Comments on: … am I doing this for? http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/ A working notebook Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:23:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1583 Mon, 28 May 2007 19:08:59 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1583 hi Per, Thanks for that, that's quite helpful. I looked up the Quine/Goodman essay, it's online here - http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/quine_goodman_nominalism.htm and I'll read it later this week or next. (I've read Goodman's _Ways of Worldmaking_ several years ago, I remember finding it really fantastic but I don't remember a lot of the details.) I didn't take Davidson to be objecting to Quine much of the time, though maybe Quine did, rather I took him to be (or to think he was) extending Quine's argument. At any rate, Davidson is certainly pro-Quine, one of his books is dedicated to Quine "without whom not." Please keep me posted on your Davidson reading, I'd be keen to read/discuss that with you. I've not read a lot of his stuff but I've read I've liked quite a bit. (A professor of mine in undergrad was a big Quine fan and very anti-Davidson, called D "just a dumber Quine.") Ditto works on nominalism, I find that fascinating from my minor brushes with the topic and I'd love to know the relevant literature better. take care, Nate hi Per,
Thanks for that, that’s quite helpful. I looked up the Quine/Goodman essay, it’s online here -
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/quine_goodman_nominalism.htm

and I’ll read it later this week or next. (I’ve read Goodman’s _Ways of Worldmaking_ several years ago, I remember finding it really fantastic but I don’t remember a lot of the details.)

I didn’t take Davidson to be objecting to Quine much of the time, though maybe Quine did, rather I took him to be (or to think he was) extending Quine’s argument. At any rate, Davidson is certainly pro-Quine, one of his books is dedicated to Quine “without whom not.”

Please keep me posted on your Davidson reading, I’d be keen to read/discuss that with you. I’ve not read a lot of his stuff but I’ve read I’ve liked quite a bit. (A professor of mine in undergrad was a big Quine fan and very anti-Davidson, called D “just a dumber Quine.”)

Ditto works on nominalism, I find that fascinating from my minor brushes with the topic and I’d love to know the relevant literature better.

take care,
Nate

]]> by: Perezoso http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1582 Mon, 28 May 2007 13:59:05 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1582 'Scuzi if that's not really an in-depth analysis of Two Dogmas: however I do feel the distinction between meaning and reference (denotation) is correct, as is the material denying analyticity (the bachelor jazz--more or less, the "meanings" of words (and I think by extension, all words, variables, functions---) have no inherent stability and lexicographic, stipulative). TDOE does get rather complex--and the implications are rather unpleasant, in a sense (as were Locke's points contra-innateness), but who is the person ready to take it on? Not I. Yet the TDOE is still Quine the nominalist, and anti-Realist, more or less, and his "efficaciousness" also quite nominalist and empirical. And, really ammunition for those of us willing to take on theists, mystics, dogmatists--even subtle postmodernist ones (as we should, while attempting to overcome the vulgarity of a Dawkins and the new school corporate skeptics). ‘Scuzi if that’s not really an in-depth analysis of Two Dogmas: however I do feel the distinction between meaning and reference (denotation) is correct, as is the material denying analyticity (the bachelor jazz–more or less, the “meanings” of words (and I think by extension, all words, variables, functions—) have no inherent stability and lexicographic, stipulative). TDOE does get rather complex–and the implications are rather unpleasant, in a sense (as were Locke’s points contra-innateness), but who is the person ready to take it on? Not I. Yet the TDOE is still Quine the nominalist, and anti-Realist, more or less, and his “efficaciousness” also quite nominalist and empirical. And, really ammunition for those of us willing to take on theists, mystics, dogmatists–even subtle postmodernist ones (as we should, while attempting to overcome the vulgarity of a Dawkins and the new school corporate skeptics).

]]> by: Perezoso http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1581 Mon, 28 May 2007 13:19:24 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1581 I find Davidson's arguments contra-Quine quite feeble if not bizarre: however I have not yet read that much of Dav., and that is on my summer's reading list. There may be some cogent rebuttals to Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," but I have yet to read them: in a sense, Quinean "radical empiricism" merely extends the traditional a posteriori sensationism of, say, Locke, tho' Quine a bit more concerned with formality. I believe, however, that Quine underwent some strange shift though after WWII: early on he was a pure nominalist and semanticist---google the seminal essay on "Constructive Nominalism," co-authored along with Nelson Goodman---then with "From a Logical Point of View" (still very powerful reading), he seems to move towards the Fregean-Russell logicism again, yet at the same time occasionally shifting back to his nominalist roots. So what was it Herr Doktor Van??? Nominalism or platonism? Can one have both? Ich denke nicht. Yet later (apres Skinner, perhaps) he still seems to be holding to a nominalist-naturalist position: I think Dr. Van realized how dangerous nominalism and behaviorism was for the logic business as a whole, and so consistently ducked the issue: nominalism is, I suggest, a central problem, if not THE problem of, well, epistemology, and one could say philosophy as a whole---and once one rejects innateness, a prioricity, analyticity (not synonymous really, but very close cousins), and really platonic views of logic and mathematics, the world sort of falls apart (as the germans realized even when reading old Locke). I believe that Quine more or less formalizes Locke's anti-innateness and anti-a priori arguments (tho' Quine would probably not care for that definition), and that Two Dogmas is thus not really a rejection of empiricism, but a refinement thereof--it expands the <i>scope</i> of empiricism, yet also modifies it, as in the denial of mental entities or the "idea idea" (WVOQ may have been mistaken or reductionist in regards to his denial of mental entities, but like Skinner he suggests that we don't know enough about thinking and perception to really make statements about consciousness). At any rate Quinean naturalism, however ugly to some out in the belle-lettrist land, allows us to discuss a real world, nature, events: even say economics, green issues, or the petroleum crisis. etc. More than most postmod ontology permits, or (ie Dasein, and its descendants). I find Davidson’s arguments contra-Quine quite feeble if not bizarre: however I have not yet read that much of Dav., and that is on my summer’s reading list. There may be some cogent rebuttals to Quine’s “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” but I have yet to read them: in a sense, Quinean “radical empiricism” merely extends the traditional a posteriori sensationism of, say, Locke, tho’ Quine a bit more concerned with formality. I believe, however, that Quine underwent some strange shift though after WWII: early on he was a pure nominalist and semanticist—google the seminal essay on “Constructive Nominalism,” co-authored along with Nelson Goodman—then with “From a Logical Point of View” (still very powerful reading), he seems to move towards the Fregean-Russell logicism again, yet at the same time occasionally shifting back to his nominalist roots. So what was it Herr Doktor Van??? Nominalism or platonism? Can one have both? Ich denke nicht. Yet later (apres Skinner, perhaps) he still seems to be holding to a nominalist-naturalist position: I think Dr. Van realized how dangerous nominalism and behaviorism was for the logic business as a whole, and so consistently ducked the issue: nominalism is, I suggest, a central problem, if not THE problem of, well, epistemology, and one could say philosophy as a whole—and once one rejects innateness, a prioricity, analyticity (not synonymous really, but very close cousins), and really platonic views of logic and mathematics, the world sort of falls apart (as the germans realized even when reading old Locke). I believe that Quine more or less formalizes Locke’s anti-innateness and anti-a priori arguments (tho’ Quine would probably not care for that definition), and that Two Dogmas is thus not really a rejection of empiricism, but a refinement thereof–it expands the scope of empiricism, yet also modifies it, as in the denial of mental entities or the “idea idea” (WVOQ may have been mistaken or reductionist in regards to his denial of mental entities, but like Skinner he suggests that we don’t know enough about thinking and perception to really make statements about consciousness). At any rate Quinean naturalism, however ugly to some out in the belle-lettrist land, allows us to discuss a real world, nature, events: even say economics, green issues, or the petroleum crisis. etc. More than most postmod ontology permits, or (ie Dasein, and its descendants).

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1580 Mon, 28 May 2007 01:35:01 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1580 hi Mike, Some points bear repeating. ;) I didn't like the Spivak pieces I read on Marx, but then the point of the Summer of Enervating books is not to read things I enjoy... Thanks for the Eagleton reference, I'll give that a look soon. take care, Nate hi Mike,

Some points bear repeating. ;)

I didn’t like the Spivak pieces I read on Marx, but then the point of the Summer of Enervating books is not to read things I enjoy…

Thanks for the Eagleton reference, I’ll give that a look soon.

take care,
Nate

]]> by: Mike Beggs http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1577 Mon, 28 May 2007 00:21:31 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1577 I've been put off investing time in making sense of Spivak by Terry Eagleton's essay on her book 'A Critique of Post-Colonial Reason': http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n10/eagl01_.html I’ve been put off investing time in making sense of Spivak by Terry Eagleton’s essay on her book ‘A Critique of Post-Colonial Reason’: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n10/eagl01_.html

]]> by: Mike Beggs http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1576 Mon, 28 May 2007 00:21:13 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1576 I've been put off investing time in making sense of Spivak by Terry Eagleton's essay on her book 'A Critique of Post-Colonial Reason': http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n10/eagl01_.html I’ve been put off investing time in making sense of Spivak by Terry Eagleton’s essay on her book ‘A Critique of Post-Colonial Reason’: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n10/eagl01_.html

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1575 Sun, 27 May 2007 21:40:31 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1575 Sorry Per, you lost me. That aside, I'm keen to hear what you make of the Quine/Davidson/Lovecraft post. The exposition of Q and D is bad (pretty much nonexistent, really), which is a shame. I forgot how much I like those essays. You wouldn't happen to know of a publicly accessible online copy of Davidon's "Very Idea..." essay, would you? Sorry Per, you lost me.

That aside, I’m keen to hear what you make of the Quine/Davidson/Lovecraft post. The exposition of Q and D is bad (pretty much nonexistent, really), which is a shame. I forgot how much I like those essays. You wouldn’t happen to know of a publicly accessible online copy of Davidon’s “Very Idea…” essay, would you?

]]> by: Perezoso http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1574 Sun, 27 May 2007 16:31:07 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1574 Imagine like Baudrillard meets oh Carnapian empiricism: analyticity applied to political, economic and even Kultur critique. The Simulacra, falsified---or something like that. Hold your quantifiers, or your XML code, or your subalterns, the summer Pop Flick Fests have started: First up, Bourbon decadence via 90s grunge: The Pirates of Viacom (or whatever shekelmeisters fund the phunn). Depp and the Stones, man, like keeping it real: Blackbeard, PC icon. The object petit a functions best like in a state of nature, man (as long as you have superior British gold and materiel, behind you, and some clean ho's on board), and Rolling Stones, Inc. along for the entertainment........ But if you think pirates are fairly miserable cinematic icons, how about the next episode in the George Lucas Grand Ol' Space Opry. At least pirates existed at one point. Imagine like Baudrillard meets oh Carnapian empiricism: analyticity applied to political, economic and even Kultur critique. The Simulacra, falsified—or something like that. Hold your quantifiers, or your XML code, or your subalterns, the summer Pop Flick Fests have started: First up, Bourbon decadence via 90s grunge: The Pirates of Viacom (or whatever shekelmeisters fund the phunn). Depp and the Stones, man, like keeping it real: Blackbeard, PC icon. The object petit a functions best like in a state of nature, man (as long as you have superior British gold and materiel, behind you, and some clean ho’s on board), and Rolling Stones, Inc. along for the entertainment……..

But if you think pirates are fairly miserable cinematic icons, how about the next episode in the George Lucas Grand Ol’ Space Opry. At least pirates existed at one point.

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1573 Sun, 27 May 2007 00:24:03 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1573 hi Rob, You're anticipating my reading list. I've read one or two things by Spivak before, as part of a symposium at Long Sunday, my contribution to which is here - http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/19/is-are-qtamabsawajamcataq/ After I read "Can the Subaltern" I'll slap up my notes here and maybe we can discuss it? take care, Nate hi Rob,

You’re anticipating my reading list. I’ve read one or two things by Spivak before, as part of a symposium at Long Sunday, my contribution to which is here -

http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/19/is-are-qtamabsawajamcataq/

After I read “Can the Subaltern” I’ll slap up my notes here and maybe we can discuss it?

take care,
Nate

]]> by: rob http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1572 Fri, 25 May 2007 00:14:09 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/am-i-doing-this-for/#comment-1572 If you want painful, try the Spivak chapter ("Can the Subaltern Speak?") from the Nelson and Grossberg book the Jameson piece comes from. It's a fabulous argument, but — oh my — is it an agonising read! If you want painful, try the Spivak chapter (”Can the Subaltern Speak?”) from the Nelson and Grossberg book the Jameson piece comes from.

It’s a fabulous argument, but — oh my — is it an agonising read!

]]>