Finally, a post of substance - but have the claims been substantiated?
Note this awesome SCTMian analysis of Crooked Timber from last July.
Some call Tim me, but they're wrong.
Here at Unfogged, we hate open threads.
The author of the passage has made the mistake of believing that there is such a thing as "substance", or that "substance " is real. This error was explained over two thousand years ago by Buddhist philosophers, but the word has been slow to get out. Pragmatists in general agree, but they don't realize that the Buddhists got there first.
There's no truth, either, as Rorty has explained.
The author of the passage is pwned, and all his bases are belong to us.
That was HTML screwing up, not me.
Books offer us the privilege of leading more than one life. People who don't read them are living in a mineshaft.
("Reading makes our lonely lives less so", Garrison Keillor, Minneapolis Tribune, Dec. 4, 2005.)
I suppose that Keillor sucked your cock too ATM, but now he regrets it.
This error was explained over two thousand years ago by Buddhist philosophers, but the word has been slow to get out.
I think Aristotle is excused for not knowing about it.
The poor guy didn't have a chance. The Bactrian Greeks could have corrected him, but they came along a couple of generations too late.
The Meyer book you linked looks interesting--to me, I mean--and possibly not unconnnected to some ongoing work in analytic philosophy. Some analytic philosophers themselves are trying to break the tyranny of the proposition (my objections to the notion of a proposition are probably not quite in line with this stuff). This guy, for instance, argues that knowing something is always knowing the answer to a particular question, which sounds sort of like some of the things Meyer is saying.
And my advisor wrote a paper, "Declaratives Are Not Enough," complaining that [analytic] theories of language concentrate far too much on declarative statements as opposed to imperatives and questions. Which I think is still the case.
Meyer is not really a non-analytic philosopher. One of his books, "From Logic to Rhetoric", deals with analytic philosophy from Frege to Hintikka in considerable detail.
My Buddhist interpretation of Meyer is not his and, judging by his writings, not one he would like much. He seems to be a very proper academic. It's his hard luck that I have made myself the #1 Google source on his work.
The propositional definition of mystical entities such as the One or The Unknowable or the Thing in Itself leads to self-refuting paradoxes. But if I'm not mistaken, the problematological "definition" of this "entity" is just "that about which questions might be asked, whether or not the questions have ever actually been asked". IE, the space of questioning, before the questioning has begun.
Wittgenstein included jokes among the non-proposition forms of language suitable for use in philosophy.
Don't mind him. He's from Barcelona.
The Minneapolis Tribune also has exposed Ogged's secret identity: Iranian-American fitness guru Bahram Akradi, CEO Life Time Fitness.
LB:
Do you ever get to go home?
I'm working, but I am home this morning. And I'm actually almost done -- if the &*#^@#!!! partner's fax machine were on, so I could get him this brief to review, I would be done for the weekend.
Why the hell would anyone read this sort of rambling nonsense when you could read either
(a) a modern physics/chem text (to learn something about what the world is made of) or
(b) someone like say Daniel Dennett (to learn about interesting modern day philosophy)
Man, I just don't understand some people.
Well, Daniel Dennet is quite tedious, that's one reason. His "cranes, not skyhooks!" book was a real disappointment, not that I expected much.
An interest in history of thought is a second reason.
And then, if some of the questions ignored by Dennett are actually of interest, then Aristotle might actually be relevant.
Maynard, if you're not getting anything out of Aristotle, it does not necessarily prove that there is nothing there to be got. Most of our greatest intellectuals will tell you that in fact Aristotle does have things to say that are worth hearing, though it can take some work to interpret him. For you to casually dismiss him because his work strikes you as rambling nonsense is just ridiculously arrogant.
The Modalities of Being is sort of a thread-killer, though this one did limp along for awhile.