This is Dave Maier's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Dave Maier's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Dave Maier
Recent Activity
"a return of pre-Scholzian, pre-Maimonistic, pre-Reinhardian naivety" Pardon my ignorance, but do you mean pre-Schulzian and pre-Reinholdian? If not, who are Scholze and Reinhard?
Got it, thank you. Some of the others look good too!
I agree with you (and Graham Harman and Richard Rorty) 100% about being between (or more usually beyond) realism and anti-realism always really being anti-realism in the end. Wait, that's not what I said. Like Rorty, I am fine with being "beyond realism and anti-realism", and I am SO beyond worrying about whether realists want to call me names. If once you get it you want to call it "anti-realism," then, well, okay, if the break from realism is what we want to stress (seems one-sided, but in the context, who knows?). You and Harman make it sound like that's a bad thing. And maybe in the post-phenomenological context it is (but it seems Jeff disagrees?); but not in mine AFAICS. This is what makes Harman et al maddening for me to read – they're just not talking to me (not like they should be). In any case one mark of actually having gotten it (= my version of pragmatism) is to see that you could just as well call it "realism" if you really wanted to (as actual anti-realists love to point out). Sorry, I should wait for your post – just wanted to clear that up.
Thanks Jon, I will. I didn't mean my comment to sound as snarky as it looks (wow, spellcheck doesn't like "snarky"?!), but damn I hate paywalls. The article looks interesting, as does Jeff's, as I am trying to be as fair as humanly possible to "realism". But if we're "between" realism and anti-realism, then we're not exactly realists, right? Not like I care about the label of course.
at my work computer I could access the PDF Hey, that's great. Doesn't help me though....
Well, I don't know which people you're talking about, so maybe you're right about them – maybe they are indeed bogus and pretentious. But I still don't see that leaving some terms untranslated entails bogosity and pretense (even "often"). I myself translate terms into English when I can think of a good English equivalent, but not when even the best English word seems more misleading than not. In any case whether interpretation and analysis has occurred seems to me to depend less on which word one uses for any key term and more on the *other* words one uses – that is, what one is actually saying about logos or whatever. Not important for your main point here though, so never mind.
Sorry, what's wrong with "us[ing] Greek words to capture the crucial concepts in Plato and Aristotle"? Why is that "pseudo-history"? Not getting your point here. (How do *you* translate "logos"?)
I'd actually like to hear more about this lambada calculus you speak of. Sounds wild.
Image is a site for radio DJs with no place to go. I like it because the idea is to be legal and upfront about the whole business, paying royalties to artists just like real radio. Sets stream at a... Continue reading
Posted Jan 23, 2011 at 3quarksdaily