.
Throughout its entire history philosophy has constantly tried to discover or invent new paradoxes in order to gain the upper hand over one-sided scientific discourse. The history of philosophy can be represented as a collection of iconic paradoxes, in which each radiates its own evidence without contradicting each other. That is why the so-called theories of philosophy can coexist peacefully – so-called because they are not in fact theories at all – whereas scientific theories are in competition with one another. The will to paradox already played a decisive role when Descartes provided Western philosophy with a new foundation: thinking subjectivity was understood by Descartes to be the location and medium of doubt. With regard to self-contradictory opinions with which the listening or reading philosopher is constantly confronted, the Cartesian epoché means nothing other than the decision to live in paradox, to endure paradox, for the decision to suspend all opinions is logically just as paradoxical as the decision to affirm or to reject all opinions. The effulgence of evidence emanating from this paradox alone makes Descartes’ apparently coherent and methodologically correct expositions plausible – for on closer examination, the formal-logical evidence being presented is quite problematic. The evidence of the Cartesian method is borrowed evidence, borrowed from the paradox that this method takes as its point of departure.
- Boris Groys, The Communist Postscript
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
he's got a lot of explaining to do. this is false on the face of it. just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. the whole history of philosophy, which happens to include descartes, is a history of contradiction.
and besides that, what the fuck with the overwheening lack of clarity? seriously. dude, if it ain't clear it's bullshit.
i'll add a further interpretation: marxists were a contradiction to romanticists, and this is a weak knee-jerk attempt at concurring with early socialist theory bullshitting at empirical support their essentially romantic ideals.
and no, i'm not a capitalist, but i'm not a marxist either, precisely because of shit like this.
*correction: early marxists attempted to be a contradiction to romanticism...my point being what a sham of an attempt at empiricism (an no, i'm not a rationalist either...attempts to pigeonhole the dogma will only end in [not my] tears...that is sorta my point: what the fuck with the constant dogma, somebody really needs to systematically call out the marxists for the utter lack of credibility to the ...keyword... Dogma)
Post a Comment