Page 1 of 3
Correlationsim and Realism
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:32 pm
by Jim B.
So I found this link:
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/20 ... tionism-2/
I can see how correlationsim and realism could both be valid. Once we rule out Kantian correlationism, which is both too sweeping and too modest. Yes, we can only know things as they present themselves to us just as the blind man only knows the sidewalk through the feel of the walking stick in the palm of his hand. If you ask me to think about the Eiffel Tower, my mind will be filled with different images and memories-- I went there on a cold Tuesday in November and it was closed. But I'm not thinking about these associations, I'm thinking by means of them. If I draw a picture of my house, I have to use pencil and paper, lines and colors, but I'm not making a drawing of a drawing of my house. This leads to infinite recursion. Polanyi wrote about this. I'll have to give him another look.
Re: Correlationsim and Realism
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:30 pm
by Metacrock
who brought this up?
Re: Correlationsim and Realism
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 pm
by met
Meta, this started up in of our discussion of Quentin Meillasoux, a contemporary French philosopher with a growing & notorious reputation...& his idea of "the God who isn't but might someday come to be".... a couple years back.
Jim, I should mention that (as I noticed) that blogger's definition of realist and correlationist isn't exactly the same as QM's, who seems to consider everyone since Kant who came before his own generation, except (I think) his teacher Badiou, to all be correlationists. That guy categorizes some of them - eg Delueze & Bruno Latour - as "realists." So it's at least slightly different.
... I will look around some more on that site...
Re: Correlationsim and Realism
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:31 pm
by met
Jim, he atually has a whole free book available....
http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/book ... f-objects/
Quoting Max Planck, Marshall and Eric McLuhan write, “A new scienti c truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.6 This appears to be how it is in philosophy as well. New innovations in philosophy do
not so much refute their opponents as simply cease being preoccupied by certain questions and problems. In many respects, object-oriented ontology, following the advice of Richard Rorty, simply tries to step out of the debate altogether. Object-oriented ontologists have grown weary of a debate that has gone on for over two centuries, believe that the possible variations of these positions have exhausted themselves, and want to move on to talking about other things. If this is not good enough for the epistemology police, we are more than happy to confess our guilt and embrace our alleged lack of rigor and continue in harboring our illusions that we can speak of a reality independent of humans
PS - yeah, I think an ontological realist with a background in Lacan - i.e. psychoanalysis - is an interesting character!
Re: Correlationsim and Realism
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:01 pm
by sgttomas
Jim B. wrote: But I'm not thinking about these associations, I'm thinking by means of them. If I draw a picture of my house, I have to use pencil and paper, lines and colors, but I'm not making a drawing of a drawing of my house. This leads to infinite recursion. Polanyi wrote about this. I'll have to give him another look.
SAME!! ....I have two of his books sitting on my shelf at the moment.
Do you have
Meaning? I'd love to read through it with you, or something like that. (btw,
Meaning is symbollically sitting atop
After Finitude in the stack on the shelf
)
Peace,
-sgttomas