[lbo-talk] Review of Badiou's Number and Numbers

[ravi]

On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Chris Doss wrote:
> Well, IMHO, there is no way to do ontology that doesn't follow from  
> consciousness (or experience), for Kantian reasons. One either does  
> it from consciousness or not at all. Ontologies that do not proceed  
> from that position are metaphysics, which is, as I think Kant  
> correctly demonstrated, impossible. (Unless you want to be a  
> subjective or absolute idealist and assert that there is nothing  
> outside consciousness, as Hegel did -- and I think BTW that all  
> empiricism and metaphysical materialism is really a form of  
> idealism, even if empiricists and materialists don't realize it.)
>
> If one starts basing ones ontology on concepts that are derived from  
> experience, like math or space (I am using "derived from experience"  
> here in the Husserlian sense, not in the sense of empiricism), you  
> have the problem of how to justify using these second-order,  
> derivative concepts as your basis.

I cannot believe I am hearing a Heideggerian writing this sort of  
Cartesian stuff. Please explain! Are we all talking about the same  
thing when we say 'ontology'?

	--ravi

--
Anyone who takes an effort to intellectually challenge the status quo  
and established habits is infinitely more venerable than hacks  
defending that status quo and established habits, regardless of the  
truth function of their propositions. -- W.Sokolowski