What a bunch of misogynist bullshit. These so called 'well established facts' would have any bearing whatsoever if (1) women have had the educational,...
But then, if you're disqualifying Arendt, Naussbaum, Foot or Anscombe, I'd suggest the issue lies in your judgement, and not the works in question. Yo...
I didn't say that noble means good, although I did quote Nietzsche himself tracing the etymological significance of 'good' to nobility. So yes, Nietzs...
Not quite. The aristocratic in Nietzsche refers to all those who value ranking, or the stratification of society into differing ranks. It is a concept...
It's important to remember though that Nietzsche coupled his rejection of the self ("self-antirealism") to a realism about drives or impulses that swa...
I don't think that's fair. My main complaint is that he's erasing the specificity of my position by translating it into terms - his terms - that aren'...
Woah cowboy, that first quote isn't mine (is it?); and yeah, the second quote is quite specific that it isn't adequate to this task, i.e. the one set ...
But I didn't begin the discussion of formal logic to begin with - you did. I've tried to make the viewpoint I've adopted re: becoming and relations as...
I dunno, I think you're being a bit dramatic. I've never gone out of my way to comment on formalism without prompting, and my issues, where I do have ...
I think actually that this is fair, with the caveat that I will always try, as far as space and time allow for, to explain what I mean when I invoke t...
That's unfortunate. Part of the appeal of this approach is precisely that it's allowed me to make sense of fields as far flung as aesthetics, ethics, ...
There's a very useful distinction in democratic theory regarding the difference between enemies and adversaries (antagonists and agonists) - the diffe...
The unsubstitutable, the unique, the distinct, the inexchangable; that which has no equal or equivalent. It is what cannot be subsumbed under a regime...
Eh, your random opinion doesn't really matter tho. It's true that the notions discussed here are pretty abstract, but they are so of necessity, given ...
Yes - it's a limit precisely from the perspective of the already-individuated, which in this case would be the primitive function. But the whole point...
Okay, I wanna backtrack here a little because a) we've both misread the passage on generation, because of my out-of-context quote, and b) I wanna deal...
You must have a dim view of 'everyone' if you think 'everyone' is as rigidly dogmatic in their approach to conversation as you. But as we've establish...
A challenge? Please, don't flatter yourself. Your modus operendi consists of waltzing into a thread, declaring a position wrong from the point of view...
You can actually use a Taylor series to reconstruct a primitive curve (locally, around a singularity) with a single derivative. I couldn't tell you th...
The issue is that much like the quantum formalism, there are differing interpretations of the differential, and the general attitude in math is mostly...
This must be why they say ignorance is bliss. It saves you from this kind of embarrassment. As usual, the terms in play aren't so easily coopted into ...
Except I have no problems with reciprocal relations on the condition that what is reciprocally related are themselves relations. What's at stake here ...
Perhaps - and this just struck me - the best way to get a handle on this is to speak in terms of coupled rates of change. A rate of change, we can rec...
The point of much of this is to see how one would approach concepts from the point of view of genesis: that is, if we don't take for granted the indiv...
Interestingly, this was almost exactly Plato's solution: to posit the (supersensible) Idea of the Small and the Idea of the Large which things could '...
General enough to fit into the artificial coordinates of his 'system' of course. The whole thing is a kind of watered-down Hegelianism: if the singula...
This is a valid move I think, but I also think that it comes with a trade off, which is precisely to give up thinking about relations. That is, it's p...
Yeah but who cares unless you're invested in that little cottage industry to begin with? Honestly, it's these self-referential loops that get us stuck...
It isn't though. Maybe one day it'll hit you that your pre-fab Apospeak isn't applicable here. Maybe one day you'll even respond to the singularity of...
Not at all curious - it isn't science's job to think the singular - it is methodologically bound to ignore it! - and no one with a taste for philosoph...
But this is just a warmed-over Kantianism that gets everything back to front. As if the world cares about the definteness of terms. Nah mate, its you ...
I wouldn't use the term unnatural though, or rather, I wouldn't set them in opposition to each other; I would say instead that the laboratory setting ...
Lol, jargon jumping by me when you're the one who can't read and impute terms to me that I never used in the first place. Like three times. Please. Yo...
Cheers. One of the advantages in thinking of randomness in terms of equipotential is that is allows us to bypass many of the tricky debates about caus...
Again, the term spontaneity is yours. I did not use it in my original post(s), and I would prefer to avoid the word altogether if I could. Novelty - w...
But you are asking a bad question. The question itself is wrong. It's like asking: is the rock falling off the cliff ethical, or not ethical? The righ...
But this is a misformed question: the point is that randomness (qua equiprobability) is indexed to motivations and expectations of an inquirer (not 'm...
One can accept Bergson's critique of possibility without subscribing to his metaphysics wholesale. Nuance isn't hard. As for your question, I never sa...
Because as per Bergson, possibility as a modal category is always a back-formation: it takes what exists and then retrojects it's possibility as an ex...
It's the word Bateson uses - and yes, I know you like 'constraints'. And I do believe that spontaneity is a part of nature, but probability or possibi...
Comments