The point is that I seriously don`t think that you can hold your accusations sticking strictly to the whole frame of work of this specific authors, and I mean envisioning it in such a way to demonstrate the procedure that you have followed to assert the sense that trend them as idealists or anti-realist.
- Comentado por Naxos en:
- Eliminativism
- September 21, 09:43 am
ok, right. thanks for the reminder. but what if someone like me that has shown some of the knowledge regarding to these authors, doubt of yours as I am doing now? Is it not worthy to give an extended and detailed argumentation, not to presume it, that`s a surplus of course, but to show and expose the floss of the reasoning that lead to conclude what you only by now are still holding more as a hunch or presumption?
- Comentado por Naxos en:
- Eliminativism
- September 21, 07:52 am
And by the way, regarding to a healthy objetivification of the philosophical practice, that I somehow mentioned and suggested you to contemplate in my first comment, if you don`t mind:
The Scholastic Point of View
This will help to let know that i was not being uncivil at the end of the day:
- Comentado por Naxos en:
- Eliminativism
- September 21, 09:18 am
Besides, I am afraid that you are not quite following me correctly: where did i suggest “that one can only respect a work or body of work when one refrains from disagreeing with it or critiquing it”? I do think that -for disagreeing- it is needed to know the whole work of an author, at least to be serious,and just as a matter of honesty, so to accomplish the right to speak about it, in favor or against him, mostly if such an author is accused and trended without any elaboration.
- Comentado por Naxos en:
- Eliminativism
- September 21, 08:55 am
“Foucault holds that we can only relate to being in terms of discourse and power, and cannot know anything of being apart from discourse and power.”
Can you say where exactly he says that so? and I mean, exactly in such terms? i.e “holds”, “being” I cant remember where he says that, and i am very familiar to his work. The terms “being” still sound tricky. We really want to read your foucaultian and bourdieuan style. I did so, would you?
- Comentado por Naxos en:
- Eliminativism
- September 21, 08:55 am
Actually I would have no problem with your fast-track definition, if it is the case that you could get generous and elaborate with hairs and details all the important things that would show us how dominant you are, regarding to Foucault and Bourdieu`s line of thought, and how you overflow the whole frame of their work -and i mean, seriously, as your accusation might get pretty much graver than it is if you don`t do so (at the time that we might think then that you are not capable to demostrate it because of a sort of very specific reasons)-.
- Comentado por Naxos en:
- Eliminativism
- September 21, 08:52 am
No, I am not.
I am seriously saying that they are not idealist as you accused them.
So, do you think that it is enough just to say -begging us to believe in you words just without any elaboration- that for Foucault and Bourdieu the tricky “being” is not thinkable apart from the human?
Are you capable to elaborate your assertion speaking about what you know about their frame of work, and i mean, taking their whole frame of work, if it happens that you know it and domain it?
- Comentado por Naxos en:
- Eliminativism
- September 21, 09:18 am
Oh well, Levi..
So “being” is like the keyword here is not it? and i mean the *tricky* one. All that i wrote there is like saying that the keyword -that you just imposed to your commentators- just would not fit in the frame of Foucault`s and Bourdieu`s work. “Being” is just out of the question for them. So therefore, I guess we all here tramped in your textual *tricky* “keywords”. OK.
- Comentado por Naxos en:
- Eliminativism
- September 21, 07:32 am
Blog de WordPress.com.
Tema Prologue by Automattic.
...
