I've submitted my comments from a postmodern perspective relying
briefly on its critical rhetoric by way of illustration, eg., logic is not a totality; textual meaning is brought to, not derived from
the texts. Regards, Peter
Eric Henriksen
> "a sustained and multivalent challenge to the various founding
> assumptions of Western European culture .. from physics to philosophy,
> from politics to art, the description of the world has changed in ways
> that upset some basic beliefs of modernity.. that there is no common
> denominator in nature or truth or God "
>
> How without a common denominator of truth can philosophy continue?
> And now i'm having to repeat myself because you have cut this fairly
> important point - then asked for something like it?
As I mentioned before, the prima facie evidence for the continued
possibility of philosophy is compelling -- it's still being practiced
therefore it must necessarily remain a possibility.
> >It's obvious we disagree -- that might well be the only thing on which we
do
> >agree. If you're content to leave it at that then, I must admit, I'm a
> >little confused as to why you initiated this discussion in the first
place.
>
> I'm happy to discuss - but not prove... that's harder work. You could
> perhaps offer some idea of philosophy without a common denominator of
> truth - and show how it relates to what was once called philosophy.
I don't have time this evening, but I'll happily make the case for Umberto
Eco. Give me a day or two and I'll post it as a new thread. I'll confine
myself to _Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language_ and possibly something
from _Kant and the Platypus_ if you're interested in picking those books up
from a library.
> >What's so difficult about seeing continental philosophy as being within
the
> >philosophical tradition? And, for that matter, which continental
> >philosopher abandoned reason?
>
> Nietzsche ... Deridda ... Baudrillard ... err want some more..
I've read each of the above -- actually not much of Baudrillard -- and
remember nothing resembling wonton irrationality. Perhaps, an ocassional
or even largely unconvincing argument, but hardly an abandonment of reason.
> >Tell you what, why don't you pick an essay or a representative selection
> >from a continental philosopher of your choice and then make a case for
its
> >lack of reason, its subjectivity, and its not being philosophy as it is
> >traditionally understood.
>
> Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed into one..
> Deconstruction takes place, it is an event that does not await the
> deliberation, consciousness, or organization of a subject, or even
> modernity. It deconstructs itself. It can be deconstructed... All
> sentences of the type "deconstruction is X" or "deconstruction is not X"
> a priori miss the point, which is to say they are at least false...
>
>
> the most extreme form of nihilism would be the view that every belief,
> every considering-something-true, is necessarily false because there
> simply is no true world... When one moves toward a goal it seems
> impossible that " as such" is the principle of our faith.
You know, citations are customary for a very good reason.
> > Or, if you prefer, I'll make the selection and
> >present my case. If you do decide to present a selection all I ask is
that
> >it not be Lacan or Kristeva -- I've never been able to make the slightest
> >bit of sense out of either.
>
> But then they would be my best examples as by nature of their/your
> subjectivity you cannot understand them. Yes? So you have provided the
> proof.
At the very most it proves that I think Lacan and Kristeva are, on the
whole, full of shit -- though I haven't read nearly enough of either to
really defend that opinion. I wasn't the one maintaining an assinine
assertion. Demonstrating that one, two, or even a bundle of those
recognized as continental or postmodern or post-structuralist philosphers
isn't, in fact, rational or a philosopher doesn't harm my position
whatsoever. I have been maintaining the continued possibility of
philosophy. This only requires one positive example and, conversely,
providing one positive example refutes your claim. I'll attend to that in my
future posting on Eco.
> >Out of interest, what did you find to be factually wrong in those bits of
> >history of his that you've read?
>
> In a newspaper article about medieval commerce.
Thats not very informative.
> That Philosophical notions of objects are not real... philosophy becomes
> literature.
Or provisionally descriptive. The relationship between philosophy and
literature is an interesting one, but I think it far more complex than a
simple minded equivalence.
> >I suppose your talking about my insinuation that your having a tough time
of
> >it at university and that this explains your classification of the
> >university as not of the real world. That wasn't pomo, it was simply a
good
> >old fashioned personal slight. But you didn't answer the question, what
> >world does the university belong to?
>
> You didn't ask that question. And i don't understand it. Mental
> hospitals and their patents are of the real world - in that sense
> everything is, in another sense the real world is bound by certain
> rights of passage which differ to those of a university.
I know you've heard this before, but can't you read? You stated, "I think
they realise what they are doing - They are all doing it in universities and
not the real world" when I asked you about those currently conducting
philosophy, science and theology. I then asked what you what world the
university belongs to. You dodged the question. I put the question to you
again and now your claiming that not only did I never ask it, but that you
don't understand it. It's your own assertion I'm asking about so if you
don't understand -- which I'd entirely understand as I don't either -- then
it's your own muddleheaded thinking you have to blame. Complicating matters
further, you then go on to answer the question I didn't ask and which you
don't understand.
> >> >Seems to me the university has always been a pretty popular option for
> >I suppose you're accusing me of an ad hominem. You're wrong. You
> >characterized philosophers as wisemen.
>
> Your right - Philosopher n. lover of wisdom.
The commandment to "know thyself" isn't something many people, including
philosophers, excel in.
> >I pointed out that they have been
> >seen as a good number of other things as well, many of them not so
> >complimentary.
>
> so?
You claimed philosophers were once revered as wiseman and consulted by kings
and queens. This, presumably, had something to do with the argument you
were trying to make concerning the contemporary relevance of philosophy and
the role of the university. I pointed out that philosophers have often been
seen as less complimentary things. Seems appropos to me.
> > And your "argument" for the irrelavence of philosophy has so
> >far been to suggest that they are pedantic bores.
>
> No - that it can no longer be done. And i gave some reasons - and
> examples - now more. Simply put that if philosophy is predicated on an
> idea of ontology and of truth - then post-modernism challenges this -
> examples given above.
The history of philosophy contains a multitude of ideas about ontology --
specific and general -- and truth; not a single idea. You're mighty
reductionist for a postmodern.
Further, that postmoderism challenges any specific philosophical ideas isn't
proof that they are untenable. To challenge is not enough and the
description of postmodernism you presented isn't conclusive or even, in
fact, novel. Of the many ideas contained in the history of philosophy,
various forms of epistimological scepticism abound. Despite your confidence,
not many people seem to agree with you that postmoderism somehow settles the
matter once and for all -- even if it did the victorius solution would be a
philosophical one. Unless you are claiming a priveledged perspective on the
truth of the matter, I think you'd do well to at least recognize that the
issues are currently contested.
Eric
Eric Henriksen
> >You missing the point. Einstein wasn't an amateur. It just took a
little
> >while for him to get a paying position in his choosen field.
>
> OK - If fall in love and marry someone - and later after a divorce they
> become a prostitute it follows that you had sex with a prostitute. Gosh
> and as the person was also once a child you had sex with a child. Albert
> was paid after the event, modern scientists are paid before - so they
> don't need to deliver - good advice would be to see the goods first.
>
> Amazing as Einstein was professional scientist after he wrote the 4
> papers, but still that means when he wrote them he was not amateur as he
> became a professional, he also became dead - so he was dead when he
> wrote them?
Ok, I'll give you this. You are, of course, strictly speaking correct.
Einstein was not a professional in the sense that the papers were works for
hire nor was he, at the time, employed as a scientist expected to be
producing theoretical works. Although, he was, properly speaking, employed
as one with scientific expertise and credentials: technical expert third
class. I am still trying to understand what you are getting at. What does
the role of amateurs -- or lack thererof -- in contemporary science have to
do with science's broader relevance?
> You mistake science and technology - the science in most technology is
> 100 years old. The computer older - all that's happened is refinement.
As usual, you are laboring under the influence of a mighty strange
definition. Science is not restricted to the revolutionary discovery. An
awful lot of scientific inquiry went into the mundane task of determining
what the specific properties of silicon and gallenium are and how they might
be utilized as semiconductors. The difficulties and expense of
manufacturing semiconductors necessitates constant scientific inquiry in
order to improve the process and the product. It might not be as romantic
as the lone genius toiling away in his spare time trying to understand the
deepest nature of reality, but that doesn't make it non-science.
Science is a method. The product of that method is scientific knowledge.
The manufacture or engineering of scientific technology depends upon the
refinement and specific application of scientific knowledge conducted
through the methodology of science.
> > And that
> >freaky little sheep you Brits built over there?
>
> The cloning of a sheep is a significant landmark in science - really?
> One of the last scientific big things was DNA - 50 years ago... that's
> the science - all those daft Scots are doing in a land of sheep which
> don't need any help is to breed one via a novel and expensive means.
Breeding a sheep is precisely what they didn't do -- they cloned one. That
Crick and what's-his-name discovered the double helix structure of DNA 50
years ago doesn't render all of the work in genetics which followed a lesser
accomplishment. Sure, the glory is less and the chance of getting a Nobel
isn't as certain, but the double helix model of DNA only got the ball
rolling. It took fifty years of tedious work in labs and, more recently, in
computer labs testing hypotheses in order to get to the point where we
understand enough of genetics that we can do something like clone a sheep.
Obviously, the double helix model wasn't enough. Much refinement was
required.
One thing that your comments here do make terribly clear is your near
pathological fixation on the "big ideas", "big picture", and "big thinkers"
to the exclusion of all else. The devil's in the details and the details
and the hard work they entail are precisely what you never seem to get
around to -- you can't see the trees for the forest. You like to make big
sweeping and dramatic proclamations -- the death of philosophy, of theolgy,
of science -- but, when it comes down to brass tacks, stating precisely what
you mean and demonstrating that meaning in some form or another is anathema
to you. I've been trying for the last month or so to cajole you into
breaking open a book and demonstrating how someone widely recognized as a
contemporary philosopher really isn't. In our other thread you finally made
a half-assed concession.
Eric
James Whitehead
R.Spacey <sear...@cix.co.uk> writes
>Hi James! You say: First off a technical thing - if you post here - after my
>signature my
>> reader will not let me reply (without pasting into notepad) and also the
>> text format of your posts are difficult to read... it might be my reader
>> but everyone else's posts read ok - maybe its us though :-)
>
>I kept your sig so as to indicate the end of the quote - will not repeat
>(hopefully!). The text format is standard for email
>communication, it's those who use mime encoding and html who ought to toe the
>line!
(well your text goes off my screen - don't know about other readers)
>
>Now to the matter: Imo "logic" is a mental process (ideation) in which process
>a series of concepts is linked, satisfying the
>user.
Fine - what about computer logic?
I think i see logic as expressions of A=A
> Having said that, I glance at the glossary in my copy of Will Durant's
>"The Story of Philosophy" and see: " Logic - the
>study of reasoning, in Hegel the study of the origin and natural sequence of
>fundamental ideas". I guess my own take is closer
>to the latter? Or maybe I'm equating logic with ideation or dialectic? So be
>it!
I see logic as always resolving a proposition as true or false - or not
well formed, i think its been a useful tool - but has difficulties as
certain features of the world are not capable of being explainable in
terms which reduce to true or false - but which are still *meaningful*
Further it lends one to believe in it as a method - as in science - and
then confuse this with what is the case in the world. Logic - like the
Sabbath was made for man - but now it seems the other way round - in
modernity at least - humanity served logic, whether of science,
capitalism or the Marxist dialectic.
If i make an assertion and you prove it wrong it could be that i was
mistaken - but it could be that what i think remains true. I assume what
wrong means here as a logical not ethical description - by reference to
context. The idea that "Nietzsche thought the physicality of the eternal
return as a foundation to the idea of the superman" - is - when called
wrong meaning this was not the case, not that i'm morally wrong to think
it.
>
>Only when a target audience is also satisfied will the process be seen
>interpersonally as logical (except in the case of
>soliloquy).
Your using the word in a different sense - but i think i both agree with
you and understand. Such a discourse for me takes place outside logic -
or the logic i outlined above.
> But the validation of such logic must lie in any conclusions
>reached - does the series have a compelling unity?
here i disagree - compelling unity is a meta narrative for me. So also
reaching conclusions. From my experience the mistake is that philosophy
attempted to clear up the mess which was in fact the ontology of
presence - whatever - it set about peeling the onion to discover its
ontology.
>
>What kind of thematic constructs bind them together? Are there other
>possibilities, either from adding to or subtracting from
>the given series? Or would a different series lead to the same conclusions?
I like this - if the universe is essentially chaotic we can make many
many patterns - but their significance is always subjective.
>
>Logical thought processes depend on individual preferences and so are many.
Umm - do you need the word logical here. I would write
"thought processes depend on individual preferences and so are many and
not necessarily reducible to being true or false that is not contingent
on some non individual meta narrative idea, theory, logic, truth,
morality, god etc.."
>
>The inherent ambiguity of human speech is of little comfort to the would-be
>logician, who would have everything 'just so'.
agreed
>
>That laws and statutes have to be interpreted and disputes arise shows just how
>impossible it is to insist on a universal logic
>(dialectic) the application of which would settle all disputation for ever.
agreed - and if this was possible the universe would stop - would not be
here (from Neitzsche)
>
>So the Moggin v. Jilliat correspondence here has no foreseeable resolution since
>two incompatible logical processes are being
>followed.
If it is resolved we are reduced to silence - which is not the purpose
of the news group. Far from wanting to settle things between myself and
moggin i want to open up the discussion. Maybe i've been mistaken but
deconstruction (though containing a paradox) is a useful tool - hell -
method. What i object to is the need to say its perfectly logical, its
not, its transcends this - and so also philosophy. (the man even shows
this so) It seems that some defenders of post modernism/deconstruction
argue that its essentially a rational process. Well if it is its a
contradiction, if its not it aspires to art and not philosophy. It even
then transcends art and becomes something outside of the hegemonies...
(the need is to face the criticism within academia by demonstration of
its multi plurality and not cow-tow to the old guard)
> It's not my wish to interpose a third :-) I've submitted my
>comments from a postmodern perspective relying
>briefly on its critical rhetoric by way of illustration, eg., logic is not a
>totality; textual meaning is brought to, not derived from
>the texts. Regards, Peter
Why would you not wish to interpose? If you regard my text as literature
how can it be wrong, the whole point of Nietzsche is transcendence, we
need to then throw away the ladder else we're stuck in his world view.
Calling someone wrong denies his greatest achievement. We are no longer
in the (victorian) school room where the idea of marking ones words with
ticks and crosses prevailed. "Schools Out" - Alice Cooper.
regards
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>
>> >You missing the point. Einstein wasn't an amateur. It just took a
>little
>> >while for him to get a paying position in his choosen field.
>>
>> OK - If fall in love and marry someone - and later after a divorce they
>> become a prostitute it follows that you had sex with a prostitute. Gosh
>> and as the person was also once a child you had sex with a child. Albert
>> was paid after the event, modern scientists are paid before - so they
>> don't need to deliver - good advice would be to see the goods first.
>>
>> Amazing as Einstein was professional scientist after he wrote the 4
>> papers, but still that means when he wrote them he was not amateur as he
>> became a professional, he also became dead - so he was dead when he
>> wrote them?
>
>Ok, I'll give you this. You are, of course, strictly speaking correct.
>Einstein was not a professional in the sense that the papers were works for
>hire nor was he, at the time, employed as a scientist expected to be
>producing theoretical works. Although, he was, properly speaking, employed
>as one with scientific expertise and credentials: technical expert third
>class. I am still trying to understand what you are getting at. What does
>the role of amateurs -- or lack thererof -- in contemporary science have to
>do with science's broader relevance?
I've answered this in the other post...
>
>> You mistake science and technology - the science in most technology is
>> 100 years old. The computer older - all that's happened is refinement.
>
>As usual, you are laboring under the influence of a mighty strange
>definition. Science is not restricted to the revolutionary discovery. An
>awful lot of scientific inquiry went into the mundane task of determining
>what the specific properties of silicon and gallenium are and how they might
>be utilized as semiconductors. The difficulties and expense of
>manufacturing semiconductors necessitates constant scientific inquiry in
>order to improve the process and the product. It might not be as romantic
>as the lone genius toiling away in his spare time trying to understand the
>deepest nature of reality, but that doesn't make it non-science.
I think your conflating science with technology. Do you think the
invention of the wheel part of science?
>
>Science is a method.
It could be seen as this but i see it more as theory or belief about the
world which validates certain methods over others.
> The product of that method is scientific knowledge.
>The manufacture or engineering of scientific technology depends upon the
>refinement and specific application of scientific knowledge conducted
>through the methodology of science.
The use of science in technology is essentially pragmatic, as is the use
of advertising in the whole manufacturing process. If magic worked and
was better - then technologists would use this as they once used Alchemy
and Astrology.
>
>> > And that
>> >freaky little sheep you Brits built over there?
>>
>> The cloning of a sheep is a significant landmark in science - really?
>> One of the last scientific big things was DNA - 50 years ago... that's
>> the science - all those daft Scots are doing in a land of sheep which
>> don't need any help is to breed one via a novel and expensive means.
>
>Breeding a sheep is precisely what they didn't do -- they cloned one. That
>Crick and what's-his-name discovered the double helix structure of DNA 50
>years ago doesn't render all of the work in genetics which followed a lesser
>accomplishment.
In science it is - because it adds nothing to our understanding of the
world. A successful heart transplant likewise doesn't further our
scientific understanding but demonstrates our technical ability.
> Sure, the glory is less and the chance of getting a Nobel
>isn't as certain, but the double helix model of DNA only got the ball
>rolling. It took fifty years of tedious work in labs and, more recently, in
>computer labs testing hypotheses in order to get to the point where we
>understand enough of genetics that we can do something like clone a sheep.
>Obviously, the double helix model wasn't enough. Much refinement was
>required.
What new knowledge did the successful cloning give - they did many
unsuccessful ones - and got lucky. If i discover that lighting a fire is
best with wood *and* paper i've not made any scientific discovery. The
boomerang - like the ducks webbed foot is not a scientific breakthrough.
>
>One thing that your comments here do make terribly clear is your near
>pathological fixation on the "big ideas", "big picture", and "big thinkers"
>to the exclusion of all else.
Playing the player not the ball again - or whatever - you were the one
banging on about Albert. Science as a belief in certain methods for
discovering the truth...
> The devil's in the details and the details
>and the hard work they entail are precisely what you never seem to get
>around to -- you can't see the trees for the forest. You like to make big
>sweeping and dramatic proclamations -- the death of philosophy, of theolgy,
>of science -- but, when it comes down to brass tacks, stating precisely what
>you mean and demonstrating that meaning in some form or another is anathema
>to you. I've been trying for the last month or so to cajole you into
>breaking open a book and demonstrating how someone widely recognized as a
>contemporary philosopher really isn't. In our other thread you finally made
>a half-assed concession.
Non of the ideas
>- the death of philosophy, of theolgy,
>of science -
are novel or mine -
i gave an encyclopaedia quote which states the ideas in general terms -
>"a sustained and multivalent challenge to the various founding
>> assumptions of Western European culture .. from physics to philosophy,
>> from politics to art, the description of the world has changed in ways
>> that upset some basic beliefs of modernity.. that there is no common
>> denominator in nature or truth or God "
and then specific quotes -
You have not for the past month been getting me to open a specific book
though books i have opened - but despite the fact that now you are just
throwing out insults - i will read one of the two books you quoted
recently - not a month ago - out of curiosity and good faith. And if you
like i will be happy to discuss it with you in a cordial manner.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<henrik...@qwest.net> writes
>
>> "a sustained and multivalent challenge to the various founding
>> assumptions of Western European culture .. from physics to philosophy,
>> from politics to art, the description of the world has changed in ways
>> that upset some basic beliefs of modernity.. that there is no common
>> denominator in nature or truth or God "
>>
>> How without a common denominator of truth can philosophy continue?
>> And now i'm having to repeat myself because you have cut this fairly
>> important point - then asked for something like it?
>
>As I mentioned before, the prima facie evidence for the continued
>possibility of philosophy is compelling -- it's still being practiced
>therefore it must necessarily remain a possibility.
The same could be said of Astrology - if what you mean by academic
philosophers they have become "Librarians of the Truth" (Joseph Kosuth
Art after Philosophy) further many of the new "names" seem to come from
- or go to - disciplines outside philosophy. "I am of course a
'philosopher' in the institutional sense that I assume the
responsibilities of a teacher of philosophy in an official philosophical
institution - but i am not sure that the site of my work ...is itself
properly philosophical." Derrida. ?what is being practised and by who?
>
>> >It's obvious we disagree -- that might well be the only thing on which we
>do
>> >agree. If you're content to leave it at that then, I must admit, I'm a
>> >little confused as to why you initiated this discussion in the first
>place.
>>
>> I'm happy to discuss - but not prove... that's harder work. You could
>> perhaps offer some idea of philosophy without a common denominator of
>> truth - and show how it relates to what was once called philosophy.
>
>I don't have time this evening, but I'll happily make the case for Umberto
>Eco. Give me a day or two and I'll post it as a new thread. I'll confine
>myself to _Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language_ and possibly something
>from _Kant and the Platypus_ if you're interested in picking those books up
>from a library.
I have to buy these from amazon as living in self imposed exile the
nearest library of use is 25 miles away.
>
>> >What's so difficult about seeing continental philosophy as being within
>the
>> >philosophical tradition? And, for that matter, which continental
>> >philosopher abandoned reason?
>>
>> Nietzsche ... Deridda ... Baudrillard ... err want some more..
>
>I've read each of the above -- actually not much of Baudrillard -- and
>remember nothing resembling wonton irrationality. Perhaps, an ocassional
>or even largely unconvincing argument, but hardly an abandonment of reason.
>
>> >Tell you what, why don't you pick an essay or a representative selection
>> >from a continental philosopher of your choice and then make a case for
>its
>> >lack of reason, its subjectivity, and its not being philosophy as it is
>> >traditionally understood.
>>
>> Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed into one..
>> Deconstruction takes place, it is an event that does not await the
>> deliberation, consciousness, or organization of a subject, or even
>> modernity. It deconstructs itself. It can be deconstructed... All
>> sentences of the type "deconstruction is X" or "deconstruction is not X"
>> a priori miss the point, which is to say they are at least false...
>>
>>
>> the most extreme form of nihilism would be the view that every belief,
>> every considering-something-true, is necessarily false because there
>> simply is no true world... When one moves toward a goal it seems
>> impossible that " as such" is the principle of our faith.
>
>You know, citations are customary for a very good reason.
Why - i've always wondered this - is a signature necessary to the truth
of a statement.
>
>> > Or, if you prefer, I'll make the selection and
>> >present my case. If you do decide to present a selection all I ask is
>that
>> >it not be Lacan or Kristeva -- I've never been able to make the slightest
>> >bit of sense out of either.
>>
>> But then they would be my best examples as by nature of their/your
>> subjectivity you cannot understand them. Yes? So you have provided the
>> proof.
>
>At the very most it proves that I think Lacan and Kristeva are, on the
>whole, full of shit -- though I haven't read nearly enough of either to
>really defend that opinion. I wasn't the one maintaining an assinine
>assertion. Demonstrating that one, two, or even a bundle of those
>recognized as continental or postmodern or post-structuralist philosphers
>isn't, in fact, rational or a philosopher doesn't harm my position
>whatsoever. I have been maintaining the continued possibility of
>philosophy. This only requires one positive example and, conversely,
>providing one positive example refutes your claim. I'll attend to that in my
>future posting on Eco.
Yes it seems logically it does - so why ask for the case above! if you
intend presenting me with a single black swan asking to see a white one
is strange? But the issue is not black or white - its is philosophy
possible - as in to do with an idea of non subjective truth or has it
become like Astrology.
>
>> >Out of interest, what did you find to be factually wrong in those bits of
>> >history of his that you've read?
>>
>> In a newspaper article about medieval commerce.
>
>Thats not very informative.
Agreed - but all i can recall other than this- in a Sunday paper
Observer or Independent around Christmas 1999 or 2000. But i'll order
one of the above books.
>
>> That Philosophical notions of objects are not real... philosophy becomes
>> literature.
>
>Or provisionally descriptive. The relationship between philosophy and
>literature is an interesting one, but I think it far more complex than a
>simple minded equivalence.
Well it wasn't at one time - the two were completely different. Science
as literature also?
>
>> >I suppose your talking about my insinuation that your having a tough time
>of
>> >it at university and that this explains your classification of the
>> >university as not of the real world. That wasn't pomo, it was simply a
>good
>> >old fashioned personal slight. But you didn't answer the question, what
>> >world does the university belong to?
>>
>> You didn't ask that question. And i don't understand it. Mental
>> hospitals and their patents are of the real world - in that sense
>> everything is, in another sense the real world is bound by certain
>> rights of passage which differ to those of a university.
>
>I know you've heard this before, but can't you read? You stated, "I think
>they realise what they are doing - They are all doing it in universities and
>not the real world" when I asked you about those currently conducting
>philosophy, science and theology. I then asked what you what world the
>university belongs to. You dodged the question. I put the question to you
>again and now your claiming that not only did I never ask it, but that you
>don't understand it. It's your own assertion I'm asking about so if you
>don't understand -- which I'd entirely understand as I don't either -- then
>it's your own muddleheaded thinking you have to blame. Complicating matters
>further, you then go on to answer the question I didn't ask and which you
>don't understand.
Well reading the above *is* difficult for me. Let me try to explain what
i was trying to say. The practice of science and philosophy was once
founded on the assumption of being able to know universal truths about
the world. As such where and how it took place was subordinate to this.
Hence amateurs are as much - in fact were more able to contribute to
this than professionals - who tend to maintain an orthodoxy. (burn
heretics) Einstein's theories were opposed by some orthodox scientific
communities. What happens in academic institutions is that the
structures exist to promote departments, and prestige of the individuals
and the institutions. A scientist wants a chair at Princeton and his
work helps achieve this. The idea of finding a universal truth is only a
tool. So a theory becomes a political tool in advancing an institution
or individual and even fashionable- like string theory. Its testability
in truth is second to its pulling power in terms of prestige, appearing
on the cover of Time or in the Simpsons takes precedence over the truth
of the world.
The validation of the Scientist/Philosopher lies in the internal
structures and not the outside world. As above its the lack of a
signature that puts a question mark over the truth of a statement, or
makes an unmade bed not worth several thousand pounds.
>
>> >> >Seems to me the university has always been a pretty popular option for
>> >I suppose you're accusing me of an ad hominem. You're wrong. You
>> >characterized philosophers as wisemen.
>>
>> Your right - Philosopher n. lover of wisdom.
>
>The commandment to "know thyself" isn't something many people, including
>philosophers, excel in.
I'm not with you here - i think they set out to find the truth - in the
past - not to score chicks - as i've seen in universities.
>
>> >I pointed out that they have been
>> >seen as a good number of other things as well, many of them not so
>> >complimentary.
>>
>> so?
>
>You claimed philosophers were once revered as wiseman and consulted by kings
>and queens. This, presumably, had something to do with the argument you
>were trying to make concerning the contemporary relevance of philosophy and
>the role of the university. I pointed out that philosophers have often been
>seen as less complimentary things. Seems appropos to me.
I'm trying to think otherwise but the idea was of a noble search for the
truth - from the Greeks onwards. Are you saying they are all a pack of
charlatans and always were.
>
>> > And your "argument" for the irrelavence of philosophy has so
>> >far been to suggest that they are pedantic bores.
>>
>> No - that it can no longer be done. And i gave some reasons - and
>> examples - now more. Simply put that if philosophy is predicated on an
>> idea of ontology and of truth - then post-modernism challenges this -
>> examples given above.
>
>The history of philosophy contains a multitude of ideas about ontology --
>specific and general -- and truth; not a single idea. You're mighty
>reductionist for a postmodern.
I think a philosophy without truth strange? The reductionism is the
ghost of modernity. That's the very thing that destroyed philosophy
amongst other things.
>
>Further, that postmoderism challenges any specific philosophical ideas isn't
>proof that they are untenable.
Its relative - a modernist will see proofs - postmodernism doesn't
challenge modernity - its unable- not bothered? - its modernity which
sees it as a challenge. Modernists are like caterpillars moaning about
butterflies. If your saying philosophy allows a multiplicity of theories
truths and meanings in which no one is more correct than another then
that's a post modern (non)position.
> To challenge is not enough and the
>description of postmodernism you presented isn't conclusive or even, in
>fact, novel.
Hell - novelty is modernism - how can we have novelty. Philosophy was
seen as progressing in novel ways to greater understandings of the truth
- until recently, this has ceased - we have post-modernity where
Librarians are as much philosophers as anyone else.
> Of the many ideas contained in the history of philosophy,
>various forms of epistimological scepticism abound. Despite your confidence,
>not many people seem to agree with you that postmoderism somehow settles the
>matter once and for all -- even if it did the victorius solution would be a
>philosophical one. Unless you are claiming a priveledged perspective on the
>truth of the matter, I think you'd do well to at least recognize that the
>issues are currently contested.
The settling was done in philosophy by philosophers. That Academics
still wish to live by witchcraft is understandable. And i do claim a
privileged perspective as fortunately or not - to quote the stranglers
there are no more heroes.
--
James Whitehead
Kristian Kirsfeldt
watering-hole was the following. Well yes, it was quite silly for me to
overhear two strange academians chit-chat, but still, one of them told the
other the following:
'I have this perfect scheme for /badgering/ those who are afraid to reduce a
bit. The scheme, it's as simple as a connect-the-quotes for Hegel - but don'
t spread the word around for everyone might start using it. Well, at first I
expect this... target person to start analyzing or criticizing a piece of,
say, art. As you know, they have an affection for phrases like 'The tempory
social need states...' or 'De-synergisation reveals...' and 'If comparing ..
with...' etc. and will use one of these for sure. After their opening
statements comes the crucial part, where I intervene by stating 'My dear
fellow, if I might suggest a replacement for your cold and bitter words -
would you not be satisfied by saying simply 'It /is/' without adding
anything else?' Them being such anti-reductionist will naturally say 'no' -
and as you shall see, this 'no' will be a fatal 'no'.
Oh, 'no!', I will say, 'but if your answer is a 'no' then you must be one of
those who supports /categories/, these dreadful mass-destruction weapons of
intellect, for these categories are the true evil that spread from the true
base of being! In categories! you speak when 'it is' proves to be not
enough, your own career are you destroying by speaking in categories!''
This awful plot seemed to be unescapable - I being horrified, waited for his
first victims to surface. Not much later I discovered that this schemer had
been freshly appointed as the alpha-logician of the current academic
circles.
Peter R.Spacey
> It seems that some defenders of post modernism/deconstruction
> argue that its essentially a rational process. Well if it is its a
I must be one of those defenders! I can't follow a process that isn't rational
as my thinking has to make sense to me at least :-). Those "contradictions"
*are* upsetting and I don't like multi-paradox situations (as in much christian theology).
That deconstructions can in turn be deconstructed is less of a problem as criticism
of criticism must end somewhere (that leaves plenty of scope).
The criticism that postmodernity isn't "essentially a rational process" puts its defenders
into a less than complimentary straight-jacket! That's OK by me :-) But can it be "reasonable"?!
Peter
Peter R.Spacey
I said: > But the validation of such logic must lie in any conclusions
James replied: here i disagree - compelling unity is a meta narrative for me. So also
> reaching conclusions. From my experience the mistake is that philosophy
> attempted to clear up the mess which was in fact the ontology of
> presence - whatever - it set about peeling the onion to discover its
> ontology.
"Meta narrative" isn't a shibboleth for me! That is, while I have sceptical reservations
for practical reasons it isn't possible to avoid what really boils down to one's pov
(weltanschauung). We all have experience that builds meta narrative for us whatever
we call it. We here are all relying on our experience in order to contribute. Some
indeed are more open to receiving than others - it's the same everywhere - and not
always those who say they want to learn are able to do so because of the power of
their meta narrative (or, preconceptions, if you like).
So I/we have to give meta narrative a hearing first. We have to have something to deconstruct.
And without modernity, how could there be post-modernity :-) Regards, Peter
PS I *think* I agree about philosophy and ontology but there could be problems with
definitions.
James Whitehead
R.Spacey <sear...@cix.co.uk> writes
>And again James, to keep items separate:
>I said: > But the validation of such logic must lie in any conclusions
>>reached - does the series have a compelling unity?
>
>James replied: here i disagree - compelling unity is a meta narrative for me.
>So
>also
>> reaching conclusions. From my experience the mistake is that philosophy
>> attempted to clear up the mess which was in fact the ontology of
>> presence - whatever - it set about peeling the onion to discover its
>> ontology.
>
>"Meta narrative" isn't a shibboleth for me! That is, while I have sceptical
>reservations
>for practical reasons it isn't possible to avoid what really boils down to
>one's
>pov
>(weltanschauung).
Ones weltanschauung -whatever isn't a metanarrative necessarily or is a
metanarrative a shibboleth? as its fairly clear? and its not ones world
view but a belief in and operation of an orthodoxy.
> We all have experience that builds meta narrative for us
>whatever
>we call it.
No i think the meta narrative acts as judge - even Derrida sees a value
system "out there" which is a shame. One is in away born into this as
its a prevailing culture - in the case of modernity.
>We here are all relying on our experience in order to contribute.
>Some
>indeed are more open to receiving than others - it's the same everywhere - and
>not
>always those who say they want to learn are able to do so because of the power
>of
>their meta narrative (or, preconceptions, if you like).
Its possible to challenge this prevailing ideology - it was in the past
possible to do this as a constructive act - of strengthening the
orthodoxy - post-modernism is defined by the scepticism about such
orthodoxys which is why po-mo theories, po-mo art po-mo culture po-mo
logic are strange contradictions.
>
>So I/we have to give meta narrative a hearing first. We have to have something
>to deconstruct.
Deconstruction is i think a half way house - as Derrida sees it at least
- still attempting something of the modernist project - using its tools
and institutions. A *truely* post-modern object would be incapable of
deconstruction. For instance Differrance?
>And without modernity, how could there be post-modernity :-)
I don't agree - po-mo represents a gap which is always present- if you
like the background noise - we become aware of this when whatever
current coherent signal fades.
> Regards, Peter
>
>PS I *think* I agree about philosophy and ontology but there could be problems
>with
>definitions.
:-) should be problems with definitions ...
regards
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
R.Spacey <sear...@cix.co.uk> writes
>James, I'm recapping! You said:
>> It seems that some defenders of post modernism/deconstruction
>> argue that its essentially a rational process. Well if it is its a
>> contradiction, i ....
>
>I must be one of those defenders! I can't follow a process that isn't rational
>as my thinking has to make sense to me at least :-).
What process are you following? Do cultural phenomena have to make
sense. We were talking yesterday about those Malbro (sp) ads of the
deserted mid west - and trying to pick out the logic in them - and in
smoking :-) Or body piercing!
> Those "contradictions"
>*are* upsetting and I don't like multi-paradox situations (as in much christian
>theology).
There has been an interest in po-mo by some Christian groups but i don't
think its healthy.
>That deconstructions can in turn be deconstructed is less of a problem as
>criticism
>of criticism must end somewhere (that leaves plenty of scope).
>
>The criticism that postmodernity isn't "essentially a rational process" puts its
>defenders
>into a less than complimentary straight-jacket! That's OK by me :-) But can
>it be "reasonable"?!
It can - it has a freedom - but in ganging up with logic can bully some
of us who see one of the few good things to emerge out of post-modernism
are private-languages. If individuals are *randomly fluctuating*
communication as we traditionally understand it is no longer possible -
its not so simple - like conversations between intergalactic
civilizations by the time the message is understood it describes
something which even if it was the case - was the case many millions of
years ago.
--
James Whitehead
Peter R.Spacey
that I feel able to respond to. You say:
> It can - it has a freedom - but in ganging up with logic can >
> bully some of us who see one of the few good things to emerge >
> out of post-modernism are private-languages.
I'd have said "private languages" were always operative, if by
that "definition" you mean talking at cross purposes (like you
and Moggin)? Apart from that, I don't have a clue what you're
trying to say :-)
> There has been an interest in po-mo by some Christian groups >
> but i don't think its healthy.
For whom? There's an ongoing list "postmodern christian" that I
get and write to at times from as postmodern a pov as I can,
bearing in mind that I'm a newbie to the postmodern rhetoric. I
use that term because I don't want to refer to anything too
scientific like 'theory' and there's no accepted programme, so
that's out too. I use rhetoric, then not pejoratively, but as a
way of encapsulating my and sometimes others, thoughts from a
postmodern pov. Even before I heard of postmodernity, I was
against the standard creeds and most accepted ideologies of
christendom. I do answer to the christian tag, however but again
only because it's the best I can find that's in common use. I
suppose simply "believer" would do but then everyone would want
details of the content.So when I at last read a bit, it made me
open my ears and so it progressed, if you can accept such a term
in this context.
And lastly you say : post-modernism is defined by the scepticism
> about such orthodoxys which is why po-mo theories, po-mo art >
po-mo culture po-mo logic are strange contradictions.
But these tags are simply markers to designate what the user sees
as a-typical in respect of the modern? Others might disagree in
any specific item being so labelled? I suppose it's possible
that some of the authors of such items don't regard their work or
even themselves as postmodern. Like beauty, postmodernity is in
the eye of the beholder :-) Regards Peter
PS. Found that by changing my font from Times New Roman to
Courier I could word-wrap at will. Is the line length OK now?
James Whitehead
R.Spacey <sear...@cix.co.uk> writes
>James, I'm just stringing together a couple of thoughts from you
>that I feel able to respond to. You say:
>
>> It can - it has a freedom - but in ganging up with logic can >
>> bully some of us who see one of the few good things to emerge >
>> out of post-modernism are private-languages.
>
>I'd have said "private languages" were always operative, if by
>that "definition" you mean talking at cross purposes (like you
>and Moggin)? Apart from that, I don't have a clue what you're
>trying to say :-)
firstly what do you mean by cross purposes, i'm not certain i know what
moggin's purpose is. - i think he would say that its to show i'm wrong
in some of my ideas regarding Nietzsche. Taking this at face value the
dialogue continues. My purpose - to express an opinion and see what
feedback i get. The exchange has helped me develop my thinking - which
this morning in bed ran something like this - (bare with this because it
is i think relevant to private languages and post modernity) [Thinks....
lying in bed ... about how you study philosophy, literature, art,
physics, evolutionary biology, logic, mathematics... Make a list in
which its thought likely or necessary to read the source documents - do
physics students read the Principia, (no) Students or those wishing to
learn about physics, maths - all the sciences? - including psychology
and economics do not read source material in acquiring relevant and
accurate knowledge of the disciplines. Is this possible in art and
literature - i think not. What about philosophy? Science seems to have
an idea of a common language - normally mathematics - by which ideas can
be exchanged, restated without altering them. It would be considered
perverse to do the same to a poem. Art historians demand in serious
study the actual painting, a print will not do. The interpretations of a
painting - of a poem seem limitless, i can change my views about a
picture by Paul Nash - and these can be valid and worth expression. I
can't do the same with the formula for the diameter of a circle. (or can
i ?) Reading Euclid in greek would not add to my understanding. (in
modern thinking?) How does philosophy relate to this. Could one learn
philosophy without reference to the original texts. Certainly some
philosophies could be - pragmatism? logical positivism, certain aspects
of Nietzsche? - here is the turning point - to Derrida? et al. the
actual text is the subject - the only *authentic* text is the original.
Philosophy has become then like literature and - open to many
interpretations. Maybe moggin is trying to keep open the meaning of
Nietzsche as something unresolved and un resolvable. How far can we go
in this process and how far is this process going. Cannot i read
Nietzsche as victorian physics - read Darwin as failed victorian
determinism? There is a collapse here into meaninglessness. Without that
collapse of the foundations can such lack of meaning be achieved - and
Nietzsche's philosophy has to continually do this. Any sense in it has
to be continually overcome if its project is to succeed. - and this
extends from philosophy into science, and everything else dependent on
theory- because philosophy was about foundations, We are only left with
private languages - something once thought impossible.
>
>> There has been an interest in po-mo by some Christian groups >
>> but i don't think its healthy.
>
>For whom? There's an ongoing list "postmodern christian" that I
>get and write to at times from as postmodern a pov as I can,
>bearing in mind that I'm a newbie to the postmodern rhetoric. I
>use that term because I don't want to refer to anything too
>scientific like 'theory' and there's no accepted programme, so
>that's out too. I use rhetoric, then not pejoratively, but as a
>way of encapsulating my and sometimes others, thoughts from a
>postmodern pov. Even before I heard of postmodernity, I was
>against the standard creeds and most accepted ideologies of
>christendom. I do answer to the christian tag, however but again
>only because it's the best I can find that's in common use. I
>suppose simply "believer" would do but then everyone would want
>details of the content.So when I at last read a bit, it made me
>open my ears and so it progressed, if you can accept such a term
>in this context.
Not healthy because the collapse of the modern scientific/atheistic
orthodoxy could be seen as an opportunity for the re-introduction of a
christian orthodoxy. Perhaps - i think so - christianity can exist in a
post-modern condition - but not a Christian-orthodoxy. Can a science or
a logic exist in a post-modern condition - no i don't think so, or can
art as we have known it to be. Post modern art becomes totemistic, its
functions are not the same as modern art. And modernity coined the term
- made the differentiation so to speak. Although the process of
differentiation appeared to present us with a periodic table of culture
- Poetry, Dance, Painting, Religion... it is only illusion, in a pre-
differentated society there is no boundary between "religion" "art"
"technology" "science" "literature" - there is no recognised "society"
or "individual". As in turn each of these elements is further
differentiated we arrive at the fuzzy and subjective phenomena called
post-modernity. What has changed then is that the objects of culture
have become illusions, so attempts to make them real becomes ironic. At
this sub atomic level sentences have as many meanings as you like, can
begin as poetry and end as mathematics.
>
>And lastly you say : post-modernism is defined by the scepticism
>> about such orthodoxys which is why po-mo theories, po-mo art >
>po-mo culture po-mo logic are strange contradictions.
>
>But these tags are simply markers to designate what the user sees
>as a-typical in respect of the modern?
As i've said above they were once thought to be elemental, now they have
become illusions.
>Others might disagree in
>any specific item being so labelled? I suppose it's possible
>that some of the authors of such items don't regard their work or
>even themselves as postmodern.
yes - they work under an illusion. If they accept objectivity then they
accept that greatest of weights - that there is no meaning.
> Like beauty, postmodernity is in
>the eye of the beholder :-) Regards Peter
I think not. :-)
>PS. Found that by changing my font from Times New Roman to
>Courier I could word-wrap at will. Is the line length OK now?
>
Its fine now - that explains it - Times New Roman is a proportional font
- courier isn't - what a nice example - proportionality disturbing
readability.
--
James Whitehead
Peter R.Spacey
feedback i get. The exchange has helped me develop my thinking -
which
I take it you mean "bear with ..." :-) And I can only reply
that all those thoughts must have saved you dressing all day?
Glad you find those exchanges useful. I understand and
sympathise, regards, Peter