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 (...


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 ...


4

The problem you mention is the same for all philosophy schools and also for the sciences. Around a core of skilled and experienced practitioners and scholars there is a fringe of half-informed folk with a variety of opinions and conjectures, and from the outside it may be difficult to distinguish the facts and the actual teachings from the cloud of dust ...


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

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

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 ...


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

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

I would claim that yes, those things are art, just as reasoning things out in a logical way with oneself is, in fact, an application of logical argument. It may be the ultimate aim of logic to allow each person to make his own decisions correctly, and not to resolve disagreements between individuals. In the spirit of Sartre, you are always the primary ...


3

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 ...


3

The style of the "New Philosopher" proposed by Nietzsche makes the meaning and relevance of the "scholarly" ambiguous. So, although there is a lot of scholarly work about Nietzsche, he himself would probably dismiss most of it. Kaufmann, the most popular translator of many of Neitzsche's works, indicates in his introduction to his translation of BGE that ...


3

There is no modus tollens here. Your interpretation If God loved us first, then we love Him. is not what's written there. The verse consists of a statement/claim/fact ("We love") and an explanation ("because He loved us first"). Also, the "we love" is not about us loving God. It's about us loving each other (1 Jn 4:7; "Beloved, let us love one another,...


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 skeptical ...


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

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 ...


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

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(...


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

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

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 ...


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 ...


1

Plato's Republic a. Anything beyond or different to a just action is unjust. Shakespeare's "King John I" b. If you try to make something "better than well", you won't be able to make it at all. (overestimating your skills) There is a way to make something well. Trying to make it "better"/differently (often) leads to disaster. (overzealous is regarded ...


1

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, ...


1

You write: Any statement can be interpreted to mean anything This is surely true in a strict sense Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation of texts, which might be relevant; here, they start off with the proposition: Not every interpretation of a text is equally valid The question then is to determine which interpretations are valid, and ...


1

We can start from the true general sentence "All Fishes live in Water" that we can translate, according to the "standard" translation of Categorical proposition of "All F are W" as: (*) for all x, if Fish(x), then Water-living(x). Consider now "Only Fishes live in Water", that is plainly false: also whales live in water. If we translate it as "All F are ...


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