This philosophical ethos may be characterized as -set bound [attitude-limite]. We are not talking about the behavior of rejection. You should avoid alternative internal and external, need to stay border. Criticism is the analysis of the boundaries and reflection on them. But if the Kantian question was to determine the boundaries of transition which must give up knowledge, but today, I think the question of criticism must be converted to a positive question: what percentage of single, accidental, caused by the random forcing, - that given to us as universal, necessary, obligatory? It eventually comes to transform criticism, implemented in the form of necessary limitations practical criticism, that is possible to overcome. From this it follows that the criticism will be not through search formal structures with universal value, but as a historical the study of events that led to the Constitution of the us and to our self-awareness as subjects of what we do, think and say. In this sense such criticism is not transcendental, nor aim to make possible metaphysics; it is a genealogical in its aims and archaeological method. Archaeological and not transcendental, because it is not attempting to provide universal the structure of any possible knowledge or moral action, regards as historical events, discourses, articulating the what we think, say and do. And genealogical, since it does not display our inability to do anything or know from the form of our existence, and highlights from the coincidence that led us to be what we are, the ability to exist, to act or think differently than we exist act and think.
This philosophical ethos may be characterized as
ReplyDelete-set bound [attitude-limite]. We are not talking about the behavior of rejection.
You should avoid alternative internal and external, need to stay
border. Criticism is the analysis of the boundaries and reflection on them. But
if the Kantian question was to determine the boundaries of transition which
must give up knowledge, but today, I think the question of criticism
must be converted to a positive question: what percentage of single,
accidental, caused by the random forcing, - that given to us as
universal, necessary, obligatory? It eventually comes to
transform criticism, implemented in the form of necessary limitations
practical criticism, that is possible to overcome.
From this it follows that the criticism will be not through search
formal structures with universal value, but as a historical
the study of events that led to the Constitution of the us and to
our self-awareness as subjects of what we do, think and say. In
this sense such criticism is not transcendental, nor
aim to make possible metaphysics; it is a genealogical
in its aims and archaeological method. Archaeological and not
transcendental, because it is not attempting to provide universal
the structure of any possible knowledge or moral action,
regards as historical events, discourses, articulating the
what we think, say and do. And genealogical, since it does not display
our inability to do anything or know from the form of our existence,
and highlights from the coincidence that led us to be what we are,
the ability to exist, to act or think differently than we exist
act and think.