Thursday, August 25, 2016

on the fringes of being

alexius meinong 

is it ever too late?
nay i say.
never too late to get my hands on alexius meinong.
why did i never read him in graduate school?
why did i repeatedly passed over his name on countless footnotes of lesser authors than he?

to understand being we have to look on the fringes of being: the "incomplete," the "alter," the "quasi," the "non,"

"the completing is never quite completed" is a phrase in novalis, but meinong went further. he walked the walk.

objects exist, subsist, merely exist...

i remember entertaining a "rounded square" in my mind during my metaphysics class. i'd "feel" my own cerebration, the square wrestling its definitional form: to "round" its corners, its very squareness to quasi-roundness, to push the form to a squircle (though clearly this is not the end-form, which is impossible).

once the squareness is left behind the hybrid moves to sosein, the space of "homeless beings."

the mind gets the impossibility, the nichtsein (entertained as the impossible superimposition).

in meinongian, the rounded-square "subsists,"


(a brief intro for meinong would be fans here)

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

the idea of a consolidated erotetic completeness shipwrecks on the infeasibility of finding a meaningful way to monitor its attainment


The nuanced nugget above is from Rescher's "The Unrealizability of Perfected Science."*

The idea is not new. Rescher is after the so called completeness of science. Say Physics, could it —at some point in the future— become upper bounded, or as some put it Q-complete

I've dealt very with this problem here, and here.

Rescher presents four points: 1- Erotetic completeness, 2- Predictive completeness, 3- Pragmatic completeness, 4- Temporal finality.

In my opinion, Rescher better points are 1, and 4.

You may think what's the value of all this. See it as probing questions that pertain to problems as diverse as scientific realism, instrumentalism, the systematicity of nature, the cognitive limits, etc. 

But what I'm after here is style, the Rescherian unique manner of clothing ideas, which needs a whole post about stylistics in writing philosophy, but I don't have the time now.

When I read Rescher, I read a whole epoch: Strawson, Quine, Putnam, even a bit of Goodman. And yet his language has a unique old school elegance. There's always a secret interlocutor behind Rescher's thoughts, an echo of heedfulness.

Again:

the idea of a consolidated erotetic completeness shipwrecks on the infeasibility of finding a meaningful way to monitor its attainment 

Imagine this bloated erotetic cerebration crashing against its own nullness.

Pure poetry!

(I'm onto Rescher)

_______________________
*Reason Method and Value, A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher (Ontos Verlag, 2009) p. 335.