?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Mon, Feb. 6th, 2006, 04:17 pm
Гермиотика и семеневтика

находятся здесь.

Новейший международный курс А.Ю.Нестерова!

Танцуют все!

Fri, Feb. 10th, 2006 06:38 pm (UTC)
maxim_lebedev: Now I Lay Me revisited

The question - trying to reformulate Samaritan's argument - went as follows: given the difference in the ontological status of the sense perception data and the data of reading, it has to be explained how the theory of text interpretation can be incorporated into the structure of empirical knowledge, on which you seemed to insist?

Fri, Feb. 10th, 2006 06:55 pm (UTC)
larvatus: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

In extending my application of the governing principle, I insist on the truths of fact converging in the long run with the truths of reason.

Fri, Feb. 10th, 2006 07:02 pm (UTC)
maxim_lebedev: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

No wonder, if your diploma is signed by Putnam...

Fri, Feb. 10th, 2006 07:29 pm (UTC)
larvatus: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

Putnam is no advocate of the principle of sufficient reason. I have learned more from Alonzo Church.

Fri, Feb. 10th, 2006 08:47 pm (UTC)
maxim_lebedev: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

He is, actually. One of the achievement of the new pragmatism is the specification of the in-the-long-run criterion as the rational limit of inquiry.

Fri, Feb. 10th, 2006 08:49 pm (UTC)
larvatus: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

How is that an advance from Peirce?

Fri, Feb. 10th, 2006 09:00 pm (UTC)
maxim_lebedev: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

The basic idea must be Peircean, evidently, but more elaborated and avoiding some of Peirce's controversies, I suppose.

Fri, Feb. 10th, 2006 09:55 pm (UTC)
larvatus: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

Elaborated and streamlined how? At any rate, new pragmatism, as you describe it, is a dead end, as witness God as a possible knowing subject nowise limited by considerations of the long run.

Sat, Feb. 11th, 2006 05:15 pm (UTC)
maxim_lebedev: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

I hesitate to refer you to the major works which you are supposed to be acqainted with. God's point of view is discussed in the first chapters of Reason, Truth and History. Rational limit of inquiry implies spacio-temporal bounds determined by the nature of human experience. Now do you call empirical ends dead?

Sat, Feb. 11th, 2006 09:14 pm (UTC)
larvatus: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

You are right in your implication that I should not have ventured in these waters, only to expose my second and last philosophical saint to your full frontal assault. Having done so, I shall point out that Descartes did not err in postulating the possibility of being thoroughly and pervasively deceived about his environment by the systematic subterfuge of a malignant demon (genius malignus or malin génie). I can do so because Putnam’s objection to the very possibility of articulating the position of metaphysical realism is rooted in a fallacious presumption about the finality and closure of realist theories of meaning. It is possible to fix the referent (τυγχάνον) in the external reality by expressing (σημαίνω) the sense (τὸ σημαινόμενον) of theoretical terms. It can be done because the sense is not a thing in the nature of a road map leading towards the referent, but a commitment to finding it in accordance with a systematic search protocol. At the bottom of the pragmatist program of reducing meaning to practice lies a vulgar comic reductio akin to the sophistical demonstration of the impossibility of falsehood:on ne peut pas péter plus haut que son cul (шире жопы не пёрнешь).
But not all communication proceeds in the manner of farting. Realism and rationalism cannot be understood without accounting for their reliance on moral and cognitive norms. Reducing these norms to actually or potentially observable communal practices, or even to putative divine commandments, leaves the pragmatist with the brief of refuting something else. That is just what Putnam does.
    Pragmatist epistemology is a matter of changing the subject. This change is an instance of the general practice of exempting deflationism from its own consequences. I submit that it cannot succeed on consistent and equitable terms.

Mon, Feb. 13th, 2006 01:01 pm (UTC)
maxim_lebedev: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

Here again, we can broaden our field of discussion beyond all bounds, especially taking into account the dimensional relativism of your pretty healthy theory of farting, but why don't we revenons à nos moutons? Samaritan gave a plausible explanation of how hermeneutics is possible as a legitimate scientific theory within humanities, so could you try to refute it in a non-metaphorical manner?

Fri, Feb. 17th, 2006 08:25 am (UTC)
larvatus: Re: Now I Lay Me revisited

Done.