I agree entirely. When I replied "good points" I didn't mean to imply
agreement or consent, merely issues to consider. My background in aesthetics
is meager and film theory is a very recent interest resulting from a couple
of films that altered
my stances and preoccupied me for some time with the consideration of the
power of film. But the large domain of philosophical method are a greater
interest. I wonder if you have any thoughts comparing the big three, N, H
and D (or any others).
(I don't know if still customary since my grad days to use capitalization
for some of the "great" ones  eg P(Plato), S(Socrates), L(Leibniz) etc.
Permit me some preliminary overviews. N's  prophet-like procedure appears to
me to hammer one from all directions. It's impossible to avoid being nailed
by his aphorisms, his writing style and striking originality unto a cross
of ecstatic reorganization of views and beliefs. By contrast, I see D as a
stalking panther who surveys, examines the ground and stealthily creeps up
on you in your lair or  hiding place, and pounces announcing that there is
no safety anywhere. His sophisticated surgical examination using  the
arsenal
of "logic" weaponry leaves one overwhelmed and wavering in uncertainty.
(This would make a great cartoon). But I find D's  method seriously flawed.
It appears to be based on the assumptions underlying a coherence theory of
truth. The procedure is to assume an existing framework then seek out
inconsistencies and shout that "all is false". This of course presupposes
the validity of Poppers (Pr) criterion of falsification with which I
disagree. Just because an element "doesn't fit" doesn't mean everything is
broken  (echo of Dylan's song here). I don't want to get into details yet
but consider as examples among a wide range of considerations, set theory
(Russell attempt to overcome logical paradoxes by his theory of types which
turned out to entail an endless hierarchy), and Godel's revolutionary
incompleteness theorem (the impetus for Pr's examinations in my view).
Simply, D's presuppositions of continuity and consistency  rest on
quicksand. In quantum theory, "information" or energy" comes in lumps,
there's "nothing" in between. The zero points in music (eg between scales)
have no vibration. The inevitable paradoxes in mathematics or systems theory
or in programming (Microsoft's endless patches) are simply ignored or
artificially contained by constructing "walls". But this doesn't entail D's
generalized negations. Reminds me somewhat of the existentialists
procedure -
because epistemological grounds for certainty can't be established,
therefore meaninglessness, absurdity. hopelessness etc somehow magically
follow.
I' m doing this during lunch. Time to return to combat by 2.
Regards, Richard


----- Original Message -----
From: "james lomax" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:10 AM
Subject: philosophical method


> <<Heidegger was nearly on the mark in his belief that
> art
> > could express the
> > full being of the metaphysical
>
> What do you think Heidegger meant? How was he right?
> How
> was he wrong?>>>
>
> And, I would add, how can you possibly express that
> which is metaphysical and therefore entirely abstract,
> as far as thinking is concerned, in material form -
> artistic or otherwise? Let's not confuse the purely
> metaphoric for something else, by confused semantic
> categories.
>
> <<mingled with pure
> > being-in-the-world.
>
> >What do you think Heidegger meant by these
> >expressions?
> >What do you mean when you use them?
>
> Where H
> > went wrong was indeed, as Richard pointed out, that
> the
> > causality between
> > origins and ontology simply do not exist any longer
>
> >What do you mean? Exactly what claim, located where,
> >are
> >you disputing?
>
>  >And this
> > proved dangerous to the extreme.
>
> Why? What proved dangerous?>>>
>
> I agree with the rigorous questioning here. As a
> sociological comment: in this current age of
> simulation/simulated reality and digital thus
> malleable information, I believe there is something
> similar happening at an intellectual level. Namely,
> that *aesthetic* thought construction sometimes
> replaces sensible and intelligent thought. Theory is
> sometimes artistic rather than philosophical, with all
> the problems that implies. The criteria is to appear
> clever or cool in relation to established parameters
> ie. fashion, rather than challenge and deconstruct.