Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Talk about noise music. Reviews, rants, whatever.

Moderator: xome

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Hey its that games Whitehead jliat guy

Post by jliat » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:54 am

clemonz wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:41 am
kinda insubstantial... self promotion / etc. i mean, desert island disks and who are your heroes?
cool that he's getting some, tho!
in Kantian terms to bring about a synthesis of the things in themselves with perception
interesting... does kant's philosophy admit of that possibility then?
No - Kant says we can never have access to 'things in themselves' - so many philosophers have tried to show it is possible, from the idealists who followed Kant (Hegel esp 'The Ideal is the Real'). Right through to the Speculative Realists.
clemonz wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:41 am


i'm not claiming otherwise, i just a) suspect not and b) am aware that lots of "bad philosophers" (jliat's phrase, not mine) misunderstand kant's 'noumenon'
I'm not aware of using the term "bad", if so I was wrong to do so. Also i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'. I did reply to your Britannia quote that it was wrong, I quoted from Kant.
clemonz wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:41 am
i'll just google it :D

EDITED2ADD2:
Schopenhauer claimed that Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly. He explained in his "Critique of the Kantian philosophy", which first appeared as an appendix to The World as Will and Representation:

But it was just this distinction between abstract knowledge and knowledge of perception, entirely overlooked by Kant, which the ancient philosophers denoted by noumena and phenomena. (See Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book I, Chapter 13, ' What is thought (noumena) is opposed to what appears or is perceived (phenomena).' ) This contrast and utter disproportion greatly occupied these philosophers in the philosophemes of the Eleatics, in Plato's doctrine of the Ideas, in the dialectic of the Megarics, and later the scholastics in the dispute between nominalism and realism, whose seed, so late in developing, was already contained in the opposite mental tendencies of Plato and Aristotle. But Kant who, in an unwarrantable manner, entirely neglected the thing for the expression of which those words phenomena and noumena had already been taken, now takes possession of the words, as if they were still unclaimed, in order to denote by them his things-in-themselves and his phenomena.
too funny :lmao:
Sure - as i said many philosophers post Kant sort to show how access to the noumenon was possible, or where he was wrong. One of the reasons he is so highly thought and influential even today.

"Meillassoux pulls the rug from beneath the feet of the prevaling correlationists (Kant to Heidegger)"

BTW - I don't agree with Meillassoux, the book attacks Strawmen most of the time. His critique of Kant is a mistake - deliberate or not, he conflates 'being' with 'intention' to do so. No rug is pulled.

User avatar
cleverbot
Posts: 50480
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: the cloud
Contact:

Re: Hey its that games Whitehead jliat guy

Post by cleverbot » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:56 am

jliat wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:54 am
clemonz wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:41 am
kinda insubstantial... self promotion / etc. i mean, desert island disks and who are your heroes?
cool that he's getting some, tho!
in Kantian terms to bring about a synthesis of the things in themselves with perception
interesting... does kant's philosophy admit of that possibility then?
No - Kant says we can never have access to 'things in themselves' - so many philosophers have tried to show it is possible, from the idealists who followed Kant (Hegel esp 'The Ideal is the Real'). Right through to the Speculative Realists.
clemonz wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:41 am


i'm not claiming otherwise, i just a) suspect not and b) am aware that lots of "bad philosophers" (jliat's phrase, not mine) misunderstand kant's 'noumenon'
I'm not aware of using the term "bad", if so I was wrong to do so. Also i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'. I did reply to your Britannia quote that it was wrong, I quoted from Kant.
clemonz wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:41 am
i'll just google it :D

EDITED2ADD2:
Schopenhauer claimed that Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly. He explained in his "Critique of the Kantian philosophy", which first appeared as an appendix to The World as Will and Representation:

But it was just this distinction between abstract knowledge and knowledge of perception, entirely overlooked by Kant, which the ancient philosophers denoted by noumena and phenomena. (See Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book I, Chapter 13, ' What is thought (noumena) is opposed to what appears or is perceived (phenomena).' ) This contrast and utter disproportion greatly occupied these philosophers in the philosophemes of the Eleatics, in Plato's doctrine of the Ideas, in the dialectic of the Megarics, and later the scholastics in the dispute between nominalism and realism, whose seed, so late in developing, was already contained in the opposite mental tendencies of Plato and Aristotle. But Kant who, in an unwarrantable manner, entirely neglected the thing for the expression of which those words phenomena and noumena had already been taken, now takes possession of the words, as if they were still unclaimed, in order to denote by them his things-in-themselves and his phenomena.
too funny :lmao:
Sure - as i said many philosophers post Kant sort to show how access to the noumenon was possible, or where he was wrong. One of the reasons he is so highly thought and influential even today.

"Meillassoux pulls the rug from beneath the feet of the prevaling correlationists (Kant to Heidegger)"

BTW - I don't agree with Meillassoux, the book attacks Strawmen most of the time. His critique of Kant is a mistake - deliberate or not, he conflates 'being' with 'intention' to do so. No rug is pulled.

And philosophy. As if I know. Gosh, what a lovely sunny day here.

Online
User avatar
clemonz
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:19 am
Location: clemono-one

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by clemonz » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:40 am

i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'.
i didn't say you did, the quotes just there to show i was using your terminology.
www.clemon.ml

putting the CRAZY into COMMUNISM

User avatar
cleverbot
Posts: 50480
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: the cloud
Contact:

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by cleverbot » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:41 am

clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:40 am
i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'.
i didn't say you did, the quotes just there to show i was using your terminology.

And if you can't string paragraphs together. Binary is the status of both, actually.

User avatar
cleverbot
Posts: 50480
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: the cloud
Contact:

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by cleverbot » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:42 am

clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:40 am
i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'.
i didn't say you did, the quotes just there to show i was using your terminology.

Image

Online
User avatar
clemonz
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:19 am
Location: clemono-one

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by clemonz » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 am

No - Kant says we can never have access to 'things in themselves' - so many philosophers have tried to show it is possible, from the idealists who followed Kant (Hegel esp 'The Ideal is the Real'). Right through to the Speculative Realists.
my point was just that saying "in kantian terms i do X", when X is impossible according to kant, is unnecessarily misleading.
i for what thought you might be saying that you are a kantian.
www.clemon.ml

putting the CRAZY into COMMUNISM

User avatar
cleverbot
Posts: 50480
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: the cloud
Contact:

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by cleverbot » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:34 am

clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 am
No - Kant says we can never have access to 'things in themselves' - so many philosophers have tried to show it is possible, from the idealists who followed Kant (Hegel esp 'The Ideal is the Real'). Right through to the Speculative Realists.
my point was just that saying "in kantian terms i do X", when X is impossible according to kant, is unnecessarily misleading.
i for what thought you might be saying that you are a kantian.

I mean, even I know there's Discogs, but I don't get what you like. . . But not happy or vice versa, happy, but not that it was a cake with a reaso : wall : wall:

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by jliat » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:40 am

clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:40 am
i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'.
i didn't say you did, the quotes just there to show i was using your terminology.
Ugh? "bad philosophers" (jliat's phrase, not mine)

The Schopenhauer quote claims he used the word incorrectly, but that's beside the point really, Kant's point was we never have access to the thing in itself, for which he used the term 'noumena', your quote refers to noumena as 'what is thought', Kant would - did- dismiss this a empty metaphysical dogmatics.

He established a transcendental metaphysics which was for him not empty but synthetic a priori.

Many philosohers challenged his restriction of access, Nietzsche simple denies there are any 'objects'...

Online
User avatar
clemonz
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:19 am
Location: clemono-one

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by clemonz » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:41 am

jliat wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:40 am
clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:40 am
i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'.
i didn't say you did, the quotes just there to show i was using your terminology.
Ugh? "bad philosophers" (jliat's phrase, not mine)

The Schopenhauer quote claims he used the word incorrectly, but that's beside the point really, Kant's point was we never have access to the thing in itself, for which he used the term 'noumena', your quote refers to noumena as 'what is thought', Kant would - did- dismiss this a empty metaphysical dogmatics.

He established a transcendental metaphysics which was for him not empty but synthetic a priori.

Many philosohers challenged his restriction of access, Nietzsche simple denies there are any 'objects'...
sorry i have no idea what you want me to do with that, or what you are trying to get across.

not calling Schopenhauer a "bad philosopher", it wasn't in reference to anyone in partiulcar.
www.clemon.ml

putting the CRAZY into COMMUNISM

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by jliat » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:43 am

clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 am
No - Kant says we can never have access to 'things in themselves' - so many philosophers have tried to show it is possible, from the idealists who followed Kant (Hegel esp 'The Ideal is the Real'). Right through to the Speculative Realists.
my point was just that saying "in kantian terms i do X", when X is impossible according to kant, is unnecessarily misleading.
i for what thought you might be saying that you are a kantian.

I was referring to Schelling, who like others claimed access to things in themselves - here in his middle period that Art does so. For Schopenhauer it was Music...

User avatar
cleverbot
Posts: 50480
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: the cloud
Contact:

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by cleverbot » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:44 am

jliat wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:40 am
clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:40 am
i'm not aware of my saying that these 'bad' philosophers misunderstood Kant's use of the term 'noumenon'.
i didn't say you did, the quotes just there to show i was using your terminology.
Ugh? "bad philosophers" (jliat's phrase, not mine)

The Schopenhauer quote claims he used the word incorrectly, but that's beside the point really, Kant's point was we never have access to the thing in itself, for which he used the term 'noumena', your quote refers to noumena as 'what is thought', Kant would - did- dismiss this a empty metaphysical dogmatics.

He established a transcendental metaphysics which was for him not empty but synthetic a priori.

Many philosohers challenged his restriction of access, Nietzsche simple denies there are any 'objects'...

Ich Frantz Fanon auch ein mädchen.
My efforts are a little concerned* a :rabbit: r :rabbit: e you o :poop: k :poop: ?
:attention: :priest:
*chooses own adventure, chooses :potato: *

Online
User avatar
clemonz
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:19 am
Location: clemono-one

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by clemonz » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:44 am

jliat wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:43 am
clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 am
No - Kant says we can never have access to 'things in themselves' - so many philosophers have tried to show it is possible, from the idealists who followed Kant (Hegel esp 'The Ideal is the Real'). Right through to the Speculative Realists.
my point was just that saying "in kantian terms i do X", when X is impossible according to kant, is unnecessarily misleading.
i for what thought you might be saying that you are a kantian.

I was referring to Schelling, who like others claimed access to things in themselves - here in his middle period that Art does so. For Schopenhauer it was Music...
yes i read the blog / interview.
www.clemon.ml

putting the CRAZY into COMMUNISM

User avatar
cleverbot
Posts: 50480
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: the cloud
Contact:

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by cleverbot » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:44 am

clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:41 am
jliat wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:40 am
clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:40 am

i didn't say you did, the quotes just there to show i was using your terminology.
Ugh? "bad philosophers" (jliat's phrase, not mine)

The Schopenhauer quote claims he used the word incorrectly, but that's beside the point really, Kant's point was we never have access to the thing in itself, for which he used the term 'noumena', your quote refers to noumena as 'what is thought', Kant would - did- dismiss this a empty metaphysical dogmatics.

He established a transcendental metaphysics which was for him not empty but synthetic a priori.

Many philosohers challenged his restriction of access, Nietzsche simple denies there are any 'objects'...
sorry i have no idea what you want me to do with that, or what you are trying to get across.

not calling Schopenhauer a "bad philosopher", it wasn't in reference to anyone in partiulcar.

Image

Online
User avatar
clemonz
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:19 am
Location: clemono-one

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by clemonz » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:48 am

you should have said, imho, "in post kantian terms synthesizing..."

why are we having this discussion :lmao: what's your favoruite colour?
www.clemon.ml

putting the CRAZY into COMMUNISM

User avatar
cleverbot
Posts: 50480
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: the cloud
Contact:

Re: Hey its that James Whitehead jliat guy

Post by cleverbot » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:48 am

clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:44 am
jliat wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:43 am
clemonz wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 am


my point was just that saying "in kantian terms i do X", when X is impossible according to kant, is unnecessarily misleading.
i for what thought you might be saying that you are a kantian.

I was referring to Schelling, who like others claimed access to things in themselves - here in his middle period that Art does so. For Schopenhauer it was Music...
yes i read the blog / interview.

Ah, so you know that God favors wars and death.
We've been through this. . . Yes, you are, then, just not enjoying myself, at all. That is not completely without meaning.
:starwars: :chin: :squee:
*psychologically abuse my :potato: *

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: clemonz and 6 guests