The Philosophy of Art & Aesthetics.

Moderator: e_dog

User avatar
Posts: 5797
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 11:48 am
Location: st pete, florita

Post by jimboloco » July 13th, 2007, 1:41 pm

when the student is not ready the teacher will dissappearr

thanks for your response
i will get back to this want to read the entire thread
and see if i can get some essential insights about this conversation
novice visualization
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]


Post by Totenkopf » July 14th, 2007, 10:43 am

. Quine is a master of elegant and ingenious logical games that miss the big picture. E.g. the meaning of a statement is the whole of science. Problem: there is no such thing as the whole of science. All supposedly analytic phil. after Ludwig the Wit has been atavistic.
That appears to be a paraphrase of Q's Two Dogmas, but I'm not sure it's an accurate paraphrase. "Statements" should be subject to confirmation by people across the entire domain of knowledge and science is what he suggested ( he meant like hypotheses, theories, empirical assertions, etc.).

Imagine one of your comrade pals at Cafe Pendejo sez "capitalism exploits labor" or something: the Quinean, were one around (tho' he'd probably grumble at the noun-variables---definition always an issue), would simply require all sorts of evidence--historical, economic--to prove that. Probability and contingency remain issues as well: one company exploits, another goes bankrupt, etc. Some plumbers are rich; teachers and bidnessman are broke, etc.

And however trivial that sounds, I suggest Marx was an empiricist, and rather strict verificationist as well, and like Quine, he asserts that knowledge--including economics, history, sciences etc.--- be viewed as "a posteriori" (i.e. the German Ideology--which reads about like Locke or something) That said, I don't think Marxism could withstand a radical empiricist critique (tho' some concepts might--the labor theory of value itself), especially in terms of application.

Ludwig the Mad''s Tractatus entertains me, but it is a rather whimsical and odd text. Most of the logic stuff was cribbed from Frege & Russell anyways. And I suspect Quine--more nominalist than some realize--agreed.

User avatar
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » July 15th, 2007, 9:19 am

"I don't think Marxism could withstand a radical empiricist critique"
Marx invented radical critique (empiricist or totherwise).

The Tractatus is a philosopher's crossword puzzle. To really appreciate Ludovicus The Subtle, one must read the later stuff. Phil. Invest.; Blue/Brown Books, etc. etc.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.


Post by Totenkopf » July 15th, 2007, 12:49 pm

The TLP may be a philosopher's crossword puzzle (tho' I think a bit Lewis Carroll like--and with some interesting ideas on language, and perception, really); the Phil. Investigations, on the other hand, is sort of like Austrian anthropology, if not a type of quasi-behaviorism. I have read the first 150 maxims or so fairly closely, and still have problems with "meaning as use," and the language game concept. PI in a sense even more mad than the TLP. I should review the B & B books.

Steve Plonk
Posts: 2397
Joined: December 12th, 2009, 4:48 pm

Re: Hyperreality

Post by Steve Plonk » August 15th, 2014, 11:28 am

e-Dog, haven't heard from you online in a while. Hope everything is fine out your way in the Punjab, or whatnot. :) We are happy as a gorged flea in Tennessee, USA. 8) :lol:
Keep those cards & posts coming on the internet. 8)

Post Reply

Return to “The Anti-Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest