Dear JMC,
Must say your spirit is infectious. I hate to see
myself succumbing to your revealed (and now reviled)
agenda or is it a crusade?
The messianic zeal with which you get after
information is truly moving. By the way, Gobachev
didn't think much of
Repentence. Could you not think of a better example?
JMC wrote:
More of an interruption than an injunction. A call
for contextualization. I like
the idea of a one man tribunal; it goes against the
root meaning of tribunal
does it not?
Actually, it doesn't if understood in its religiosity
- the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. It is about
ultimate Subjectivity. Is it not?
No, it's not that interesting. Phil, I understand
your series of
re-contextualizations, but jurisprudence is part and
parcel with the philosophy
of proof. Philosophy as proof and philosophy as
justice are (inextricably?)
Did I say jurisprudence wasn't part of philosophy?
linked in the work of Plato (_The Trial of
Socrates_), ... , Kant, Hegel, . . .
. Is this association something we need to analyze?
A challenge on your part
perhaps?
What, then, is the proof of the Holy Ghost? What is
the proof of the Real in Lacanean Imaginary, Symbolic
and the Real?
What is the proof of phonemic oppositions in language?
What is the proof of movement in cinema? What is the
proof of time?
What is the proof of the limitation of Western
philosophy?
For me, the context limitation is ethical. The moral
realm of Kant concerns both
freedom and universality, but it is not ethical
because the ethical is grounded
in historical action, not in universality.
Now that's a surprise! Not too long ago inthis very
salon, you had laughed at ethical limitations - why
this sudden about-turn?
Please contextualize your last question. I haven't
found your context for it.
Since this is likely to result in people becoming
scatalogical, I decide to not contextualise my
question.
Phil
--- JMC <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> More of an interruption than an injunction. A call
> for contextualization. I like
> the idea of a one man tribunal; it goes against the
> root meaning of tribunal
> does it not?
>
> No, it's not that interesting. Phil, I understand
> your series of
> re-contextualizations, but jurisprudence is part and
> parcel with the philosophy
> of proof. Philosophy as proof and philosophy as
> justice are (inextricably?)
> linked in the work of Plato (_The Trial of
> Socrates_), ... , Kant, Hegel, . . .
> . Is this association something we need to analyze?
> A challenge on your part
> perhaps?
>
> For me, the context limitation is ethical. The moral
> realm of Kant concerns both
> freedom and universality, but it is not ethical
> because the ethical is grounded
> in historical action, not in universality.
>
> Please contextualize your last question. I haven't
> found your context for it.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|