A while ago there was a discussion about Kant's a-priori transcendental
and recent philosophy's need for an a-posteri transcendental.... its
being playing on my mind that I didn't answer the question in a more
full or serious fashion. The most basic reason why recent philosophy has
no other choice then an a-posteri transcendental, especially with
metaphysical questions, is Einstein's mathematics and general theory of
relativity. It is simply no longer possible to technically proceed in
philosophy with an a-priori transcendental and Kantian notions of space
after Einstein. This is why Husserl and Heidegger ran into an impasse
and further the lessons of Bergson's encounter with Einstein where
Bergson basically got it wrong. Another example would be Bakhtin's need
to remove transcendentals from space-time in his concept of
chronotropes. (It remained for Deleuze, who summed up Kant in a text
book which Kantian scholars agree is one of the best readings of Kant's
entire philosophy available, to come up with the first explicit
a-posteri transcendental in a metaphysical philosophy in the 1960s.)
As to the question of confusion of transcendence and immanence in recent
continental philosophy (i.e. Laruelle), it is the distinction between
transcendental and transcendence which Kant made that leads directly
into this question. In other words, it is Kant's distinction that leads
to the confusion (although this confusion can again tie in with
Einstein's theory of relativity given that I have seen self-proclaimed
philosophers make such a confusion and Aristotle becomes born again.)
Anyways, now that that is off me mind, just maybe i can convince myself
to go back to revising this god damned bloody book i am meant to be
writing. (mmm, now what other distraction can i find? whats on tv?)
|