An analytic philosopher would plead infinite regress here. The issue is who settles the question "Is a question literary or philosophical?". Well then, is the question "Is a question literary or philosophical", literary or philosophical?, and then further, is the question "is the question "Is a question literary or philosophical", literary or philosophical?", literary or philosophical? I could be wrong. My teacher says I often am. So chill fellas.
It seems to me that one of Bonevac's other ways of putting it here---not as the primacy or authority of one field over another, but as a question of autonomy---dissolves that objection. After all, if we determine that, say, philosophy is autonomous with respect to drawing its own boundaries, then that would hold for any and all questions of the form you're illustrating.
@@TheGemsbok Interesting. What happens when the boundaries drawn by these "autonomous" fields overlap? In other words, say, literature decides autonomously a certain set of questions to be literary and philosophy decides autnomously that a certain set of questions are philosophical. Can we say for sure, that these two sets are mutually exclusive? And if not, the question still, although an insoluble one? Again, I could be wrong.
@@sabyasachisenapati3619 He directly addresses that in this video. He says explicitly that there may be no issue whatsoever in some categories, like literature and philosophy, overlapping and both claiming particular examples.
@@sabyasachisenapati3619 What? How? The question you asked was, 'What happens when they overlap?' And the answer, given in the video, is: 'Nothing happens. That's fine. Genres can overlap. Each field can still draw their own boundaries, and some things can be in both categories without any issues arising---like a Venn diagram.'
Think about an ideal situation, where at least two people discuss a topic with the objective to come to agreement, a like-mindedness. In that situation, there is no performative element. There is no display of argument for a general audience. There is no need to incorporate broader considerations, no need to defend against imagined counter-arguments. No need for jargon posing or preemptively defending. Just a one-to-one 'coming to terms' about something, and tentative at that. So, the complexities of intertextuality don't get in the way. In that ideal context, there is no need to worry about boundary problems, and no need to perform for an audience specializing in philosophy or in literature. But that ideal doesn't apply when you are talking about two scholars whose whole mental being incorporates fine distinctions made in those fields. To have a meeting if the minds would be to have a meeting of entire world views. That is too much to ask. It would be sketchy, at best. Sketchiness is a great opportunity for artistic creative types - as in literature, and anathema for exacting arguments of philosophers. So, Derrida is probably right, that the literary world pretty much dominates the analysis of any mutual understanding. But wrong in thinking that literature is all there is. Mutual understanding can be wordless.
If you excuse me, I have been on UA-cam many many times and sometimes I see some channels having a lots of subscribers for something stupid and has no value whatsoever, but not all of them, with your contents , I must say, you should have many many subscribers and comments and so on and so forth. It very sad and disturbing that philosophy is not on people's mind and it is disturbing how shallow the people have become.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Just found this gem of a channel…
Great discussion... can you also discuss on Paulo Freire?
really enjoying these videos, thank you
Very good. Habermas admits in Postmetafhysical Thinking that philosophy can't dissociate from rhetoric.
kind of reminds me of some of the themes in the Ion
Who polices the police?!?!? 🤔🧐🤨😜 love it Professor!🤩🤓🥳
The objective is subjective and is a prerequisite for the pragmatic.
An analytic philosopher would plead infinite regress here. The issue is who settles the question "Is a question literary or philosophical?".
Well then, is the question "Is a question literary or philosophical", literary or philosophical?, and then further, is the question "is the question "Is a question literary or philosophical", literary or philosophical?", literary or philosophical? I could be wrong. My teacher says I often am. So chill fellas.
It seems to me that one of Bonevac's other ways of putting it here---not as the primacy or authority of one field over another, but as a question of autonomy---dissolves that objection. After all, if we determine that, say, philosophy is autonomous with respect to drawing its own boundaries, then that would hold for any and all questions of the form you're illustrating.
@@TheGemsbok Interesting. What happens when the boundaries drawn by these "autonomous" fields overlap? In other words, say, literature decides autonomously a certain set of questions to be literary and philosophy decides autnomously that a certain set of questions are philosophical. Can we say for sure, that these two sets are mutually exclusive? And if not, the question still, although an insoluble one? Again, I could be wrong.
@@sabyasachisenapati3619 He directly addresses that in this video.
He says explicitly that there may be no issue whatsoever in some categories, like literature and philosophy, overlapping and both claiming particular examples.
@@TheGemsbok Yes he does. and that simply keeps the question intact. Neither solved nor dissolved.😊
@@sabyasachisenapati3619 What? How? The question you asked was, 'What happens when they overlap?'
And the answer, given in the video, is: 'Nothing happens. That's fine. Genres can overlap. Each field can still draw their own boundaries, and some things can be in both categories without any issues arising---like a Venn diagram.'
Think about an ideal situation, where at least two people discuss a topic with the objective to come to agreement, a like-mindedness. In that situation, there is no performative element. There is no display of argument for a general audience. There is no need to incorporate broader considerations, no need to defend against imagined counter-arguments. No need for jargon posing or preemptively defending. Just a one-to-one 'coming to terms' about something, and tentative at that. So, the complexities of intertextuality don't get in the way. In that ideal context, there is no need to worry about boundary problems, and no need to perform for an audience specializing in philosophy or in literature. But that ideal doesn't apply when you are talking about two scholars whose whole mental being incorporates fine distinctions made in those fields. To have a meeting if the minds would be to have a meeting of entire world views. That is too much to ask. It would be sketchy, at best. Sketchiness is a great opportunity for artistic creative types - as in literature, and anathema for exacting arguments of philosophers. So, Derrida is probably right, that the literary world pretty much dominates the analysis of any mutual understanding. But wrong in thinking that literature is all there is. Mutual understanding can be wordless.
If you excuse me, I have been on UA-cam many many times and sometimes I see some channels having a lots of subscribers for something stupid and has no value whatsoever, but not all of them, with your contents , I must say, you should have many many subscribers and comments and so on and so forth. It very sad and disturbing that philosophy is not on people's mind and it is disturbing how shallow the people have become.
You can tell a good channel when the comments are about thoughts instead of feels.
ecstatic power of linguistic innovation is abstracted.... irrationality. Wow. I hope that makes more sense in German.