tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post1490945883256262486..comments2023-06-07T08:50:33.280-05:00Comments on Immanent Transcendence: Varieties of Nominalism and Realismkhadimirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-63141799287661650472012-04-15T08:55:23.836-05:002012-04-15T08:55:23.836-05:00Adam,
I ran back across this post and thought tha...Adam,<br /><br />I ran back across this post and thought that in hindsight that I can be more plain when you state that Bryant has granted many of these qualifications.<br /><br />Transcendental argumentation cannot be claimed to be human-independent if one is an epistemic nominalist. And since Levi Bryant was arguing for the human-independence of his work, he enters into a contradiction. He then denies to scholastic realists (Peirce, Dewey, Whitehead, etc.) their own solution to this problem.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-69131217560271368272011-12-09T08:47:00.989-06:002011-12-09T08:47:00.989-06:00Ah, I forgot to discuss another definition of nomi...Ah, I forgot to discuss another definition of nominalism--the idea that only particulars exist, and that there are no universals. One can be a realist about the external world, but be a nominalist of this sort.<br /><br />In this view there are only generals (generated laws from particular instances) that are often construed as not being real. I only did this implicitly through discussing Hobbes, because he's the example of that; I should have said it more explicitly. But then we have no repetition (of identity in the sense of self-similarity rather than self-sameness), except as an unverifiable inductive or abductive hypothesis. This is opposed to the reality of universals.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-42879304308201809352011-12-08T23:13:23.999-06:002011-12-08T23:13:23.999-06:00p.s. I also do realist phenomenology, which many ...p.s. I also do realist phenomenology, which many think is impossible. That's because they've long since given up on the reality of universals, relations, and continuity.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-71298819679142880342011-12-08T23:10:31.458-06:002011-12-08T23:10:31.458-06:00Adam,
Let me be clearer. I am writing all this a...Adam,<br /><br />Let me be clearer. I am writing all this as "more general statements," and have been very clearly separating these conversations from the prior ones, but then you ask me to connect it back to OOO positions. You are not the first. Let me explain what I am doing.<br /><br />It is very different to articulate various general categories of metaphysical positions from asserting those positions of someone. I try to be very, very careful about such assertions, because too often they are spoken either from ignorance or the willfulness of a person in a position of power. Neither are productive or kind. I mention Levi because that was the originating context, and thus readers can follow those threads, e.g., like a citation. For an example of this technique, ever read Broad's Mind and World? I disagree with a lot of the thinking, but I love it still because he clearly explains every move in his taxonomy of metaphysical positions and allows the reader to be instructed even if one does not agree.<br /><br />The reason I refuse to attribute anything specific to Levi is because that category, nominalism, is so varied that I would be guessing unless I made it a point to become a scholar of his work, which is not worth my time as I am not a scholar of the particular subfields of continental required to make such a gambit should I even want to. This generalizes for OOO. However, I have written enough to explain why I hold the positions that I do, and therefore I ward off internal critiques. I thereby force my interlocutor to make an external critique, which is often more difficult. I also give prima facie reasons to believe there might be an internal contradiction in holding a speculative realist position while maintaining nominalism.<br /><br />One should be very careful of one's commitments and counter-arguments, which allow one to critique whole categories of positions at once, i.e., multiple thinkers rather than just one at a time, although one must be wary of fallacious application of such generalizations. I write these to help cut through the layers of any particular thinker and come to their core, because positions are far less unique than most anyone wants to admit, and thus advance preparation is useful for understanding and criticism. (I apologize for the pedantic tone, but I intend to explain my mindset.)<br /><br />Please note that part of my connection to OOO is that their various thinkers hold process positions and discuss process philosophy, except they often do so as appropriators from outside American philosophy as the mother tradition, and thus have different interpretations and aims. It's jarring.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-34937061547274524802011-12-08T20:38:19.714-06:002011-12-08T20:38:19.714-06:00Then I have to say I am not following you at all, ...Then I have to say I am not following you at all, nor do I understand what precipitated any of this or who it is that holds the positions you are arguing against. If its not about Bryant's position, and its not about OOO at all, then why even mention them as adjacent to the positions you are articulating? Why not just frame it is a more general statement of areas you are exploring? <br /><br />...Confused...Adamhttp://knowledge-ecology.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-62234247339368173232011-12-08T19:37:50.990-06:002011-12-08T19:37:50.990-06:00Adam,
Sections 1.2-1.4 do not address the mention...Adam,<br /><br />Sections 1.2-1.4 do not address the mentioned issues. His treatment there is at a much more basic level than the current conversation. One reason I originally started reading Levi's blog is because his research is very similar to mine even if very differently motivated.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-6465926376860550412011-12-08T16:40:51.789-06:002011-12-08T16:40:51.789-06:00p.s., this semester is my first FT job and I carry...p.s., this semester is my first FT job and I carry a 5/5 load, so I'm always serious about asking for direct and contained references and thank you for being specific rather than just saying "read this book." Not being a Deleuzean or doing anything related to that, I'd not read a book merely to carry a blog conversation, else by that logic I'm going to start assigning all us bloggers MUCH more homework..... ;Pkhadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-44589307966042593712011-12-08T16:37:41.010-06:002011-12-08T16:37:41.010-06:00Yes, I did read some of it, but haven't had th...Yes, I did read some of it, but haven't had the time to do so carefully. That is why I refrain from discussing his or anyone's work that I am not well-familiar with. Instead, I go over basics, upon which later comparisons can be made.<br /><br />Some have taken my recent comments to be implicit references to him--I am not saying that you claim this of me. I just want to be clear that they are not implicit references to him, and if they were, it would be unscholarly of me to do so and I am not so foolish. But that is also why I asked him to explain his views, since we were on the subject, and he refrained from much in-depth discussion and wouldn't give me the reference you just gave. I'm going over this, as I said, for my own projects and not for criticism.<br /><br />As for a "trigger point," I think that is not a good phrase to describe what I was doing. I was originally defending why process metaphysics has certain characteristics and why they were necessary for certain incarnations of it. I explained this intent to Levi, as I did not intend to be pointedly critical, and he rejected my explanation in email correspondence. In conclusion, I thank you for patience on our current and future discussions as you do not jump to conclusions, or when we misunderstand each other, we allow for mutual reconciliation.<br /><br />All that said, thanks much for giving the reference, because I have enough time to check sections and be enlightened.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-92027960375493182762011-12-08T12:28:13.207-06:002011-12-08T12:28:13.207-06:00Did you read any of Bryant's book? I would loo...Did you read any of Bryant's book? I would look into the introduction, particularly sections 1.2 and 1.3 where Bryant draws on Bhaskar and Deleuze (whom are central to all of Bryant's work). Bryant argues here that his onticology is an extension of Bhaskar's transcendental realism. Bryant also follows Deleuze in affirming the "transcendental" but not the "transcendent." I'm not exactly sure why this is such a trigger point for you, when it seems that many of the qualifications you are demanding from Bryant have already been made.Adamhttp://knowledge-ecology.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-10804942307203389532011-12-08T09:38:36.303-06:002011-12-08T09:38:36.303-06:00I take it back. I'm also interested in the ot...I take it back. I'm also interested in the other varieties, so please do offer them, as knowing what one might not agree with is very informative. Besides, you might convert or at least intrigue me, and we could have a mutually informative discussion.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-4586642535854621792011-12-08T09:28:13.015-06:002011-12-08T09:28:13.015-06:00My barring of exotic redefinitions and qualificati...My barring of exotic redefinitions and qualifications is not nothing, as there are far more options for nominalism than stated here. However, I'm interested in the varieties that truly aim to be explanatory and not purely speculative.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.com