tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post2016646802253563813..comments2023-10-25T01:08:33.156-07:00Comments on Being's Poem: Meillassoux's Answer to Hume's ProblemDaniel Sacilottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-73158122653672686922011-01-22T14:41:32.522-08:002011-01-22T14:41:32.522-08:00... which is interesting because Graham accuses me...... which is interesting because Graham accuses me of 'not criticizing my own position'. First, as I have put elsewhere, I have none. And second, if by 'my position' he means that I am not critical of those philosophers whose work I find myself most commendable to (Badiou, Brassier...) then he cannot explain how it was that just a few posts ago I wrote a critical piece on Ray's paper. The same paper where he launches a violent assault on OOO. And I have discussed critically Badiou's work in the past many times before.<br /><br />Harman accuses me of overlooking arguments which exist in his work. But he hypocritically disavows all the criticisms that I made in the past to others. Indeed, he even overlooks the positive remarks I made some posts ago to Daniel Luna, advising people in the Spanish-speaking philosophical scene in Latin America to go look at that work, emphasizing some of its merits.<br /><br />I am more than willing to accept I might have overlooked arguments and whatnot. But what I do not accept is that infantile turn to ad hominems, with all kinds of insinuations about myself. Graham calls my post dumb, drug-induced, appalling, and appeals to rank and emotion. Even then, I was serene enough to offer him apologies in public and private for not being completely fair to his arguement. I offered him to edit my post, erase it, add observations as an appendix, and to write another one emphasizing the positive sides, which I did by my own accord. <br /><br />Instead, Harman responded even more violently appealing to rank and all the work he's done, saying I should first have developed my own position before issuing a public criticism. Graham is a professor, and en educator by implication. I am a student. That childish whining was, quite frankly, very disappointing. He did not even bother to address the reasons I offered for reconstructing the diagrams as I did, even though I explicitly acknowledged that constituted a modification from Graham's own understanding of withdrawal. He simply went on to say 'don't believe this'. All of this leads me to believe Graham is not interested in developing a consistent philosophy more than a cult of followers. It would have been much more beneficial for anyone to have him indicate soberly where the relevant justificaton lied, for me to revise. Levi pointed out to some solutions to some of my questions, and I was enthused by it. Graham has had no problem repeating time and time again his substantive theses on withdrawal and such, but at the time of repeating their justification he is much less willing. And contrary to his own insinuations, I did mention the appeals to counterfactuals and hyperboles in the comments to my post, in dialog with Goodson. I also addressed the primary objection about the diagrammatic reconstructions. Even Goodson, who appears very ammenable to OOO in general, and Dark Chemistry, as well as Levi, were all at least willing to recognize this as an interesting effort which entailed I was taking Graham's philosophy seriously. Instead he just chose to see an 'attack', and retorted with a public assault against a student.<br /><br />Best,<br />DanDaniel Sacilottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-62043648594453017672011-01-22T12:05:49.227-08:002011-01-22T12:05:49.227-08:00@Anonymous:
Yes, I have actually read that paper. ...@Anonymous:<br />Yes, I have actually read that paper. I actually wrote a post about it not too long ago. I think Ray's appeal to Stove's Gem to deflate the circle of the correlation fails, however. But that is a great article!<br /><br />http://bebereignis.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-concepts-and-objects-can-gem-destroy.htmlDaniel Sacilottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-81186254790148434212011-01-22T07:59:27.057-08:002011-01-22T07:59:27.057-08:00If you're interested in weighing the merits of...If you're interested in weighing the merits of OOO, I suggest looking at Ray Brassier's clearly written portrayal of the latter's failings in his essay in /The Speculative Turn./ Brassier, like Meillassoux, Hagglund, Johnston and a few others included in the SR collection are actually doing rigorous philosophical work. Harman, sadly, is not. I suspect that this is why he becomes so enraged when someone criticizes his position. Brassier et al seem to thrive on criticism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-76647058406780570312011-01-15T01:20:33.786-08:002011-01-15T01:20:33.786-08:00"Sense Dependency, Reference Dependency"..."Sense Dependency, Reference Dependency" and "Mind Independence,<br />Attitude Independence" dinstictions can be very helpful and enrich Badiou's - Meillassoux's thinking.<br /><br />Thanks a lot!rakishttp://rakisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-32018039306068674452011-01-14T15:56:43.182-08:002011-01-14T15:56:43.182-08:00Rakis,
In my estimation, Pete is one of the most p...Rakis,<br />In my estimation, Pete is one of the most promising students of the new generation involved in questions related to speculative realism, scientific-transcendental realism, and in finding novel junctures between the analytic-continental traditions. <br /><br />His Essay on Transcendental Realism is a wonderful piece, which reads a lot like a provisional outline of some core issues of the scientific realist project initiated by Brassier. In Pete's own development of the same, we get a starling appropriation of Brandom to rehabilitate the epistemological problematic through a thoroughly rigorous re-elaboration of normative standards for rationality, as an methodologically propadeutic to metaphysics. I have nothing but the highest recommendations for the Essay, and for Pete's writing in general, including everything in his blog. His criticisms of Levi and Graham stand as the most sustained, and in my estimation definitive, attacks on OOO out there thus far. His older work on Deleuze is also very interesting, as is his work on Heidegger and some of his intuitions on Meillassoux. <br /><br />As for my own position with respect to his work, I am still unconvinced in the subordination of metaphysics to epistemology, particularly since I'm not not yet clear on how the latter can be advanced free of ontological commitments. I have conversed with Pete about this issue some time ago, and had a bit of trouble following his argument. In any case, a lot of it develops from the programmatic presentation in Brassier's 'Concepts and Objects', his essay in the collection The Speculative Turn, which I also highly recommend.<br /><br />I've had several chances to chat with Pete by now, and I find him always to be illuminating, poignant, and with a rare passion for philosophy which is both daunting and inspiring. He is an exceptionally bright person. So I encourage people to follow his work and advances!<br /><br />Best,<br />DanDaniel Sacilottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-37322310183459040822011-01-14T15:56:36.466-08:002011-01-14T15:56:36.466-08:00Rakis,
In my estimation, Pete is one of the most p...Rakis,<br />In my estimation, Pete is one of the most promising students of the new generation involved in questions related to speculative realism, scientific-transcendental realism, and in finding novel junctures between the analytic-continental traditions. <br /><br />His Essay on Transcendental Realism is a wonderful piece, which reads a lot like a provisional outline of some core issues of the scientific realist project initiated by Brassier. In Pete's own development of the same, we get a starling appropriation of Brandom to rehabilitate the epistemological problematic through a thoroughly rigorous re-elaboration of normative standards for rationality, as an methodologically propadeutic to metaphysics. I have nothing but the highest recommendations for the Essay, and for Pete's writing in general, including everything in his blog. His criticisms of Levi and Graham stand as the most sustained, and in my estimation definitive, attacks on OOO out there thus far. His older work on Deleuze is also very interesting, as is his work on Heidegger and some of his intuitions on Meillassoux. <br /><br />As for my own position with respect to his work, I am still unconvinced in the subordination of metaphysics to epistemology, particularly since I'm not not yet clear on how the latter can be advanced free of ontological commitments. I have conversed with Pete about this issue some time ago, and had a bit of trouble following his argument. In any case, a lot of it develops from the programmatic presentation in Brassier's 'Concepts and Objects', his essay in the collection The Speculative Turn, which I also highly recommend.<br /><br />I've had several chances to chat with Pete by now, and I find him always to be illuminating, poignant, and with a rare passion for philosophy which is both daunting and inspiring. He is an exceptionally bright person. So I encourage people to follow his work and advances!<br /><br />Best,<br />DanDaniel Sacilottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-5313717194266088792011-01-14T15:00:14.164-08:002011-01-14T15:00:14.164-08:00Dear friend,
What do you think on this?
http://d...Dear friend,<br /><br />What do you think on this?<br /><br />http://deontologistics.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/essay-on-transcendental-realism.pdf<br /><br />Best,<br />Rakisrakishttp://rakisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-68474760169463971082011-01-09T14:24:51.098-08:002011-01-09T14:24:51.098-08:00And happy new year to you too!And happy new year to you too!Daniel Sacilottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-44029423773275235522011-01-09T14:24:36.808-08:002011-01-09T14:24:36.808-08:00Thank you rakis!Thank you rakis!Daniel Sacilottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-76013135810613393612011-01-09T11:04:10.580-08:002011-01-09T11:04:10.580-08:00Congratulationw for your post.
It was more than il...Congratulationw for your post.<br />It was more than illuminating.<br /><br />Best and a happy new year,<br /><br />Rakisrakisnoreply@blogger.com