READY TO READ…. Maybe we smear the wax clean again and start over. If there’s anything that I am, if there is a way that I approach life, existence, …Which rock?
——- that is exactly my point. I give you a rock, and you turn it into nothing. I can do that too. It is an aspect of subjectivity, and a particular method of thinking about things.
Hence: Two routes. Two basic and fundamental orientations upon objects which inform an ability to actually view the universe. And these two routes are irreconcilable through arguments. There is no argument that can be made which will bridge the two routes.
When we read non-philosophy the tenants of Laruelles non Phil. Or we really understand what Badiou Is handing us, we see that the issue is not about arguments from centralized subjectivities. Or at least for the latter philosopher, such arguments are entirely political.
Sure, a whole bunch of stuff can get done by subjects. It happens all the time. Human subjects do all sorts of stuff and we accomplish shit all the time, we argue we debate we kill each other we help each other we heal each other. The basic issue in philosophy is not whether I can identify something to have a philosophy about. Indeed we can do that and we are able to do that and it’s not wrong that we do that, but that is not the fundamental issue of existence, epistemology, Etc..taken as a whole. And I submit again, you know exactly what a whole is, because if you didn’t you could not possibly say anything about it.
It’s not about how there is this thing called a “common human being” that all use discourse in the same way as such that we can define things so specifically that we can each know what everyone is talking about truly. The simple fact that you can describe the situation as you do that everyone has different perceptions, different conceptualizations, etc., assumes a common basis of discourse. Why would you even be saying something to me in any way at all if you weren’t assuming that it was common between us, something about it was common between us?
You might be referring to this entirely, but I am referring to it partially. That is what I call a conventional route, it works. That is what Harmon calls knowledge, it is what we use to negotiate reality. But it does not get to what is true of that situation.
Anyways, I’ve said it over and over again and there really is no argument to be made. Either a person has encountered snow, or they have only encountered talk about snow. There is no argument which can convince one to the other.
Perception,conceptualization, etc. opinion, etc. all this is about subjectivities, but specifically modern subjectivities. There is no argument to be made which somehow dispels the fact of what subjects are or what they do. Because everything is a “subject of…”.