Are Symbols "primary"?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by Jim B. » Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:48 pm

met wrote:Returning this thread to discussions of Kant, correlationism, the Symbolic, etc ....but in a nice, optimistic, inspiring, Xmasy sort kind of way...


The Splendor of the Synthetic A Priori

(From the same blog st cited above. Great continental philosophy blog!)
Definitely Xmasy. Great blog. This is the way I've tended to think about rationalism; powers of the mind more than actual content. For instance, there are probably no innate sentences in the head but more likely an ability to make and understand sentences, a knowing how more than a knowing that, to use Ryle's distinction.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by met » Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:22 pm

K, let's take this further....

Kant says this in his "Critique of Judgement" ....
… when [a man] puts a thing on a pedestal and calls it beautiful, he demands the same delight from others. He judges not merely for himself, but for all men, and then speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things. Thus he says that the thing is beautiful; and it is not as if he counts on others agreeing with him in his judgment of liking owing to his having found them in such agreement on a number of occasions, but he demands this agreement of them.
Malabou understands Kant's point here to be that if someone could assume the perceiver's perspective ( meaning, you know, all in all, incl assuming any necessary background knowledge) then, as the perceiver's has a right to insist, they would be compelled to agree with the aesthetic judgement. That's the 'universality of beauty' by her reading ... which then leads her to 'the facticity of meaning' ....


So, my question would be, how does different from the synthetic a priori as understood in the link - is "ttwo plus two equals four a different kind of thing. Or only in the level of universality assumed, the level of agreement demanded & expected from others by the perceiver?

Are truth and beauty therefore the same type of "Event, at least from the perceiver's POV, but only understood as more or less widely or easily apprehensible? :? :)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by met » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:29 am

Yeah, okay, let's admit it....this convo's gotten pretty elevated in its nerd factor,hasn't it? :ugeek: :ugeek: :ugeek:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are Symbols "primary"?

Post by met » Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:34 am

I think this note on Lacan's concepts of Real and Symbolic is pertinent to this thread.

From this book of radical theology
Lacan contrasts a “feminine” logic of non-All with a “masculine” logic of exception. What is the significance of this distinction? According to the stereotypical “masculine” logic, the Real is taken to constitute an exception to the symbolic order. So, anything that takes place in our finite worldly existence would be seen as contradicted when applied to God in and as the Real. For example, our social symbolic existence is finite, but we might posit the Real as outside the symbolic, imagining that the Real is infinite in opposition to finite experience. This Lacan reads as a masculine logic of exception—the Real is the exception to the universal order of things. God, and anything divine, becomes an exception to the rule. On the other hand, the “feminine” logic of not or non-All refers instead to a lack of closure of the symbolic order itself, its internal inconsistency. The Real, in this logic, becomes the not-All of the symbolic itself. Here the Real does not take place outside or beyond the symbolic, but rather curls up within the symbolic as the “logic” that, precisely, prevents the symbolic from achieving totality, completion, or groundedness. ...

As Zizek tends to explicate it, the Thing—as a name for the Real—is first posited outside our shared reality in a masculine way. But, as a kind of moment of maturation, when we shift to a Lacan’s “feminine” logic, we realize that the Thing is actually intrinsic to our own experiential logic itself.
...sums up & challenges a lot of things we've said here....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply