Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 03:50:06 -0500 From: nik <mabnb-AT-hunterlink.net.au> Subject: Re: Why? >> soren, you seem to be a bit on the confused side... > >My Fatal Strategy has succeeded if I managed to confuse you too. very droll... >> > >> >> >You're right. Realism would not deny that our "truths" are >> >> >ontologically dependent upon our conceptual apparatus, >> >> >> >> >I suggest you stop wasting your time >> >with the realism/anti-realism debate. It's trivial, and tends to >> >decline to the absurd ontological/epistemological question of whether >> >there's a table in front of me and how I can obtain perfect knowledge >> >of it. >> > >> i wouldn't have wasted my time with the realism/anti debate unless you had >> brought it up. kind of unfair to claim it's trivial after using it to make >> a point. > >Baudrillard is about breaking the codes governing what's >fair/un-fair. hmmmm...not sure about this one. no doubt that Baud would love to break the code (and have us use him to break the code), but can a discussion of realism and anti-realism contain the poetics necessary for such a breakage? The philosophy of science is such a dry thing... >> >> >The early Wittgenstein is probably the only recent Realist who >> >(consistently) claimed that truths are ontologically independent >> >of the conceptual frameworks in which they are articulated in the >> >first place. His picture theory of meaning is well-known. >> >Propositions (i.e. true statements) mirror reality because they share >> >a basic structure: "What any picture --- must have in common with >> >reality, in order to be able to depict it - correctly or incorrectly >> >- in any way at all, is logical form, i.e. the form of reality". >> >(Tractatus, 2.18). And later he squares pictures with language: "A >> >proposition is a picture of reality" (T, 4.01). >> > >> i only point that i would like to make in reply to this is that the later >> wittgensteim totally destroyed the early wiit.'s philosophy. > >No quarrels here although the elegance and mysteriousness of the >Tractatus beats the Investigations. on this point we must violently disagree. the Tractatus has nothing on the Investigations. >> >> >The early Wittgenstein claimed that propositions (true >> >statements) are wordless immediacies of reality-in-itself. In >> >other words, should nature ever decide to speak back to us, it would >> >use the language of the Wittgensteinian proposition. That's what I >> >call perfect reference between language and reality.Searle happily >> >admits that truths are dependent upon conceptual schemes (and >> >therefore not ontologically independent). >> > >> but as far as the realism/anti debate go, niether philosopher could be >> considered to be in any way at the forefrount of the field...for a >> contemporary realist viewpoint i would try hackings "representing and >> intervening", its fairly representative of contemporary (experimental) >> realism... > >I might check it out although I promised myself never to engage with >realist/anti-realist literature after failing to convince my teacher >of the ontological existence of the tree outside the classroom >window hacking is well worth the read, if only to see the limits (and the end) of the realist program. (p.s. Baudrillard is neither realist nor anti-realist, but >hyperrealist, and the world is a holodeck and the tree a simulacrum). i would have thought he was a reluctant anti-realist, seeing as anti-realisms only binding tenent is the world (as we know it) is not independent of our conceptual schemes >> > >> >> >Baudrillard would consider the philosophical discourse of modernity >> >> >and postmodernity obsolete, because they both represent philosophy >> >> >from the subject's point of view. How exceptionally arrogant it is to >> >> >think that we possess the conceptual power to render the world either >> >> >true (modernism) or useful (postmodernism). >> >> >> >> what, don't you own a toaster? of course we have the power to make things >> >> useful. somethings use does not depend upon truth. a hammer doesn't have to >> >> be truth to knock nails into wood. computer enginering doesn't have to be >> >> true for my computer to work. utility doesn't depend upon truth. >> > >> >Perhaps it is the manufacturer of the toaster who has found a way to >> >make you useful for his wallet. >> > >> its still use. > >I was merely asking you to consider the possibility that it is the >toaster that uses you (and not the other way around). a point i wouldn't disagree with you on... >> >> > >> >> >ASSUME THE POSITION OF THE OBJECT and take a look at >> >> >humanity. Tell me what you see (if you can stop laughing)? >> >> >> >> assume the position of the object? you cannot - it would be like trying to >> >> stare at the back of your head. but you could try and assess your position >> >> as an object - and i think this is something more like what Baud. tries >> to do. >> >> >> >Read the final pages of Fatal Strategies! And by the way: objects do >> >not exist. >> then how can i assume the position of the object????? >> > >A simulacrum is in a certain sense an (ecstatic) object insofar as it >exist - albeit in a different ontological sphere than "normal" >objects. sorry, you've lost me on that one. can you expand upon your point for me. nik
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005