Jud:
> Nothing can arrive in a vacuum for neither nothing nor a vacuum can exist.
> There is no such thing as the *tradition* there is/was only those thinkers
> who thought in the past.
Jud, despite the possibly interesting (curiosity-wise) discussion that might
ensue regarding the notion of vacuum as in a region of space devoid of
mattergy, this obviously was not the notion of vacuum I was employing when I
suggested that nominalism did not arrive in a vacuum (that it did arrive
within the environs of an already given tradition of thinking). If you
insist that the 'tradition' of metaphysics or philosophy is not a something
worthy of discussion ("There is no such thing as the *tradition*") because
"non-existent" then since my point about the vacuum was connected with the
absence of a vacuum (of thinking/speaking/writing) for, say, your
nominalism, then all discussion is unfortunately immediately decapitated.
What can I say? Whatever I attempt, without going all the way and agreeing
that there is no such thing, will be deemed by you as speaking of what does
not exist as if it did and thus be further deemed as not worth the air it is
borne on. Certainly, the notion of the tradition of western philosophy is
far more sophisticated (I hear you say, yes, an example of sophistry: but
from where the notion of sophistry as a constant enemy of good thinking?)
than just the members of a collection of those "thinkers who thought in the
past". Precisely your flattening of this sophisticated notion to a
collection of philosophers et al is what I do *not* mean by the tradition:
rather it is the thinking itself (that exists concretely in the form of
writings, speeches, books, etc, and analytically in the form of a languaged
environment or better, set of environments that incorporate such concretions
and condition the ongoing conversation and discussion that occurs as the
tradition). But since none of this is available to your thinking (because it
{all that sophistication} is deemed non-existent), you (as a nominalist or
thereabouts) carry on the tradition (badly, stutteringly, because you reject
what gives your thinking its life and meaning, even in your rejecting)
regardless and irredeemably. You are employing the very resources that you
reject as topic. Thus I could engage (with great difficulty), because the
resources you blindly employ can become topic, including the topic of
rejecting the topic ("it does not exist" etc), but quite honestly, I'd
rather not; I think we both know how futile such an extended conversation
would be and not through any force of thinkerly argument but through steely
entrenchment right from the beginning (all those "X does not exist"s have
become a virtually impenetrable wall and deadly boring too, that immediately
stifles discussion and stiffens the air of genuine con-versation, at least
for me...). Such a wall of no-saying is nonetheless very much part of the
tradition that environs your rejection of it (cf Nietzsche, say) and this
recurs in the many forms of contradiction analysis can uncover of your
version of nominalism (as I have attempted to show many times, and will in
future with one big extensive effort, but not now); your wall is shot
through with holes and one can eventually just about live in the airy spaces
of the interstices and multiple lacunae that bedevil your theoretical space.
But I choose a more enlivened space, full of danger but then I prefer a
certain danger to the brick wall of total defence (and assumed security).
degrades [yes, almost an anagram]
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> Nothing can arrive in a vacuum for neither nothing nor a vacuum can exist.
> There is no such thing as the *tradition* there is/was only those thinkers
> who thought in the past.
Jud, despite the possibly interesting (curiosity-wise) discussion that might
ensue regarding the notion of vacuum as in a region of space devoid of
mattergy, this obviously was not the notion of vacuum I was employing when I
suggested that nominalism did not arrive in a vacuum (that it did arrive
within the environs of an already given tradition of thinking). If you
insist that the 'tradition' of metaphysics or philosophy is not a something
worthy of discussion ("There is no such thing as the *tradition*") because
"non-existent" then since my point about the vacuum was connected with the
absence of a vacuum (of thinking/speaking/writing) for, say, your
nominalism, then all discussion is unfortunately immediately decapitated.
What can I say? Whatever I attempt, without going all the way and agreeing
that there is no such thing, will be deemed by you as speaking of what does
not exist as if it did and thus be further deemed as not worth the air it is
borne on. Certainly, the notion of the tradition of western philosophy is
far more sophisticated (I hear you say, yes, an example of sophistry: but
from where the notion of sophistry as a constant enemy of good thinking?)
than just the members of a collection of those "thinkers who thought in the
past". Precisely your flattening of this sophisticated notion to a
collection of philosophers et al is what I do *not* mean by the tradition:
rather it is the thinking itself (that exists concretely in the form of
writings, speeches, books, etc, and analytically in the form of a languaged
environment or better, set of environments that incorporate such concretions
and condition the ongoing conversation and discussion that occurs as the
tradition). But since none of this is available to your thinking (because it
{all that sophistication} is deemed non-existent), you (as a nominalist or
thereabouts) carry on the tradition (badly, stutteringly, because you reject
what gives your thinking its life and meaning, even in your rejecting)
regardless and irredeemably. You are employing the very resources that you
reject as topic. Thus I could engage (with great difficulty), because the
resources you blindly employ can become topic, including the topic of
rejecting the topic ("it does not exist" etc), but quite honestly, I'd
rather not; I think we both know how futile such an extended conversation
would be and not through any force of thinkerly argument but through steely
entrenchment right from the beginning (all those "X does not exist"s have
become a virtually impenetrable wall and deadly boring too, that immediately
stifles discussion and stiffens the air of genuine con-versation, at least
for me...). Such a wall of no-saying is nonetheless very much part of the
tradition that environs your rejection of it (cf Nietzsche, say) and this
recurs in the many forms of contradiction analysis can uncover of your
version of nominalism (as I have attempted to show many times, and will in
future with one big extensive effort, but not now); your wall is shot
through with holes and one can eventually just about live in the airy spaces
of the interstices and multiple lacunae that bedevil your theoretical space.
But I choose a more enlivened space, full of danger but then I prefer a
certain danger to the brick wall of total defence (and assumed security).
degrades [yes, almost an anagram]
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---