Jul 7, 2021
Carl Sachs, A Conceptual Genealogy of the Pittsburgh School: Between Kant and Hegel
Loading...
seen from Czechia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore
seen from China
seen from T1
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
Carl Sachs, A Conceptual Genealogy of the Pittsburgh School: Between Kant and Hegel
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
There is no need to deny that what science reveals is special, in a way that is brought out by the point about disenchantment. In discarding the medieval conception of nature as a book, science indeed unmasked projective illusions, and it is essential to how scientific investigation rightly conceives its topic that it should be on guard against such illusions. The investigative stance of science discounts for the effects of features of the investigator, even his humanity. That is why the world as science reveals it does not contain secondary qualities. More generally, what science aims to discover is the nature of reality in so far as it can be characterized in absolute terms; the content of the view from nowhere, in Thomas Nagel's evocative phrase. And the practice of science is not a mere quirk of our culture, on a par with, say, chess. Thanks to science, we know far more about the world, and understand it far better, than the medievals did, and it does not undermine the fact that this is an objective improvement to say (true though it is) that we make these assessments from our present standpoint, which includes the hard won idea of disenchanted nature as the province of scientific understanding. But it is one thing to recognize that the impersonal stance of scientific investigation is a methodological necessity for the achievement of a valuable mode of understanding reality; it is quite another thing to take the dawning grasp of this, in the modern era, for a metaphysical insight into the notion of objectivity as such, so that objective correctness in any mode of thought must be anchored in this kind of access to the real.
John McDowell, Two Sorts of Naturalism
God is one
To worship any other god than the one God is considered idolatry. Of course, we have seen throughout history the promise of worshipping many gods. This is the curse of the secular age. Most people don't consider the question of Gods oneness to be very interesting. The just accept the stories from the priests that we ought to worship Christ and think critically of sinners and fools. However, it seems there isn't that much to the Christian religion. The Christian religion is based on repentence, and they are less inclined to familiarize themselves with scripture, the ways Jews do. Then there is Islam. Islam has very powerful clergies, but they are marked by a humility, treating God as someone who is just really confoundly good. The best in fact.
Today, many people hate religion, because they believe that there's a lot of trouble in the world, and religion does nothing to help those. However, this is only natural. Religion isn't meant to solve the world's problems: it is meant to solve spiritual problems. Still, there are religions that work to make the world a better place, albeit in a religious way; I am thinking mostly of Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion that suffers greatly under its own creeds. I mean that in a very Zen way. I want to tell people that the world is an evil place, and that we should seek enlightenment; but I don't know what enlightenment is, and the more I think about it, the more I am thankful that the Dharma exists, to pull me towards the simple things in life. In this way, Buddhism also strengthens itself. But I think we'll see that many people are dissatisfied with Buddhism's internal inconsistencies and for this reason seek salvation elsewhere.
I suppose this is why many people will find China's religions to be the best. In China, Confucianism satisfies the spiritual needs for people who are curious and independent minded; Daoism fulfills the needs of those who are basically doing fine and don't really need anything more than than to live up their lives. Nonetheless, Daoism can be confusing. After all, many things in life are worth striving for: we can desire things in a way that makes us want to put in great effort (Kung fu) and Daoism detracts from this by putting us in the role of loafers and men of leisure. Really, Daoism isn't that profound. It seeks to point our soul towards an obscurantist metaphysical principle, but we only call it metaphysical because it is unfathomable, and this is what Daoism does. it tells us to stop acting "because". Still, the principle of non-intervention that underlies Daoism has religious merit. It can be fulfilling to take it easy just because. Why work harder than you need to? Of course, one might say it is because we want things, and here is the confusing part of Daoism, the foundations are self-denial. Here is where I see the promise of Judaic religion. It believes in duty. Judaism transcends apathy by allowing people to act and to speak.
There is a line in Knights of the Old Republic 2 by Chris Avellone that says "Apathy is death." Now Daoism doesn't necessarily inspire apathy, nor does Buddhism, but they all seem to point us towards confusion, and confusion can lead to apathy. Now I wish so bad to be a philosohoper, a metaphysicist in fact, who can tackle the most important problems of philosophy in a good way; but instead I am just a theologian, hell perhaps even a theologian of the nation, like Eugen Weber called it, because I also see myself as a historian of sorts; yes, history is the mistress of life, I really think so, and my days would be considerably more miserable if I didn't have history, but I am not sure how significant the difference would really be. But in any case, no matter how wholesome history is and how nourishing, and no matter how badly I want to be a philosopher, these things block us, and keep us from acting. But yeah, Daoism and Buddhism do seem oddly "philosophical" in some particular way, and this is probably why they can also paralyse us. Anyway, it seems we have to practice Judaim in some way - and I ain't even a Jew - to survive in the world, to write; because writing is the epitome of life, through writing we can give purpose to our whole day, and really support us in our horrors and terrors.
But anyway, metaphysics I suppose is a lot like telling jokes, you can't do it on command, yet we have to speak anyway. In history, religion has very often inspired metaphysics; in fact, metaphysics used to be a flourishing science in the days of Christianity, but since the days of secularism, it barely exists anymore; and the weird thing is, I can't think of a single metaphysical sentence, except maybe for Sartre's existence precedes essence, which I would only think of because Heidegger called it a metaphysical sentence. But I don't know any real metaphysics: it seems it doesn't even exist. All I can think of is a picture from a book by Thomas Carlyle of a blind man walking off the face of the Earth, subtitled "metaphysics". And they call Hegel metaphysics, but it is just misguided jabbering, even though it might be called good writing by wise fools.
Anyway, this is my new method for writing: I will be a Jew, and I will study the Bible and learn the language of the Bible, and I will hold sermons perhaps and theologize the nation if luck will have it, or something; but in the end metaphysical thoughts may flow out of it. In fact, my master is Robin Williams, because he probably couldn't make jokes on command either, but he was still great at improv; you know, improv is my passion, 'cept I ain't a comedian. I'd be a metaphysicist. You know, you may say something, and it may be funny, but afterwards, if you quote it out of context, it may not be so funny after all. Who knows, it might be also the case with metaphysics, that its metaphysical when you say it, but it ain't metaphysical anymore when you quote it out of context. You know, just now I am looking at the Wikipedia page of Duns Scotus, the English metaphysicist, and it has for example the following sentence: universalia exist. This is supposedly metaphysics. It sounds somewhat metaphysical, right? Because of the word "exist". You know, there's another metaphysical story from the oeuvre of Avicenna, that says that the soul must exist because if you imagine a floating man to come into existence who has no knowledge of his body he'll still have a consciousness. That's also metaphysical - or actually, it is a thought experiment that invites metaphysical speculation. But you have to admit, it's unclear to really pinpoint what kind of thoughts these are. What are we thinking about here? The relationship of mind and matter. Why is that metaphysical? I don't know, it really has nothing to do with any other philosophical problem. These kind of questions have a tendency to take on a life of their own. It seems that these are questions of a scholastic origin, predicating definitions on things that really mean something else entirely. I suppose that's where "ordinary language philosophy" comes from. But the problem with ordinary language is that there's nothing ordinary about ordinary language, it's just language. We see this most profoundly in John McDowell's work. The guy is unintelligible, but he speaks with words that sound very hands-on and actionable. That's what I am saying. Can we be metaphysical by accident? Is there metaphysics outside of scholasticism? Of course, some would say there is, in Kripke's work. But that stuff is too focussed on language. People shouldn't think philosophy is the study of language. There's nothing philosophical about language. As I said, my master is Robin Williams, I am more like Larry David than like Kripke (understand Larry David better than Kripke too, of course). This is what I am saying: you can't be metaphysical on cue, you can benefit from religion to get you out of your apathy. We might say, there ain't no metaphysics without religion, weird as it might be. We might say: Buddhist philosophy is more metaphysical than Kripke. Fulfilling your spiritual goals opens up your discourse for metaphysical philosophy. Metaphysics is the ultimate pastime. Of course, here we are reminded of that very true statement by Lipsius, that it is sad to do philosophy for merriment, when it is the most serious of fields. Still, his friend Montaigne said there wasn't much philosophy going down if people weren't laughing.
The notabilities of life
Thinking is a noble profession. We can think about anything. However, the most difficult thing is to start thinking. Thought will often lack the vibrancy and meaning of living cogitation when it does not conform to a certain tradition or example of thought. A monument. I consider myself a metaphysicist. The history of the metaphysician is mostly one of failure. You can do many things in your life, but you will never be a good metaphysician. Nevertheless, I see some real promise in the work of a handful of philosophers that proves that metaphysics is making progress. We see good things in the world, and this makes us realize the essence of many other things. Thinking deeply will reveal many great truths to us. One notable one is colour. The metaphysics of colour are eminently empirical. We see colour, and therefore we know it exists. However, we will also see that colour gives a metaphore for a certain other thing in life, a thing that makes everything in life a little better. Vibrancy is certainly a thing that will make us happier, if only because it makes us look more cheerful. Ecclesiastes actually says: always dress in white. Our Lord Jesus said it too.
A little thing about being aware of colour is that it is always moving. Motion, in the colloquial sense of moving away from a central point, will require the constant recalibration of meaningful centers of production in the manifold trajectories of ordinary life. You will see this is the case when you administer real power to the little revealers of the constant motion in the higher echalons of vibrancy: this will give us a total view, that makes us know the reality of colour. When things happen, we see the totality of conceptual changes that make us know the little changes that determine the validity of absolute objectivities in the creativity of new things, which is the totality of generative categories that will surely determine the newness of colloquial centers in the validity of normal motion. Now we do not know anything for certain. The simple world consists arguably of two poles of production: sense data and discernment. This is the philosophical dichotomy. When we realize simple truths, we do not automatically participate in the dialectic that moves us to a higher truth. The simple things are lain in the creativity of absolute motion that defines the vibrancy of the creative enterprise. Therefore, the reality of simple motion is subservient to the ordinality of normal motion, that perceives only its vast intrepidity in the nonsensicality of the new order in which it will exist alone. Obviously, we do realize that these things are not simple in the vastness of space and time. We cannot know the defining music of the new category in which the vibrancy of the pure colour will appear. We only know the new motion in which the colour becomes a moment in time that we can recognize. Absolutely, the little things are virtually inaccessible to virtual points in the succession of pure time; so, the motion of the virtual thing that makes up time is discerned through the creative system of time that allows us to visualize a newer creativity, and this is then the word for a newer motion; and it is very important that we think about everything - in fact, there is a terrific need to think, which makes it very hard to realize what is actually a vocational thought and what is a despairing thought. We see that it is philosophy's task to provide a simple storyline or form for thought to house in: philosophy provides a home for thought. This is something Kierkegaard said about Hegel: that he built for himself a vast mansion of thought, but he only lives in a tiny hut in the back.
Now I don't know if Kierkegaard understood Hegel, but I do know that it is very difficult to live in your thoughts. Nevertheless, this is very important. I agree that Hegel didn't properly "house" in his thoughts. However, we need to realize that philosophy is about in many ways a field of study, that consists primarily of thinking. It is wrong to assume that the house of philosophy is also a thinking house. When we approve philosophy as an occupation, we must in some way stop thinking. The thinking must become an art. As I said, we know nothing for certain. Now Hegel saw philosophy as the science of reason. I will say that philosophy does not begin at being rational, but begins as an independent field of study, and only through metaphysics does it become an occupation. I replace Hegel by two men: Gadamer and John McDowell. In their work, I find a true vibrancy that we do not see in Hegel. They truly lived in their thoughts. Academic philosophy was very hard, and these men must've truly felt like lunatics at times, but they managed to assert philosophy as both intelligent discourse and systematic treatment. The article and the monograph. Of course, this does not replace actual thinking, but as I have said so often, history is the mistress of life, we do not need to think, we only need to read and play games and do mathematics and so on. Thought is very limited. Our religions are based on thought: Daoism, Buddhism, stoicism, these are all based on thought. But when we start thinking as an occupation we can no longer rely on the workings of the mind in its function as a moral compass. The old adage of the starry skies above and the moral law within doesn't hold. Mathematics and chess and so on: these are the great joys of leisure. It is really hard to make good use of one's leisure, and philosophy provides only momentary relief. Still, philosophy can be a vocation. It just requires that we use our imagination, that we trust our intuitions over our reason. Reason is very important, and it is the basis of philosophy, but it cannot further the cause of metaphysics, which is notable for its vibrancy, its colour. The blueness of metaphysics is a essence that we have not yet seen fully realized. The yellowness of metaphysics is a methodology that has no proper adherents yet.
Now with this notion of vibrancy firmly in place, we may ask what metaphysics is supposed to do. I do not wish to be needlessly simplistic. What we'll see is that we gain knowledge of the infinity of space and time through metaphysical exposition, and the black and white necessities of real space and time are set in motion through the systems of real thought. When we become aware of the newer forms of real life, we generate ordinary things in the entirety of the universe, and this allows us to flow forward under the rubric of ornamentality and smart knowledge. In other words, metaphysics is supposed to arbitrate the notional distance between notability and colour, between what is distinctive and what is notional, the infinity of rational exposition, versus the orderliness of distinctive analysis against the grain of normalcy and difinitiveness. We make sense of the ordinary world, and this is a real power in the notionality of ordinary time, that makes us know the viscerality of notional interpretation against the nomination of creativity and the heralding of a higher calling, which is all just another way of saying: go outside! There's a rhyme and reason to the great outdoors. I will not seduce anyone to waste his life studying metaphysics, but we do see there's a better philosophy that we can achieve somehow, if we but manage to align our thoughts with our science. Philosophy can be a science, only we have to be inspired and critical, moving together towards a higher calling, reading widely, being reasonable. Words don't have a whole lot of power. We should not be intimidated by people who have jobs. Anyone can get a job. Brian Eno in fact said: don't get a job.
"It is one thing to recognize that the impersonal stance of scientific investigation is a methodological necessity for the achievement of a valuable mode of understanding reality; it is quite another thing to take the dawning grasp of this, in the modern era, for a metaphysical insight into the notion of objectivity as such, so that objective correctness in any mode of thought must be anchored in this kind of access to the real. And it is simply a confusion if one is encouraged in this thought by the idea that what science uncovers is the nearest we can come to the “in itself.” The detranscendentalized analogue of Kant's picture that empirical realism amounts to is not the educated common sense it represents itself as being; it is shallow metaphysics."
-John McDowell
"Or if they list to try Conjecture, he his fabric of the heavens Hath left to their disputes, perhaps to move His laughter at their quaint opinions wide Hereafter, when they come to model heaven, And calculate the stars; how they will wield The mighty frame; how build, unbuild, contrive, To save the appearances; how gird the sphere With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er, Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb."
-John Milton
"The ultimate proceeding of reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it."
-Blaise Pascal
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Am i a nutritious inspiring studyblr yet hashtg breakfast
The Pool Scene - Chase Rudder, Chuck Adams, Jeff Corona, John McDowell, Kevin Nguyen, Manny Chau, Masahiro Nakahara, Mike Nguyen, Nick Hood, Rudy Sanchez, Shawn Putnam, Wayne Stephens - Lone Start Tour
New Post on http://thepoolscene.com/lone-start-tour/chau-nguyen-capture-2015-lone-star-kick-off
Chau and Nguyen Capture 2015 Lone Star Kick-Off
Hailing from Peru, professional player Manny Chau fought his way through an elite field of open 9-ball division players, taking home the title at the Lone Star Billiards Tour Kick-Off event held January 24th-25th at Bogies Billiards & Sports Bar in Houston, Texas. Chase Rudder made a big splash with a short-lived hot seat victory over Houston south-sider Nick Hood, until meeting Chau in the finals. Destroying the amateur 9-ball field was up-and-comer Kevin Nguyen who faced off with tour newcomer Horacio Cortez for the amateur title. Nguyen captured his first-ever, long awaited, tour victory.
Sunday afternoon, matches went into overtime as 71 competitors grinded to the bitter end. In the open division, Chase Rudder flew undefeated to the hot seat with wins over Marvin Diaz, 9-1, Danny Lee, 9-6, Ernesto Bayaua, 9-6, and Chau, 9-6. Nick Hood devoured Mike Liang, 9-4, Yoko Joe, 9-6, John McDowell, 9-3, and finally Masahiro “Hiro” Nakahara, 9-6. Early upsets included Kevin Nguyen over professional player Shawn Putnam, 9-5, and Andy Jethwa over world champion Rafael Martinez, 9-5. On the one loss side, Putnam staged a comeback with 5 consecutive wins over Rudy Sanchez, 7-2, Eric Hsu, 7-3, Jethwa, 7-3, Bayaua, 7-3, and Nakahara, 7-4. Nguyen eliminated Martinez, 7-5, and in turn was eliminated by McDowell. Winners’ side hot seat action saw Rudder take an early lead over Hood, 4-0. Hood returned fire, but it was too little, too late, as Rudder secured the win, 9-6. Back on the west side, Putnam secured 7th-8th position defeating Nakahara, 7-4, while Chau eliminated McDowell, 7-1. Putnam overcame Chau, 7-1, and Hood, 7-2, to meet Rudder. Chau decimated Rudder both sets, 9-3, 7-1.
Kevin Nguyen had an incredible run in the amateur division defeating Scott White, Jason Bagby, 7-5, Mike Nguyen, 7-3, and Bobby Perez, 7-3. New to the tour, Horacio Cortez defeated K.G. McCormmick, Sonny Bosshamer, 7-4, Wayne Stephens, 7-6, and Chuck Adams, 7-3. On the one loss side, Stephens defeated Masahiro Nakahara, 5-2, and Jeff Corona eliminated Garett Sitz, 5-3. It was Rudy Sanchez over Jeffrey Chen, 5-3, and Abel Laura over Mike Nguyen by the same score. Nakahara defeated Sitz, 5-2, and it was Laura over Chen, 5-3. After suffering his first blow to Nguyen, Perez came out swinging, besting Nakahara, 5-0, and Laura, 5-4.In the hot seat match, Nguyen took down Cortez, 7-3, pairing Cortez and Perez in the next round. Both players fought for every shot until a crucial hill hill mistake cost Perez the set. In the finals, Cortez proved a more-than-worthy opponent, taking the first set from Nguyen, 7-4. After a short break, the players flipped the coin and began the second set. Nguyen did an excellent job regrouping, as he took the lead, and the final set, 5-3.
#gallery-5 margin: auto; #gallery-5 .gallery-item float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 50%; #gallery-5 img border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; #gallery-5 .gallery-caption margin-left: 0; /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
Kevin Nguyen, Horacio Cortez
Manny Chau, Chase Rudder
Manny Chau
Nick Hood
This year the Gulf Coast Women’s Regional Tour (www.facebook.com/gulfcoasttour) will stage a women’s 9-ball event at each Lone Star Tour stop. There were 22 ladies competing in Saturday’s 9-ball event, with Ricki Casper emerging undefeated with a final 7-2 win over 2014 Gulf Coast Tour Champion, Belinda Lee. For more information, visit www.gulfcoasttour.wordpress.com. The Lone Star Billiards Tour would like to thank this year’s sponsors Poison by Predator Cues, www.poisonbilliards.com, Delta-13 Rack, www.delta-13.com, and the APA of North Harris County, www.facebook.com/apanorthharriscounty along with Bogies Billiards & Sports Bar and owners David and Shannon Richardson for their continued support. Also, congratulations to Alicia Huff and Robin Climer who won brand new Poison by Predator cues at Saturday’s cue raffle!
The next event will be March 7-8 at the all-new Bogies Billiards West located at 9638 Jones Rd., Houston, Texas. For event details and information on the upcoming 2015 season, visit www.LoneStarBilliardsTour.com. “Like” us at www.Facebook.com/LoneStarTour.
Open Payouts 1st Manny Chau $440/$500 2nd Chase Rudder $290/360 3rd Nick Hood $205/$230 4th Shawn Putnam $145/$140 5th-6th Masahiro Nakahara, John McDowell $65 ea. 7th-8th Ernesto Bayaua, Kevin Nguyen $45 ea.
Amateur Payouts
1st Kevin Nguyen $400/$400 2nd Horacio Cortez $260/$260 3rd Bobby Perez $180/$130 4th Abel Laura $120 5th-6th Masahiro Nakahara, Chuck Adams $65 ea. 7th-8th Garett Sitz, Jeffrey Chen $45 ea. 9th-12th Wayne Stephens, Jeff Corona, Rudy Sanchez, Mike Nguyen $25 ea.
John McDowell del Norwich City 1980/81.