OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
Moderator: xome
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man
yep.jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.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.
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
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....Refund wrote:yep.jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
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.Refund wrote:yep.jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
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.
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man
well it's a meaningless question you asked anyway.jliat wrote:So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.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.
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something 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.
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man
clemon!09. wrote:well it's a meaningless question you asked anyway.jliat wrote:So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.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.
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something 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.
clemon!09. wrote:nothing you said is earth shatteringly esoteric. it was a bad example choosing spinoza .easy done if you don't read around the text.
clemon!09. wrote:
but yeah, i don't think he's not like the absolute foil of phenomenology, in any sense
That's clearly my mistake - i'm referencing Leibniz - and PSR - sorry. And NOT Spinozajliat 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.
Users browsing this forum: noise_Tests and 8 guests