What the above implies though is that if one wants to contest what Brassier is doing here, such a contestation needs to take place 'one level up' from...
This is something B. does address, and I quoted it earlier - §§30 is the relevant passage. The idea is basically you have two options: either you begi...
But it only leads to a contraction if it is assumed that the two are not distinct. That's why it's a contradiction. Which means the claim that Berkele...
Nope. See: §§30: "Contrary to what correlationists proclaim, the presupposition of this difference is not a dogmatic prejudice in need of critical leg...
That's what Berkeley attributes to the realist. But it's wrong - because he doesn't establish a priori distinction between concepts and objects. Man, ...
Yep, can't see a prior distinction between concept and object in any of that - just a flat equivocation between 'things' - so I'd say the argument has...
No, he does not begin by distinguishing a concept from an object, and go on to argue that they are the same. As far as the argument goes, there are si...
To the degree that he does not distinguish between a concept and an object, the conclusion is built into the argument from the beginning. It's not tha...
The assumption is implicit in the equivocation between 'things' qua ideata and things simpliciter. And of course Berkeley doesn't make the distinction...
No it isn't. "It is undoubtedly true that we cannot conceive of concept-independent things without conceiving of them; but it by no means follows from...
I dunno TGW, you just seem not to 'get it': Brassier's point is that when you frame the realist's point in the way you do - "It is possible to conceiv...
Does this matter though? Surely, this is a conclusion inferred by Berkeley from what he takes be a successful argument against a mind-independent worl...
And if there were no environment for a leg to move - to exert pressure against, to be oriented amongst - there would be no such stimulus from the brai...
The point is that psychology is 'murky' precisely in accordance to the degree in which it's subject matter is murky. If were any more precise, it woul...
Psychological experiments are less 'law-like' than physics or biology to the degree that the variables involved are harder, if not in principle imposs...
Alright, so - working through C&O. Essentially, I read C&O as something like a ground-clearing operation. Brassier's goal is to establish the importan...
I'm not sure about this - if anything, Brassier's ultimate charge in "L and the Reality of Abstraction" is that Laruelle basically loses his nerve at ...
Mm, I quoted Bryant because he gives a nice reader's digest version of NU to the uninitiated. Brassier's take on his own work is in fact more interest...
How in the world did you draw these staggeringly off base conclusions? And why ought anybody answer your questions when you can't be bothered to do so...
@"schopenhauer1" *Grumble*. Seems like you're after cliff notes because you can't be arsed reading yourself. Anyway, regarding Nihil Unbound - rather ...
The book the essay is published in - The Speculative Turn - has been published under an Open Access creative commons license, which means that there's...
As usual, we're at an impasse, and I've lost my appetite to go on. I will say that I literally meant cars blinking, as in what eyelids do - which is w...
@"Michael" Sorry for the late reply, TPF has been down for me for a couple of days. Anyway... But there's nothing to be anti-realist about. What is di...
It was directing me to a cloudflare 'website is down' page. I should have paid closer attention to the exact error but yeah. I thought there was like ...
Doesn't sound right to me. What is the recognitional capacity to verify or falsify "hello!". Or "I christen this ship 'Jane'"? This is the problem of ...
It would have to be assessed on the basis of how language would be able to play that role. What specifically about language, in other words, would all...
Not asking, Pneu, Butler's clearly a lost cause for you. But I don't think it was a mere accident that you went straight for a comment about her appea...
You're missing the parameter which would make significant such a distinction (between language and what is not language): sense. It's no use, or rathe...
But what the OP tries to show - among other things - is precisely how such a distinction can be misleading. Insofar as language is just one manner of ...
A hundred times yes! D&R functions for me as a sourcebook, something to continually go back to and discover new things. It's a guide to thinking, hand...
But if language is just another thing in the world, the question is more or less senseless. The very question 'what else' seems to want to parse langu...
You seem to be mistaking form for content. Truths are predicated of propositions. Which is to say that by definition, one needs language in order to h...
The other option of course is that both positions are devoid of sense and that one reject the terms of the debate altogether. But one would have to ad...
Yes but Dummett et. al. are wrong. What 'some' say is irrelavent here so long as the argument goes unaddressed. Which it has. The point is to show tha...
But why in the world would realism require verfication-transcendent conditions? It's as if you were to say: the fact that I can't walk through walls d...
JW's reader's guide is pretty good, it's a very nice companion to have on you while making your way through the book. Otherwise, I dunno - I've been d...
Have you done any secondary reading on it? It's a very, very, very hard book. Regardless, preliminary advice would be this: start with chapter 3 on th...
Comments