Thursday, July 14, 2011
Graham Harman considers several possible approaches to the sensual realm, in The Quadruple Object.
Hume: there are only apple-qualities, bundled together in a unit by human habit.¶ 5:56 AM
Husserl: there is a duel between the apple-object and the shifting apple-qualities on its surface.
Heidegger (1919): there is a duel between the apple as “something at all” and its specific apple-qualities. Yet there is nothing especially applesque about its “something at all” pole. Everything is “something at all” in the same sense as everything else. This makes the “something at all” disturbingly close to Hume’s “bundle,” which does not differ qua bundle in our respective experiences of cotton, dogs, melons, or trees.
Heidegger (1949): there is a duel between reality as a whole and apple-qualities. What opposes the apple qualities is neither a bundle, nor a sensual object, nor a “something at all.” Rather, they are opposed by being as a whole, which is revealed to Dasein in the experience of Angst.
P. 88
Comments:
<< Home
Hume says knowledge starts with "impressions" .but that doesn't mean he denies...externalism. The point was that, yes, the bio-chemical object which we call apple can hardly be said not to exist, but we know it only via observations. Thus scientific knowledge is not via categorical logic that Aristotle had wanted, but empirical, and associative--ie, his real target was scholastic realism, not....science, as too many po-mos seem to think. He's still Newtonian, for better or worse. Does Kant...(and ipso facto, german idealism). defeat the dastardly Hume? No comment.
"...opposed by being as a whole...."
That's as close as I have been able to get when trying to tell someone about MH's project.
But I must qualify it with "but not a 'whole thing'." Understanding a whole that is not a 'whole thing' is at most an approximation, while waiting for the new beginning.
That's as close as I have been able to get when trying to tell someone about MH's project.
But I must qualify it with "but not a 'whole thing'." Understanding a whole that is not a 'whole thing' is at most an approximation, while waiting for the new beginning.
Do humans perceive trees--ie the tree-phenomena-- the same?
Perhaps-- but proving that another matter. The dendrologist'sr tree is not the layman's, or the artist's, or ....soldier, etc. Moreover ...vision is not objective. Color-blindness, poor vision, etc. Graft synthetic eyes all around a human's head--fly-like--and reality would be quite different. Rather f-ing obvious but germans tend to overlook the problem of other minds IMHE--and perception itself (Wittgenstein excepted).
Perhaps-- but proving that another matter. The dendrologist'sr tree is not the layman's, or the artist's, or ....soldier, etc. Moreover ...vision is not objective. Color-blindness, poor vision, etc. Graft synthetic eyes all around a human's head--fly-like--and reality would be quite different. Rather f-ing obvious but germans tend to overlook the problem of other minds IMHE--and perception itself (Wittgenstein excepted).
J, I think I know what you are after, which is attention paid to concrete reality. But "germans tend to overlook the problem of other minds IMHE--and perception itself."
The French (especially Merleau-Ponty in my study of it) pay close attention to perception. And in the end seem to borrow heavily from MH to explain what he finds.
The French (especially Merleau-Ponty in my study of it) pay close attention to perception. And in the end seem to borrow heavily from MH to explain what he finds.
sort of, Jan, but I'm mostly cribbing from late Witt. (Phil. Investigations)--ie is your perceptual experience, that of Enk's? including that of "Being"--how do we know, the role of language, etc. "Salty" we could agree on (tho difficult to describe) ----the sensation of gazing at the Alps, or reading Rilke, countless other things--Im not sure (tho' I understand the ...Hegelian move (at least) against empirical subjectivity--GWFH detested Hume did he not-- and Heid. still has a trace of that. A the same time....the Hegelian universal is not entirely benign (ie, when it becomes a State)). In brief.
"...how do we know..." To be sure.
I read your last year exchange with Psuedi under Ent-gotterung on seyngeschichte. Moved too fast for me. I shall have to go back and refer to his text references.
His analysis of MH's take on Nietzsche was new information for me. I read a couple of MH's Nietzsche volumes to get a feel for FN. Interesting that you spotted MH's rhetorical bias. That got past me.
I read your last year exchange with Psuedi under Ent-gotterung on seyngeschichte. Moved too fast for me. I shall have to go back and refer to his text references.
His analysis of MH's take on Nietzsche was new information for me. I read a couple of MH's Nietzsche volumes to get a feel for FN. Interesting that you spotted MH's rhetorical bias. That got past me.
Enk. latest post shows that Heid. is aware of these issues (from Kantian POV at least)--material not from SZ. So may I have spoken too soon. scuzi.---tho' the Witt. chestnuts --"intersubjectivity"-- to me are not that easily resolved--Witt...was slightly behaviorist in that regard (tho not of idiotic Skinner sense). "bundles"/sense data/phenomena/qualia may exist but discussing how humans process it another matter
Post a Comment
<< Home
