You're not offering shit. Racism is premised on differences deemed signifiant and not difference simpliciter. The 'deeming' is not biological but soci...
Read what I said again. None of what you said responds to it. Anyone who naturalizes racism can fuck right off, including you. Your two-bit line of re...
I think you underestimate just how much the establishment is despised. Like, consider that people are aware of all the things you listed about Trump, ...
The vindictive part of me wants Biden to win the nomination, and then watch with glee as he loses the presidency - as he obviously will - and watch de...
This doesn't follow at all, and it also happens to have the effect of attempting to naturalize racism, rather than recognizing it for the political ph...
Jerome Roos - Why Not Default?: The Political Economy of Sovereign Debt (SO GOOD; ESSENTIAL READING) Ellen Meiskins Wood - The Origin of Capitalism: A...
I tried to grapple with some of the ideas in Jodi Dean's book in a recentish thread which you can read here. Essentially this really got me thinking a...
Cool question! I've been trying to do some reading around this since its become quite topical, and I've really enjoyed: Judith Butler - Notes Toward a...
The hardest thing about thinking philosophy and activism together is the necessity of philosophy's critical distancing of itself from the world; philo...
What you care or do not care about is irrelevant and beneath discussion. Far more relevant is the fact that Kant not get turned into a full blown idea...
Because it makes a difference as to what kind of thing the transcendental subject is. Collapsing the noumenon into the thing-in-itself idealizes the t...
Yeah, one of the most enduring legacies of phenomenology is - or should be - it's usurpation of the subject/object dichotomy as a primary point of inv...
The thing is that Kant isn't even that tough. His hardness to read is way overrated. Once you get the general idea of his project, everything he says ...
This really ought to be the end of the conversation. The noumenal is of the order of the intelligible and thus belongs to the understanding. Anyone wh...
Well the noumenal belongs to the (faculty of the) understanding, which is the faculty that deals with the intelligible, so the choice of word makes ra...
In lieu of agreeing on this whole noumenon/TIT stuff, it's perhaps worth drawing attention to one thing that often gets lost in modern appropriations ...
I need to sleep but since both of you mentioned this: A quick response - anyone familiar with the subject would know immediately that the limitation s...
I already did!: "Understanding accordingly limits sensibility, but does not thereby extend its own sphere. In the process of warning the latter that i...
Not at all. I've repeatedly acknowledged that noumena can be understood as things-in-themselves. Only that the converse does not hold in all cases. Th...
This makes of Kant an idealist in the Berkeleyian sense, which he militates against throughout the CoPR. As I said, noumena are indeed things-in-thems...
Incorrect. Here is Kant: "The concept of a noumenon is thus a merely limiting concept, the function of which is to curb the pretensions of sensibility...
By their respective relation to the subject! I keep repeating this - in fact it was the first thing I said here: noumena are the limit of sensibility....
But Kant does not say that the thing in itself is a limiting concept. Really, find me a passage. You won't be able to. Which follows from that fact th...
Insofar as noumena as quite literally defined by their being non-sensible intuitions, no, they are not subject to the forms of space and time. And if ...
I'm not sure how else to explain it that hasn't already: noumena mark a limit of sensibility. Perhaps one source of confusion is the asymmetry between...
The importance of the distinction as I understand it lies in Kant's desire to remain a certain kind of realist (an 'empirical realist', as he famously...
I mean exactly what Kant says: "Appearances, insofar as they are thought as objects according to the unity of the categories, are called phenomena. Bu...
Again, this is simply not true. Thought and knowledge are not the same for Kant. If there were, there could not be a critique of pure reason. There co...
Which is exactly what Kant says must happen: "That, therefore, which we entitle 'noumenon' must be understood as being such only in a negative sense ....
It's really quite simple: The noumenon marks the limit of the sensible (it belongs to the order of the intelligible). The thing in itself marks the li...
You said phenomenon in your initial post. I corrected you, which you acceded to. And in any case, the quote you provided in this post says nothing abo...
Again, this is not true. Kant famously says that we can "think" the in itself, even as we cannot experience it - that is, even it if has no relation t...
Not at all. the point of using them alongside each other is to show how they stand with respect to each other. Your quote is exemplary: Things in them...
Mww is right to distinguish between the thing in itself and noumena. The thing-in-itself are things apart from the conditions under which we can know ...
This is the most important thing! Makes all the difference. CR (one after the other, of course...): Judith Butler - Precarious Life: The Powers of Mou...
One of the reasons that thinking in terms of 'subjects' and 'objects' is so warped is that it is an utterly anachronistic way of speaking: almost no o...
Maybe you're utterly ignorant about anything to do with philosophy because no one but you equates being with the living, and is nothing but the idiosy...
What you are arguing is irrelevant because no one but you uses the term in this way. Stop pretending that anyone does. This is terrible, bad philosoph...
Comments