[lit-ideas] Re: Vedr: Plato as the first constructivist
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Well, there is a bit of a paradox here - if I don't know anything about the
things-in themselves, then I also don't know that I don't know anything about
them. For all I know, I might even know something. If I have no idea at all who
Tom is, then I cannot completely exclude the possibility that he is someone I
know, after all.
Okay, I'll stop here.
O.K.
On Monday, March 3, 2014 8:14 PM, Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mmm... Perhaps thisis the reason Pierre Bourdieu often is lumped (possibly
unwillingly) wih post-structuralists in textbook approaches. He all ways
insisted autonomy was /relative/ -- surely considering the Kantian lesson of
the impossiblity of knowing anything of things in the as such-ness.
Nevertheless he despised what you north american types would think of as post
sturcturalism (no core to langugea, nothing outside discourse etc), as he'd
claim they weren't materiall .
-p
Den Lørdag, 1. mars 2014 23.46 skrev Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx>:
Kantian Constructivism, as per O'Neill, Korsgaard, Rawls, Habermas, Okshevsky et
al notwithstanding, shirley.
(Don't ask me who Al and Shirley are. Isn't there a movie like that ...?)
"There's a social side to things in their constructs." Excellent display of the
kind of precision in thought and writing I require of my grad and undergrad
students. I should retire from university life ...
Cheers, Walter
Quoting Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>:
> Social constructivism doesn't hold much of an esteem currently (doesn't hold
> much of a currency, estametly), nevertheless and nonwithstanding, Plato
> hisselfes held there's a social side to things in their constructs. As
per
> below, and see also further clever authorial comments as per piss.
>
>
> From http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/cratylus.html
>
> Socrates: Well, now, let me take an instance;- suppose that I call a man a
> horse or a horse a man, you mean to say that a man will be rightly called a
> horse by me individually, and rightly called a man by the rest of the world;
> and a horse again would be rightly called a man by me and a horse by the
> world:- that is your meaning?
>
> Hermogenes: He would, according to my view.
>
> PS:
> Let's say there's three possibl positions as to
regarding the relation
> language to man and their contexts-
>
> a) man makes up words, so that when gregory, say, arrives, i decide to hail
> him horsely "hey, horse!"
>
> b) words make up man, so that when gregory, say, arrives, words have decided
> that i hail him manly "hey, man!"
>
> c) man makes up words howee\ver not in conditions of his own makes, so that
> when gregory cums -- fnally -- i hail him. period.
>
> three and only three options.
>
> yrs.
>
> phatic
> (inquisitor)
Other related posts:
