What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:38 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:37 am
I already explained to you why strictly basing metaphysics into an abstract, dimensionless construct is a massive fallacy.
I see. Why is it a fallacy?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:40 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:37 am
Also, using binary logic instead a combination of binary and fuzzy, and the constant use of the reification fallacy about information, will get you nowhere.
I use all of those logics, and a bunch of others you probably haven't heard of. Temporal type theory. Lambda calculus.
It's not "dimensionless" - it has many more dimensions than English. And I can add or remove dimensions as needed.
With computation I can add or remove TIME dimensions. I bet you can't do that in English!

If you want to start with 3-dimensional problem-space consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:37 am
I already explained to you why strictly basing metaphysics into an abstract, dimensionless construct is a massive fallacy.
I see. Why is it a fallacy?

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:44 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:40 am
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:37 am
I already explained to you why strictly basing metaphysics into an abstract, dimensionless construct is a massive fallacy.
I see. Why is it a fallacy?
I already explained to you, but your brain doesn't seem to be able to process the reification fallacy.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:46 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:44 am
I already explained to you, but your brain doesn't seem to be able to process the reification fallacy.
OK. Let me ask you a different question. If basing metaphysics on an "abstract, dimensionless construct" is a fallacy and you have recognised this, then can you explain your own, non-fallacious metaphysics to me?

Lets start with a simple questions like: How many dimensions can you represent in your metaphysical language?
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:48 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:46 am
OK. Let me ask you a different question. If basing metaphysics on an "abstract, dimensionless construct" is a fallacy and you have recognised this, then can you explain your non-fallacious metaphysics to me?
I already have but you didn't understand it.
Simple questions like:
* How many dimensions can you represent in your metaphysical language?
That's an unrelated isse

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:50 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:48 am
I already have but you didn't understand it.
You explained it poorly.
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:48 am
Simple questions like:
* How many dimensions can you represent in your metaphysical language?
That's an unrelated isse
Indulge me. I am asking questions because I want to understand, so match my learning pace, OK?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:00 am

I'll even give you an argument for why I ask: Language (logos/logic) has dimensions. Our highest resolution (quantum physics) representation of reality has 'dimensions'. If you are to express truth in language then surely the dimensionality of your language must match the dimensionality of reality? So how many dimensions does your metaphysical (or even spoken) language have and how many dimensions does reality have?

And the really hard question: how many time-dimensions do your metaphysical, or spoken languages have in proportion to reality?

You are omitting aspects of reality when you describe it!

You've CHOSEN which aspects to discard and you've CHOSEN which aspects to retain. How/why did you make the choice?
Computer scientists call this lossy compression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression juxtaposed against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression
In information technology, lossy compression or irreversible compression is the class of data encoding methods that uses inexact approximations and partial data discarding to represent the content. These techniques are used to reduce data size for storage, handling, and transmitting content. This is opposed to lossless data compression (reversible data compression) which does not degrade the data.
ALL language is value-laden! Rorty came to the same conclusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_vocabulary

This, I think, sums up the failure of logocentrism and the extent of Derrida's contribution. All the rest of his work was garbage :)

Of course, one must also point out the distinction that regular languages (those outlined in the Chomsky hierarchy and Lambda calculus) do not suffer from the same flaws. And even more precisely - any flaws they suffer are as a result of human epistemic limits, not systemic problems with the language itself.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:10 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:37 am
I already explained to you why strictly basing metaphysics into an abstract, dimensionless construct is a massive fallacy.
Sure. And thinking like that is even worse: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2Co ... cy-of-gray

Reality has no "dimensions" or "categories". They are just pragmatic constructs of our perception trying to grasp all that complexity and so there is no avoiding them. Forget it at your own peril...

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:44 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:10 am
...
Apparently your brain can't naturally process context either, which is quite common in Aspies. So you are artificially trying to reinvent contextual thinking, not realizing that most other people are already automatically doing that and usually understand the shared context in philosophical discussions. They also understand when the context is for example switched to formal logic, which every decent philosopher is already using. Or when we switch to multidimensional representations etc.

That's fine, there are some others here too who can't really process context.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:47 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:44 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:10 am
...
Apparently your brain can't naturally process context either, which is quite common in Aspies. So you are artificially trying to reinvent contextual thinking, not realizing that most other people are already automatically doing that and usually understand the shared context in philosophical discussions. They also understand when the context is for example switched to formal logic, which every decent philosopher is already using. Or when we switch to multidimensional representations etc.

That's fine, there are some others here too who can't really process context.
I thought the "shared context" in philosophical discussion is reality/truth etc.?

If you think you can process (COMPUTE!) the context (scale and complexity of the universe) in English and with a human mind I have some very bad news for you.
Maybe you are the one whose brain can't naturally process? Being unable to recognise that you can't "automatically" do all that much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Shut_up_and_calculate

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:59 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:47 am
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:44 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:10 am
...
Apparently your brain can't naturally process context either, which is quite common in Aspies. So you are artificially trying to reinvent contextual thinking, not realizing that most other people are already automatically doing that and usually understand the shared context in philosophical discussions. They also understand when the context is for example switched to formal logic, which every decent philosopher is already using. Or when we switch to multidimensional representations etc.

That's fine, there are some others here too who can't really process context.
I thought the "shared context" in philosophical discussion is reality/truth etc.?

If you think you can process (COMPUTE!) the context (scale and complexity) in English and with a human mind I have some very bad news for you.
Maybe you are the one whose brain can't naturally process? Being unable to recognise that you can't "automatically" do all that much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Shut_up_and_calculate
You don't really seem to grasp what context means. That makes sense.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:01 pm

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:59 am
You don't really seem to grasp what context means. That makes sense.
I grasp exceptionally well what contexts are and why they are useful. Would you like me to explain the computer science?

You seem to have made up a context and you've called it "philosophy". And turned it into a rather esoteric field under the guise of something useful. That makes sense too.

What are the objectives and the success/failure criteria of your field?
What value do you add to humanity?

Or is it just sophistry?

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:09 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:01 pm
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:59 am
You don't really seem to grasp what context means. That makes sense.
I grasp exceptionally well what contexts are and why they are useful. Would you like me to explain the computer science?

You seem to have made up a context and you've called it "philosophy". And turned it into a rather esoteric field under the guise of something useful. That makes sense too.

What are the objectives and the success/failure criteria of your field?
What value do you add to humanity?

Or is it just sophistry?
Are you hallucinating again?

I didn't claim to be a philosopher, didn't say philosophy was particularly useful, and didn't claim to add to humanity much (I don't think that's possible anyway anymore).

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:13 pm

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:09 pm
Are you hallucinating again?

I didn't claim to be a philosopher, didn't say philosophy was particularly useful, and didn't claim to add to humanity much (I don't think that's possible anyway anymore).
Well, we are on a philosophy forum; and you are doing philosophy, and you DID say this:
So you are artificially trying to reinvent contextual thinking, not realizing that most other people are already automatically doing that and usually understand the shared context in philosophical discussions
So I am guessing your deflection away from the "shared context in philosophical discussions" (truth, reality) is your way of avoiding acknowledging your error? Shut up and compute!

Expanding human knowledge is happening. All the time. And not fast enough.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:29 pm, edited 7 times in total.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:50 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:10 am
I miss the old days of Socratic ignorance where the purpose of the Socratic dialogue was to reveal our collective ignorance rather than the celebration of blood lust. I know this is insulting for modern philosophy which revels in expressing its intelligence and finds peak enjoyment in crushing the ego of its imagined inferiors. Valuing Socratic ignorance may be an increasingly vanishing value but it may be like a person remembering an old lover and beginning to realize what they have lost.
In hopes to ease your cynicism let me share my perspective.

"Blood lust" and epistemic humility (Socratic ignorance?) are disparate qualities. Those who lack the latter are lost either way. Those who lack the former are too cowardly (or too wise?) to stand up to those who don't. To our collective loss.

Sadly, the male dominance games are what they are. And so we shall adapt! Don't tame the "blood lust" - put it to good use!

Here forth let "winning" be nothing more than getting the "blood lusty" to recognise their own, and our collective ignorance. But first you have to humble them before they listen. In their language own and by their own rules.

Socratic ignorance is not dead. It's just not a badge one often wears in public in fear being stigmatised. It's counter-productive in some crowds.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests