[lbo-talk] Conversation with Derrida

[Eubulides]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Chris Doss wrote:
> 
>> I'm pretty sure that what Euby means is that the presuppositions of a 
>> "system of knowing" (for lack of a better term) cannot themselves be 
>> demonstrated within that system. For instance, "every event has a 
>> cause" cannot be demonstrated. It's just assumed.
> 
> Yeah, faith and all that. But putting on my editorial hat - or, as I 
> read recently in the NYT style section, my curatorial hat - I think 
> posters should spend a sentence or two explaining what they mean instead 
> of sharing what read like private jokes.
> 
> Doug

=====================

What? It's not like I haven't spent years on this list and others you've 
participated on discussing difficult issues of epistemology. Why should 
I have to rearticulate all those problems every time so that it's 
adequately contextualized?

"Now of the intellectual faculties that we use in the pursuit of truth
some are always true, whereas others -- opinion and calculation--
admit falsity; and no other kind of knowledge except intuition is more
accurate than scientific knowledge...It follows that there can be no
scientific knowledge of the first principles; and since nothing can be
more infallible than scientific knowledge except intuition, it must be
intuition that apprehends the first principles. This is also evident
not only from the foregoing considerations but also because the
starting point of a demonstration is not itself a demonstration, and
the starting point of scientific knowledge is not itself scientific
knowledge [Posterior Analytics II 19, 100]

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pkt/2001m10/msg00145.htm

The twitch is subsiding.

Ian