Avoided most philosophy til 3 years ago. Dove in. Now I understand what they’re all talking about. [philosophy folks].
Found Foucault very agreeable in his description of the grids with his hands. He went too far in depersonalization-as-justification for doing whatever he felt like. But he was onto something, which was a systemic treatment that recognizes the systems themselves as inherently overlapping and for what each reveals it also obscures, including his own.
This does not invalidate the systems at all. For example, I can complain about the excluded middle ‘tl the cows come home and now I know enough to say “I favor the intuitionalist logic” family and find David Kellogg’s many worlds as an adequate map upon which to place various realities without conmingling… but at the same time, being a computer geek, I know of its power so far.
It’s just not enough. If you’re going to place everything on an either/or logical foundation, you can’t use gross things like word definitions and dictionaries but have to get to finer and finer things. Dictionaries + definitions, synonyms and antonomyns are generally far too ‘flat’ of a dimension to be accurate.
[and don’t get me started on Plato, who I love for many reasons and yet, his “idea” of idea drew a line that, while we’ve made the most of and continue to, also ends up being misleading]
—
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]