Zalamea is a gentleman. But is this enough? Is this what we actually want: a sheaf of romantic vagaries where all math fields become the expressions of the sublime? Sheaves everywhere=tender-heart ontological hypothesization?
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
Do you think that category theory provides a better examination of the conceptual structure of universalism? I mean, a better grasp of a such structure as a generative field between understanding and action? Zalamea's take on Witt. through "sheaves" is indeed a little mystical
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TiagoGuidi1 @NegarestaniReza
DO you think Zalamea's Wittgenstein has a "mystical" grasp of sheaves? Didn´t pick that up. Of course the transpecial thinking is a bit far fetched, but I think it is more like a philosophical fiction that can be useful instead of "Mystical" in the sense of being intractable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JPCaron1 @NegarestaniReza
Mystical in the sense that in order for the perspicuous representations contained in Witt's philosophy to work, we need to participate in the same philosophical concerns as him. We go from the site (natural languages) to the sheaves (language games) but how to go back?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TiagoGuidi1 @NegarestaniReza
Well it is obscure for me the proposition "participate in the same philosophical concerns as him" as a nod to the "mystical". Re. language games, their purview is not to be brought back as "bricks" in order to re-construct natural language as a complete set...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JPCaron1 @NegarestaniReza
Well, Wittgenstein himself says It: "All this description gets its light, that is to say its purpose, from the philosophical problems". The question is how to arrange the philosophical problems so they can shed their light into our descriptions? This path remains unclear
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TiagoGuidi1 @NegarestaniReza
Ok, but what kind of clarity are you looking for? It seems this is subjectable to the same treatment as Wittgenstein subject other ambitions. There is no general recipe, but piecemeal treatments of specific problems in the Wittgensteinan sense.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You can of course remain unconvinced by the limits of the Wittgensteinian project. I am unconvinced, that is why I went for Sellars, Brandom, Badiou, Reza, you name it. But I think Witt has a point about "clarity"- that "clarity" is not completeness.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
You can get crystal clear about the functioning of a particular language game, and yet, this does not apply to all of the natural language in question.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
actually, the "motley" idea of language puts forward precisely this point: one treatment doesn´t apply to everything and you can´t get the whole from one treatment alone.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Sorry if I can't contribute adequately to this thread. Busy putting out the riot fires on other threads.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @TiagoGuidi1
no problem, Sir. You should get your guests to work for you on twitter as well!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JPCaron1 @TiagoGuidi1
Already on top of it. Ask
@bopvangnon2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes - 21 more replies
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.