You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Streetlight

Comments

I think so. At least, he spends alot of the paper comparing Cavell with other readers and seems to 'side' with Cavell against them. It's more exposito...
April 29, 2019 at 12:51
No, you mentioned him because you saw another generic opportunity to wheel out your pet concerns which are tangental and irrelavent to the thrust of t...
April 29, 2019 at 11:27
§120 §120 largely trades on the distinction between the ideal (what language 'ought' to be) and the actual (what language 'is') that Witty has previou...
April 29, 2019 at 10:41
This is a great paper that deals with Cavell's reading of Wittgenstein, and just so happens to also comment on §117 in a way that might help w/r/t the...
April 29, 2019 at 08:13
Oh my God are you at all capable of arguing about ideas rather than names? Rid yourself of this continental disease, it's philosophically asphyxiating...
April 29, 2019 at 03:50
Of course it's 'possible'; Derrida and co. have never left the plane of the 'possible' - that's the only thing they are acquainted with. The question ...
April 29, 2019 at 01:31
Here you go
April 28, 2019 at 07:07
Perhaps one response to this is to transform the question from 'what transformations can't we think?' to: 'what transformations can't we live?'. This,...
April 28, 2019 at 06:38
Just going to try and respond to bits and pieces to catch up a little bit: Don't you find this kind of approach just absolutely suffocating? I mean, H...
April 28, 2019 at 04:43
Ugh, away for a day and my thread is a Heidegger cesspool that only people who can speak the jargon can participate in. Yuck yuck yuck.
April 27, 2019 at 03:19
Difference that makes a/any difference.
April 24, 2019 at 17:28
This might be my last post for a day or so as it's ANZAC day tomorrow and I'll be out gambl... celebrating the war effort all of tomorrow, and I need ...
April 24, 2019 at 17:03
I don't think most people who use the term 'identity politics' know what they're referring to. I think they just see words like 'race' and 'gender' an...
April 24, 2019 at 14:48
I've been trying - and failing - to articulate to myself why this approach doesn't sit right with me, but I think I've hit upon why. I think for the e...
April 24, 2019 at 14:46
I ignored it because it's quite obvious that there are issues of race and gender that can and ought to be politically redressed.
April 24, 2019 at 14:38
All politics is an effort to control or change what people can 'choose to do'. So this is unhelpful and unspecific.
April 24, 2019 at 13:28
But feminism and anti-racist movements do not largely conform to the description I gave above. I think - though I could be wrong - we might agree on t...
April 24, 2019 at 13:09
This, by the political scientist Corey Robin, might be helpful: "One last word on identity politics: Every form of politics can take its identitarian ...
April 24, 2019 at 11:53
There's been some good discussion here with those who've had no such issues. Considering that I've had to correct some basic grammatical comprehension...
April 24, 2019 at 11:08
What failure? Was there something I wrote that implied that such temporal 'glue' ought to have no place in any analysis of language and normativity? O...
April 24, 2019 at 09:39
Can I ask that you look at the conversation between me and Csal a bit earlier on in the thread? Particularly these exchanges: these four posts here wh...
April 24, 2019 at 07:51
This is not a Heidegger thread; why would you think these questions are relevant?
April 24, 2019 at 07:36
But I think what I want to say that local conditions of sense are already this 'deeper' sense of transcendentality; or that the deep manifests itself ...
April 24, 2019 at 06:38
Like Michael, you're simply mapping your concept of a house (and a flower) to the physical: you're just begging the question (yes, I'm ignoring what t...
April 24, 2019 at 05:38
There was one on Voice and Phenomenon here a while back.
April 23, 2019 at 16:43
No, that would be silly. As would any reading along those lines. It's There would be a concept of ; Not: There would be that one could imagine turning...
April 23, 2019 at 13:01
The last and only thing I'll say about Derrida in this thread from here because it is off-topic, as are most invocations of Derrida in anything whatso...
April 23, 2019 at 12:44
They are undeconstructible because they count, for Derrida, as among the conditions of their deconstruction. Deconstruction would be 'impossible', wou...
April 23, 2019 at 12:34
§118, §119 As per what I said about §116, §118 and §119 are best understood in light of the distinction between the understanding on the one hand, and...
April 23, 2019 at 06:03
Right, which is why I didn't say we can't. I said if we did, we'd be talking about something else. Or if you like - we can't if we want to talk about ...
April 22, 2019 at 17:51
Cool, so you've gone ahead and mapped the concept of flowers and houses to the physics, and then, on the basis of that, told me that concepts have not...
April 22, 2019 at 17:41
Go on.
April 22, 2019 at 17:31
Wasn't me :confused:
April 22, 2019 at 17:29
The laws of physics eh? The one pertaining to flowers? Or the one about houses? Remind me. Flower =/= House? F =/= H?
April 22, 2019 at 17:27
The idea is that there would be a concept of a house that one could imagine turning into a flower, but not our concept of a house. But tbh I'm not rea...
April 22, 2019 at 15:40
But the point being made is not about things: it is about concepts (or language). It's not about physical possibility. It's about conceptual possibili...
April 22, 2019 at 13:39
You only get to make that face if you've studied and understand him.
April 22, 2019 at 10:22
Is it presented in a dialectically oppositional way? Or are you simply engaging in the standard Derridian one-upping that leads, over and over again, ...
April 22, 2019 at 10:00
Your point is well taken, but I think what's missed is the context of the example, which, to be entirely fair, I did not provide. Actually, I mentione...
April 22, 2019 at 09:40
Hah, not you. Still, I'd say something like: a language game is conditioned by a form of life. So, in the 'context' of building something, 'slab' and ...
April 20, 2019 at 15:54
Also, a quick note on something I was thinking about in the car today: I've always disliked calling language-games 'contexts', and on reflection I thi...
April 20, 2019 at 08:15
I don't think the second bit of §117 can be properly discussed without referring to the discussion of ostension that took place earlier in the book. A...
April 20, 2019 at 07:52
More Cavell! - On Morality: "I take it that most moral philosophers have assumed that the validity of morality depended upon its competence to assess ...
April 19, 2019 at 17:35
I'd forgotten you'd mentioned physics. In any case you weren't who I had in mind. All I'll say is that I what I'm arguing for can accommodate this (as...
April 19, 2019 at 16:14
So a few people now have mentioned 'physics' - as though 'physics' could tell us what we call houses and what we call flowers; but this of course is a...
April 19, 2019 at 14:35
§117: This is a bit tough and I have to go a bit beyond what's just there to make sense of this one, but here's what I make of it: the metaphysician i...
April 18, 2019 at 10:36
A relevant quote relating to issues around §116: "In the work of Wittgenstein ... appeals to "what we ordinarily say" take on a different emphasis . I...
April 18, 2019 at 08:21
Just to be clear, the context of Cavell's discussion - which I see you've found - is in relation to the problem of scepticism: do we need philosophy t...
April 18, 2019 at 07:53
Your post brings to mind alot of the debate that occasionally crops up, in Lacanian circles, between those who bank on the 'Real' as provding some kin...
April 18, 2019 at 07:34
Was thinking about this a bit more: I think I'm avoiding magical examples because if McGonagall could just wave her wand and transfigure a bungalow in...
April 17, 2019 at 17:14