> That would be the individuals who created the Parthenon or the Sistine
> chapel. They would have had to be "fuller" (i.e. closer to the "idea"
> of humanity) than the "complete emptiness" of "the fully-formed
> proletariat" where
>
> "the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is
> practically complete".
===================
So, the aesthetes of slave and feudal societies were more "in touch" with the "idea" of humanity than proletarians who go bowling or play video games? Please. Oh, and what's the use of the pomo framing/"scare" quotes of/around idea? Whose idea. Is there only one?
> "Modernity" has no logical space for the idea of humanity underpinning
> the claim. You can, therefore, reasonably conclude that the premises
> of modernity are inconsistent with Marx's so, if, as you do, you adopt
> the premises of "modernity", you will be "free to conclude there is no
> original fullness" in the sense that your conclusion will be consistent
> with your premises. This, however, isn't sufficient to make your
> conclusion "true".
==================
Does that make Marx an antiquarian for Aristotelean virtuous living or a pomo or, perhaps a platonic form existing beyond any historico-narrative cage created by his interpreters?
> The only "truth" consistent with those premises is "solipsism of the
> present moment".
>
> The clinically narcissistic (and quintessentially "modern") Hume
> mistakenly thought he could avoid this with a little help from his like
> minded friends.
========================
Ah, an ad hominem attack on a dead white male whose voluminous and encyclopaedic output as well as impact on western and other cultures far surpasses your own is reduced to being a narcissist. Is that assessment coming from the modernist idiom of psychoanalysis which you use to achieve an expression of arrogant frivolity or have you been to some EST seminars in the not too distant past?
>
> "There is no Algebraist nor Mathematician so expert in his science, as
> to place entire confidence in any truth immediately on his discovery of
> it, or regard it as anything but a mere probability. Every time he
> runs over his proofs, his confidence encreases; but still more by the
> approbation of his friends; and is rais'd to its utmost perfection by
> the universal assent and applauses of the learned world." David Hume,
> Treatise on Human Nature. (Treatise, Part IV, Section 1)
>
> This epistemological doctrine is, however, inconsistent with the
> premises. Ditto for its "postmodern" equivalent.
>
> Ted
==================
Sounds like a learning-by-doing argument whereby the practitioner justifies his claims via peer review. You left out the preceding paragraph wherein he sets up the binary of certainty/probability and mediates them via the use of the term *degenerate* [degeneracy]. Clearly a nostalgia [or is it a desire to relinquish?] for the ancient dream of certitude and it's attendant desire, to have the final word.
The success and influence of a philosopher, or any other human being, is in the questions they raise and the creativity they elicit in dialogue with others rather than the answers they provide.
Ian
"In all demonstrative sciences the rules are certain and infallible; but when we apply them, our fallible said uncertain faculties are very apt to depart from them, and fall into error. We must, therefore, in every reasoning form a new judgment, as a check or controul on our first judgment or belief; and must enlarge our view to comprehend a kind of history of all the instances, wherein our understanding has deceiv'd us, compar'd with those, wherein its testimony was just and true. Our reason must be considered as a kind of cause, of which truth is the natural effect; but such-a-one as by the irruption of other causes, and by the inconstancy of our mental powers, may frequently be prevented. By this means all knowledge degenerates into probability; and this probability is greater or less, according to our experience of the veracity or deceitfulness of our understanding, and according to the simplicity or intricacy of the question."