And yes this is one of those pieces I have in mind among some others:https://jacobitemag.com/2019/07/15/disintegration/ …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And yet one must have some access to those parts to create one's wholes. Which is tricky if it would take more matter than the part of the universe one finds oneself standing in contains in order to access a different part. This is a materially epistemological problem.
-
To be honest, this stuff you are saying are just continental baby foods. This is not how science works. What you say about the universe or matter is more like a whimsical metaphysical shopping list from the next door grocery store.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't quite understand. Are you trying to say mereology cannot be an object of study of philosophy (but, say, math only?) or that you imagine it as object of philosophical study but without ontology?
-
No, no, this is not what I'm saying. Mereology is all good. What I'm referring to is that parts and wholes can't be ontically hypothesized such that we can claim parts are ontologically prior or wholes are ontologically prior.
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
When are you going to address the hauntology of shrimping?
-
Wtf is shrimping? Stop fucking around.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Gouldner has a very wonderful way of describing this process, which he calls "the dialectic of recovery and holism". This is the only feedback loop worth worrying about from an intellectual standpoint: how these tendencies turn back upon themselves or slide into "bad infinity".
-
What is the title?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
As a carpenter of long standing, I refute your glue position.
-
how about this my sir? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluing_axiom …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.