6

Saussure is playing with two traditional dicotomies : the aristotelian : form/matter (their union is the substance) and the "(traditional) linguistic : form/content. See CLG, Ch.4: [ page 156 ] La langue comme pensée organisée dans la matière phonique. The langue is a "structured" whole, that organizes the thought (pensée, idées) as well as the sound (...


5

The topic you've raised is intricate indeed. Except for the two approaches you mention towards the social sciences - interpretation (advocated by anti-naturalists) and (nomological) explanation (advocated by naturalists), there is the pluralist stance combining the two, and there is the approach known as 'critical social science'. The pluralists contend ...


4

You won't find a definite, unambigious answer. Here's my stab at it. Context: in the third prologue, Zarathustra is teaching the people about the Übermesch. A human is somewhere between a monkey and the Übermensch. The human is something to be overcome, Z. teaches the goal of Übermensch. Let's break down the quote: Z. says 'even the wisest'. Wise people ...


4

The phrase x̂(x=x) means 'the x such that x=x'. This is just a way of forming a singular term that refers to something. The . is conjunction ('and'). So x̂(x=x.R)=x̂(x=x) is logically equivalent to R. And, since R is logically equivalent to S (by assumption), both x̂(x=x.R) and x̂(x=x.S) refer to the same thing. And then x̂(x=x.R)=x̂(x=x) and x̂(x=x.S)=x̂(...


4

Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations indeed is a foundation for a school of thought in sociology, called social constructionism (or constructivism). One field in sociology is identity question, that is, "How do we identify who we are in terms of our gender, race, and ethnicity?" One popular answer is called social identity theory which asserts that ...


4

Why do we excuse the engineer who can't write well enough to document their code? Why do we excuse the scientist who is too messy to find their own data? Why do we excuse the artist who can't sell their own painting? The answer, of course, is that they're good at what they do! I agree with you that I think the ability to communicate your ideas is ...


3

It is curious that Parmenides's argument seems wrong today while back in the day someone as expert as Plato thought that it was obviously right. Indeed, one of the drives behind Plato's system was resolving the puzzle that Parmenides and Heraclitus were both right. Let me strip the argument down to bare bones. P1(Panlogicism) Only that which is thinkable is ...


3

"Does [Selfish desire has no place in the pure aesthetic experience] mean that purity comes with the consequence of selflessness? That if one is clean and pure they must be selfless?" No, no, no. the causal relationship is the other way around. It is not the selflessness that allows you to experience purity, but it is the purity of (aesthetic) experience ...


3

The rejection of everything outside of the present is a theme in Nietzche's thinking. He believed in those "quarter hours" of sublime introspection when all diversions are forgone in pursuit of incredible ecstasy. The creation of art can provide this experience for people, and the consumption of art has many of the same qualities. We are living in an era ...


3

The original sentence was "wasteful." Both parties agree that it would have been better if A had said the correct meaning in the first place. However, resources were expended in the confusion. If one values those resources, one must value not saying sentences which are likely to be misinterpreted. If one considers such things ephemeral, and is only ...


3

For me the missing information is whether there is an objective or obvious reason to prefer one interpretation over the other, absent knowledge of intent. If B's interpretation has the stronger claim, then A needs to have considered his words more carefully, and an apology is in order. If A's interpretation is more likely, then B is in the wrong for ...


3

An interpretation of a theory, in particular quantum theory, is said to be an account of what that theory is saying about the world that can be cleanly separated from the theory's predictions. People who accept this idea claim that different interpretations of quantum theory can't be tested, and the question of which interpretation is true is not solvable. ...


3

Aside from minimal interpretations, which simply relate theoretical abstractions to empirical/practical procedures, interpretations are typically treated as philosophy/metaphysics. As such they can be used as vague blueprints for extending/modifying the theory, this was Popper's own view, he called them "metaphysical research programs". On more ...


3

My suggestion is to try to read proactively. If you're getting bogged down and taking overly copious notes, that tells me that you're reading passively: taking each passage as it arrives on the page, trying to hold it in mind, and hoping that enough accumulation will make the meaning of the work as a whole clear. That rarely works (I'm tempted to say 'never' ...


2

Svidrigailov committed suicide when he realized he couldn't have the love of Dunya, he, whose entire life consisted in the pursuit of his own desires and pleasures, in the end, needed he someone else, he was not all powerful. Raskolnikov was confused, he didn't understand what had made him have the urge to confess, he was thinking about himself and what ...


2

It seems that Raskolnikov's immature rationalisations are breaking on the reality of his own deeper and, up to then, unconscious convictions.


2

I interpret that statement formally as: If we love God, then it is because God loves us first From that point of view "We don't love God" does not imply that God does not love us. Most theologians I've read have said something like that our love of God requires us to allow it (that is, we exercise free will in the matter), and so our lack of love of God ...


2

I am not familiar with Nietzsche's concept of monological art, but purely on the basis of the question, I find it either obscure or patently absurd. If anything, an overreaction to Wagner's overweening, manifesto-laden, monarch-funded Gesamkunstwerk. Obviously art is a form of communication, the mediation of a nascent community, with the proviso that this ...


2

This is an example of what can be called associative narration, that is common in the texts of continental tradition in philosophy to which Camus belongs. Its aim is to foster understanding rather than to pass information, to invoke what one has in mind in the reader, and to help them explore it for themselves. The text is often structured as a search for ...


2

Even the wisest=everybody plant=being tied to physical world, man is partly on the remorse of his surroundings ghost=individual's quest and need for meaning; expressing and cultivating inborn inclinations the conflict is that every man needs to fit into/ compromising between the necessities of the world (obtaining nourishment, sleeping, having a shelter, ...


2

I am not familiar with the research literature, but the given interpretation does not make sense to me. And this for two reasons. First, the opinion of the so called "mortals" is an entirely marginal issue. It is definitely not part of Parmenides's main argument. In the main argument, Parmenides lays out his view as to the truth itself, as to how things are....


2

Without knowing anything more about your life, I would agree with you that your life has many of the external features of "good life": you are busy, you are fit, you are productive, your relationships don't cause you drama. In the terminology of Maslow, all the bricks in your pyramid hierarchy of needs are in place except for the ones at the very top. What ...


2

Interesting question. Could Immanuel Kant be an example of confirmation bias? He was a Christian philosopher who is generally regarded as a moralist, not a utilitarian. (I think that's a fair statement; I haven't studied him in depth.) I just remembered that I upvoted PeterJ's answer, largely because of the last paragraph. However, I now see a problem in ...


2

The domain is just a way of making clear the entire set of things over which you are quantifying. In ordinary discourse by default this is simply everything that exists in the actual universe, so as you point out, it tends to go without saying. But we might wish to speak about a fictional domain. If you were to say, for example, my favourite Star Wars ...


1

I believe that the phrase explains that beauty in aesthetics is an a priori knowledge that is simultaneously the highest positive value and personification of truth. Aesthetics is an experiential phenomena that is external to ourselves and, ostensibly, is an appreciation for the truth of beauty (which is perceived as a universal concept in the author's ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible