Page 4 of 8

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:13 am
by clemon!09.
i probably didn't read far enough to explicitly say they were different.


OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:18 am
by Refund
jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
yep.

I'm glad to hear this, you seems like a really intelligent guy and I wondered why you bothered talking to clemon at all given that you seemed smarter than that.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:40 am
by jliat
clemon!09. wrote:i probably didn't read far enough to explicitly say they were different.


OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.
So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.

Closer than Spinoza - NO.

Phenomenology moves through philosophy one might argue as a direct opposite of Bergson / Spinoza et al - being critical of metaphysics. (And is immune to science.)
e.g. Heidegger's Dasein is nothing to do with psychology - the phenomenologist's objects likewise - or to do with physics.

Only with Deleuze and Badiou do we see a return to metaphysics within continental philosophy which was via Heidegger - Derrida et al critical of it. And the recent speculative realists are again attempting metaphysics.

Adorno in his introduction runs through the history of philosophy - shows where attempts to make a metaphysics or break out of positivism were attempted - yet failed.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:41 am
by jliat
Refund wrote:
jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
yep.

I'm glad to hear this, you seems like a really intelligent guy and I wondered why you bothered talking to clemon at all given that you seemed smarter than that.
Makes me work... i know it seems crazy - like when i see RJ trying to explain poetic thought - i guess its a challenge... even if hopeless....

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:48 am
by Palimpsest
Why don't you just read the rest now?

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:11 am
by clemon!09.
Refund wrote:
jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
yep.

I'm glad to hear this, you seems like a really intelligent guy and I wondered why you bothered talking to clemon at all given that you seemed smarter than that.
vile.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:14 am
by clemon!09.
jliat wrote:
clemon!09. wrote:i probably didn't read far enough to explicitly say they were different.


OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.
So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.

Closer than Spinoza - NO.

Phenomenology moves through philosophy one might argue as a direct opposite of Bergson / Spinoza et al - being critical of metaphysics. (And is immune to science.)
e.g. Heidegger's Dasein is nothing to do with psychology - the phenomenologist's objects likewise - or to do with physics.

Only with Deleuze and Badiou do we see a return to metaphysics within continental philosophy which was via Heidegger - Derrida et al critical of it. And the recent speculative realists are again attempting metaphysics.

Adorno in his introduction runs through the history of philosophy - shows where attempts to make a metaphysics or break out of positivism were attempted - yet failed.
well it's a meaningless question you asked anyway.

by your logic, 95% of the history of philosophy is "the direct opposite" of phenomenology. it's meaningless because you can find both affinities and contradictions, and how would you weight them?

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:17 am
by jliat
clemon!09. wrote:
jliat wrote:
clemon!09. wrote:i probably didn't read far enough to explicitly say they were different.


OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.
So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.

Closer than Spinoza - NO.

Phenomenology moves through philosophy one might argue as a direct opposite of Bergson / Spinoza et al - being critical of metaphysics. (And is immune to science.)
e.g. Heidegger's Dasein is nothing to do with psychology - the phenomenologist's objects likewise - or to do with physics.

Only with Deleuze and Badiou do we see a return to metaphysics within continental philosophy which was via Heidegger - Derrida et al critical of it. And the recent speculative realists are again attempting metaphysics.

Adorno in his introduction runs through the history of philosophy - shows where attempts to make a metaphysics or break out of positivism were attempted - yet failed.
well it's a meaningless question you asked anyway.

What question? You asked if Bergson was like a Phenomenologist - i answered in some detail. No he is not - and you made the mistake in claiming similarity. easy done if you dont read around the text.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:19 am
by clemon!09.
there are some affinities - i was pointing out specific ones.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:19 am
by clemon!09.
easy done if you don't read around the text.
nothing you said is earth shatteringly esoteric. it was a bad example choosing spinoza .

but yeah, i don't think he's not like the absolute foil of phenomenology, in any sense

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:50 am
by jliat
clemon!09. wrote:
easy done if you don't read around the text.
nothing you said is earth shatteringly esoteric. it was a bad example choosing spinoza .


But you CAN understand his philosophy.

Ha ha ha....

clemon!09. wrote:
but yeah, i don't think he's not like the absolute foil of phenomenology, in any sense


I think you got that wrong... he is used by some of the OOO / OOP mob precisely for that...


OOP claim phenomenologists cant know the REAL only the human correlation - Spinoza and his Principle of Sufficient reason claims an absolute knowledge of the real.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:56 am
by clemon!09.
oh well it was a bad example.

no i am not sure if i could understand spinoza. can you??

actually i read the ethics, maybe? it didn't effect me anyway.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:57 am
by clemon!09.
I think you got that wrong... he is used by some of the OOO / OOP mob precisely for that...
perhaps, perhaps not.

it was a bad example...

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:50 am
by jliat
jliat wrote:...


OOP claim phenomenologists cant know the REAL only the human correlation - Spinoza and his Principle of Sufficient reason claims an absolute knowledge of the real.
That's clearly my mistake - i'm referencing Leibniz - and PSR - sorry. And NOT Spinoza

As for phenomenology and 95% of philosophy - it was very recent, though important. But it depends on what you mean - the so called medieval scholastic philosophers were around for 200-300 years - modern philosophy only beginning with Descartes and Kant really. More like Kant as he didn't use dogmatic metaphysics.

Spinoza was still a metaphysician - though. So nothing like phenomenology in my opinion.

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:27 am
by xdugef
Image