Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

the sensible and the Essential

Expand Messages
  • souranmardini
    Which is first: the sensible or the essential? Souran
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Which is first: the sensible or the essential?
      Souran
    • jimstuart46
      Souran: Which is first: the sensible or the essential? Plato: The essential. Locke, Berkeley, Hume: The sensible. Kant: Neither, both arrive at the same time.
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Souran: Which is first: the sensible or the essential?

        Plato: The essential.

        Locke, Berkeley, Hume: The sensible.

        Kant: Neither, both arrive at the same time. You can't have the
        essential without the sensible, and you can't have the sensible
        without the essential.

        Jim: What do you think, Souran? Perhaps you can explain what you mean
        by "the essential"? Is the capital "E" in the subject title of
        significance?
      • eupraxis@aol.com
        ... Unless one counts the noumenal as primary. Wil ************************************** See what s new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          > Kant: Neither, both arrive at the same time. You can't have the essential
          > without the sensible, and you can't have the sensible without the essential.
          >
          Unless one counts the noumenal as primary.

          Wil



          **************************************
          See what's new at http://www.aol.com


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • jimstuart46
          Souran: Which is first: the sensible or the essential? Jim: Kant: Neither, both arrive at the same time. You can t have the essential without the sensible,
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Souran: Which is first: the sensible or the essential?

            Jim: Kant: Neither, both arrive at the same time. You can't have the
            essential without the sensible, and you can't have the sensible
            without the essential.

            Wil: Unless one counts the noumenal as primary.

            Jim: Yes – I was thinking of the essential as the categories. But if
            one thinks of the essential/sensible distinction as the
            noumenal/phenomenal distinction, then Kant would say that the noumenal
            was primary.

            However if one interprets Kant's distinction as the view that the
            phenomenal is just the way the noumenal is presented to us (as Henry
            Allison does, I think) then, again, I think one could say that the
            phenomenal and the noumenal both arrive at the same time.
          • eupraxis@aol.com
            Yes, the noumenon does appear in Kant in two possibly conflicting senses or uses. Zizek, in The Ticklish Subject, has some really interesting things to say on
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, the noumenon does appear in Kant in two possibly conflicting senses or
              uses. Zizek, in The Ticklish Subject, has some really interesting things to say
              on this. And yes, Henry Allison's stuff is very good. I am, coincidentally,
              about to read his book on Kant's philosophy of aesthetic judgment. He is a very
              trustworthy scholar; always has been.

              Wil


              In a message dated 10/6/07 9:18:08 AM, jjimstuart@... writes:


              > Souran: Which is first: the sensible or the essential?
              >
              > Jim: Kant: Neither, both arrive at the same time. You can't have the
              > essential without the sensible, and you can't have the sensible
              > without the essential.
              >
              > Wil: Unless one counts the noumenal as primary.
              >
              > Jim: Yes – I was thinking of the essential as the categories. But if
              > one thinks of the essential/sensible distinction as the
              > noumenal/phenomenal distinction, then Kant would say that the noumenal
              > was primary.
              >
              > However if one interprets Kant's distinction as the view that the
              > phenomenal is just the way the noumenal is presented to us (as Henry
              > Allison does, I think) then, again, I think one could say that the
              > phenomenal and the noumenal both arrive at the same time.
              >
              >
              >




              **************************************
              See what's new at http://www.aol.com


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Herman B. Triplegood
              I tasted, and I ate, and I breathed in the cool air, and was terrified, and screamed, before I got around to thinking about it. So, if I go by own concrete
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 6, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I tasted, and I ate, and I breathed in the cool air, and was terrified,
                and screamed, before I got around to thinking about it. So, if I go by
                own concrete experience of it, at the very least, even if the essential
                somehow enjoys an existence, on its own, prior to anything sensible,
                that isn't the juxtaposition in which I come to know about it. So,
                maybe that is why one philosopher, in particular, thought that I must
                have been recollecting it.

                Hb3g
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.