Timeline for Circular arguments in Philosophy post Wittgenstein
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2016 at 20:05 | comment | added | martin | @Conifold I believe you answered that in my other question in that I was really referring to the opacity of the arguments, which you helped me understand, we're necessarily circular in that they there existential in their essence. Perhaps I should restudy Sat removals and Camus and work backwards - rather than trying to construct and idea out of a deconstruction. | |
| Sep 10, 2016 at 21:39 | comment | added | Conifold | Sorry, I do not follow. Whose thoughts and what disparity? | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 1:06 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 0:38 | comment | added | martin | @Conifold - His thoughts on Art are fairly transparent in comparison - why the disparity? | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 0:27 | history | edited | martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 9, 2016 at 0:27 | comment | added | martin | @Conifold thanks for the explanation and link - both helpful. | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 0:21 | comment | added | Conifold | I agree on Heidegger's obscurity. But he is an existentialist, so his approach is to evoke "the truth of Being" (non-intellectual and not directly expressible) in the reader, rather than to argue logical points. Keep in mind also that even Quine embraces hermeneutic circularity:"If we are out simply to understand the link between observation and science, we are well advised to use any available information, including that provided by the very science whose link with observation we are seeking to understand". joelvelasco.net/teaching/3330/… | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 0:11 | comment | added | martin | .... This is not hard to achieve, as Gödel proved quite rigourously, but it seems to me to err on the form of rhetoric rather than pure reason, in strictly Kanitian terms. | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 0:11 | comment | added | martin | @Conifold If I was pressed, I would elaborate on Heidegger's arguments on "Being" in particular (Derrider's are somewhat beyond the time I could currently put into such an argument, and are liable to be as filled with holes as might be expected) - I feel that (and please bear in mind tis is more than not, based on intuition, and not logical parsing) Heidegger's arguments are so clouded in circlularity as to almost be designed to be inpenetrable... | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 0:04 | comment | added | martin | @Conifold I mean by applying, applying the "rules" of logic as set out (as best as one might decifer) from his latter arguments. I am not familiar with Hermenutic cycles - after reading, and if I am still unsure, would you be willing to elaborate? | |
| Sep 8, 2016 at 23:59 | comment | added | Conifold | Could you explain what you mean? Meditations and reflections are supposed to be circular: you look at the whole, then you zoom in on the details, then with better understanding of the details you contemplate the whole again, etc. This is called the hermeneutic circle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic_circle Circularity is disallowed in logical arguments (vicious circle), and undesirable in informal ones approaching them, but most of philosophical narration combines logical and hermeneutic moments. Also, what do you mean by "applying" late Wittgenstein? | |
| Sep 8, 2016 at 23:42 | history | edited | martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 8, 2016 at 23:37 | history | asked | martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |