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

Streetlight

Comments

Basically there are two translations, the older one being 'Speech' and the newer one being 'Voice', which more appropriately corresponds to the French...
September 09, 2016 at 03:36
An apologia for woo if there ever was one. Dancing-on-a-rooftop-with-bells-on...
September 08, 2016 at 13:47
Not a great deal. At least, Derrida is quite clear in his exposition. If you want to have the best of both words, do Austin's How To Do Things With Wo...
September 08, 2016 at 13:13
Only, the opposite of that. Lingis's phrase remains the best: we are an involution of the sensuous.
September 08, 2016 at 11:03
Short of subscribing to some myth of free-floating qualia, I simply don't see how this could be true. Proprioceptive sensing has precisely to do with ...
September 08, 2016 at 10:38
But I'm not saying that the self is a 'social' construction (any more than I'm saying the self is a 'biological' construction); I'd rather say that it...
September 08, 2016 at 10:17
Interestingly, we can actually scientifically test the above. The rubber hand illusion is famous and should be self-explanatory in the above regard, a...
September 08, 2016 at 04:04
As usual, part of the problem here is in conceiving 'inside' and 'outside' as absolutes, rather than differentially produced boundaries. The OP is adm...
September 08, 2016 at 03:59
Oh fuck off Apo.
September 08, 2016 at 02:06
Oh look, I mentioned the words 'mirror neurons' so I'm an arch-reductionist who must disagree with everything you just said. It's not 'subjectivity' t...
September 08, 2016 at 01:47
Hey, I'm not making any claim to 'radicality' here, but I don't think it's exactly a stretch to say that the idea that recognizing other-selves came '...
September 08, 2016 at 01:22
I suppose we simply have different approaches to the history of philosophy then. The whole idea of self-affection is pretty much as old as God himself...
September 07, 2016 at 08:47
Russell's A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz remains one of the great studies, imo.
September 07, 2016 at 02:40
Not much of a trick.
September 06, 2016 at 16:39
Not if I distinguish between cake and not-cake. This allows me to create a digital model of the cake which I can work on in all it's discrete glory.
September 06, 2016 at 16:00
No - we 'create' zero by digitizing the cake and the not-cake. And not-cake is - as the name implies - a reflexive operation: it is a meta-statement a...
September 06, 2016 at 15:50
Eh, I'm of course exactly of the opposite mind, both historically and philosophically: the notion of auto-affection has been the theological thread th...
September 06, 2016 at 15:25
Yes, and? A more fun way to understand the whole deal with the empty set is that it's like distinguishing the cake from the not-cake, which means that...
September 06, 2016 at 15:17
I'm too tired to reply to your mammoth post properly tonight, but I wanted to quickly post that it seems to me our differences come down to whether or...
September 06, 2016 at 14:09
No, but you can make the law of the excluded middle apply by imposing a rule which would, on that basis, arbitrarily split said cake. That’s the whole...
September 06, 2016 at 13:44
The issue is more subtle than this, although I admit that in my haste to distinguish intensive (analog) differences from the Kantian 'thing-in-itself'...
September 06, 2016 at 13:04
I may or may not chime in with Word and Object, How to Do Things With Words, or Speech and Phenomena, if we end up doing one of those. Got alot on my ...
September 06, 2016 at 05:24
The latter doesn't follow the former at all. If I cut a cake into two and say that the two pieces now belong to the set 'Cake', it doesn't mean the ca...
September 05, 2016 at 14:26
Ugh, you can't even get the terms right. I said nothing about binary logic. Seriously, you are really bad to have discussions with. And that we can pr...
September 05, 2016 at 14:17
Ugh, that we work with digital systems has nothing to do with whether or not 'we are digital systems'. The latter phrase is literally meaningless, it ...
September 05, 2016 at 14:09
I'm asking you to elaborate.
September 05, 2016 at 14:07
Go on...
September 05, 2016 at 13:50
? This is what I've been saying from the beginning. Not sure what's being pointed out anywhere. I'm referring to the distinction between information a...
September 05, 2016 at 13:36
http://blog.su-kam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wave-form.jpg
September 05, 2016 at 13:00
I've stipulated what I've meant by the terms multiple times, precisely defining them in terms of negation and reflexivity, meanings which are certainl...
September 05, 2016 at 12:55
Honestly, I really don't want to play twenty questions. Thanks for engaging though.
September 05, 2016 at 12:08
I have no idea what you mean by 'we function digitally'. Sorry Terra, I don't think you have a grasp of the vocabulary here, which is why I'm being cu...
September 05, 2016 at 11:59
No.
September 05, 2016 at 11:52
Sure.
September 05, 2016 at 11:49
Logic is a symbolic representational system. I have no idea what it means to say that 'we' are a symbolic representation system.
September 05, 2016 at 11:44
So which is it - do vague and crisp map on to analog and digital or do they not? If they do, in what sense can you claim that the analog/digital disti...
September 05, 2016 at 11:39
Depends on how you mean. Your original question quoted a statement about symbolic representational systems then asked if 'we' are digital or analog. I...
September 05, 2016 at 11:33
The question doesn't make sense. Analog and digital characterize systems or processes in nature, not things or entities.
September 05, 2016 at 11:14
Sure, every setting of a boundary is always (at least) double: the explicit one between the two (digitized) elements in question (A, not-A), and impli...
September 05, 2016 at 10:10
"A nation is a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past, a hatred of their present neighbors, and dangerous illusions about their futu...
September 05, 2016 at 06:03
Thank you for your series of assertions.
September 04, 2016 at 16:38
Yes, yes, if it doesn't come from the one of five of six philosophers you've bothered schooling yourself in it's all allusion and romantic melange. Bu...
September 04, 2016 at 16:28
No it isn't, and yes you can. If you want elaboration, see what I've previously written about the analog as the knowing of relations.
September 04, 2016 at 16:21
Been through this multiple times now, Meta, to know is not to identify. Won't go through it again.
September 04, 2016 at 15:48
Hey, I'm just relaying the theory here. Actually, now that you mention it, I relayed it wrong. It's the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, gener...
September 04, 2016 at 10:39
It's perhaps the most well known definition of the state - first given by Max Weber - that it possesses a 'monopoly on violence'. That is, the state p...
September 04, 2016 at 02:17
Turns out, plants have a good yarn to each other every once in a while: http://nautil.us/issue/6/secret-codes/learning-to-speak-shrub
September 03, 2016 at 15:58
Au contraire mon ami, the reference to the discrete and the continuous mean nothing without the index of negation and reflexivity which quite precisel...
September 03, 2016 at 15:46
I don't think this is quite right. As a matter of principle, it trades too heavily on some kind of thought/world duality which I think is unsustainabl...
September 03, 2016 at 09:11
See my reply above to Apo - the analog is not just uncertainty and vagueness. It has specific properties of it's own defined primarily by relationalit...
September 03, 2016 at 08:37