Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.

This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on June 1, 2020. Please switch to a supported browser, or disable the extension which masks your browser. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
NegarestaniReza's profile
Reza Negarestani
Reza Negarestani
Reza Negarestani
@NegarestaniReza

Tweets

Reza Negarestani

@NegarestaniReza

Creator of a blunt object known as Intelligence and Spirit https://tinyurl.com/s7e226j  (Urbanomic/Sequence).

CT
toyphilosophy.com
Joined December 2019

Tweets

  • © 2020 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Reza Negarestani‏ @NegarestaniReza Feb 14
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Anyone thinking wholes and parts are ontic categories is either a fraudester or a stupid philosopher (i.e. doubly fraudster). There is no such ontic categories. You construct new wholes to reveal the underlying fragments, you glue the fragments to uncover new wholes ad infinitum.

      24 replies 19 retweets 228 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Katerina Kolozova‏ @kkolozova Feb 15
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @NegarestaniReza

      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?

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
    3. Reza Negarestani‏ @NegarestaniReza Feb 15
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @kkolozova

      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.

      1 reply 5 retweets 27 likes
    4. Katerina Kolozova‏ @kkolozova Feb 15
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @NegarestaniReza

      Atoms are not parts but entities in their own right? And the bigger entities made up of atoms are not just composites nor causa finalis for the existence of those atoms, but entities in their own right? We should look at them in their unilaterality, non-relatedness?

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    5. Reza Negarestani‏ @NegarestaniReza Feb 15
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @kkolozova

      No, atoms are not entities in the way we use that term in colloquial or traditional philosophical sense. I highly suggest the text that van Fraassen wrote on whether electrons are real or not.

      2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
    6. Katerina Kolozova‏ @kkolozova Feb 15
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @NegarestaniReza

      But in the traditional philosophical terminology, yes, they would be entities, ta onta.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Reza Negarestani‏ @NegarestaniReza Feb 15
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @kkolozova

      Sure, but I really don't think that the talk of ta onta can be seamlessly comeensurated with how sciences or particularly physics and complexity science talk about such entities.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    8. Katerina Kolozova‏ @kkolozova Feb 15
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @NegarestaniReza

      Yes, you said that in colloquial and philosophical speech they aren't, not in scientific. I was responding to that comment only. Since Aristotle's Categories on they would be termed entities. I'm not sure about colloquial speech, and don't think it's relevant in this context

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Reza Negarestani‏ @NegarestaniReza Feb 15
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @kkolozova

      Aristotle's definition is precisely what has become the colloquial version, or at least a watered down version of it. Nonetheless, this Aristotelian talk is precisely the kind of scholasticism that has no room in modern sciences.

      12:35 PM - 15 Feb 2020
      • 1 Like
      • Matthew Cipolla
      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        1. New conversation
        2. Katerina Kolozova‏ @kkolozova Feb 15
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @NegarestaniReza

          Reza, you told me that was not how it was used in colloquial and traditional terminology. I say, it's precisely how it's used in philosophy and perhaps in colloquial language. Go back to your original comment

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Reza Negarestani‏ @NegarestaniReza Feb 15
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @kkolozova

          No I guess you are misunderstanding me. I said that the concept of physical entities is not commensurate with either Aristotelian vocabulary or the colloquial sense which is in fact a watered down Aristotelianism.

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. 2 more replies

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2020 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Imprint
        • Cookies
        • Ads info