Download options PhilArchive copy. From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy pdcnet. Configure custom resolver. The Encyclopaedia of Stupidity. Matthijs van Boxsel - - Reaktion. The Vitality of Stupidity. Recent Reinterpretations of the Transcendental. Introduction To. Transcendental Phenomenology and Phenomenology of Life. Horatiu Crisan - - Studia Philosophica 1. Husserl's Intersubjective Transformation of Transcendental Philosophy. Transcendental Arguments: A Plea for Modesty.
Robert Stern - - Grazer Philosophische Studien 74 1 Vossenkuhl - - Philosophisches Jahrbuch 89 1 Added to PP index Total views 24 , of 2,, Recent downloads 6 months 1 , of 2,, How can I increase my downloads? Wayfarer 14k. Wayfarer Options Share. Thoughts which do not respond to any necessity, which are not motivated by the milieu in which they come to be: — StreetlightX. Janus Janus Options Share. In other words, awareness of the issue of this type of degraded thinking in ourselves and others is precisely what should stop us doing the type of thing you thought you were highlighting.
Snakes Alive Teachers already know that errors or falsehoods are rarely found in homework — StreetlightX. Snakes Alive Options Share. Akanthinos 1k. Akanthinos Options Share. TheWillowOfDarkness 2. Please dont ban me, I'm not calling anyone stupid, — Akanthinos. Isn't that one of the main points of Kant's demonstration of the antinomies of reason? So, while I agree that there is 'transcendental stupidity', there might also be transcendent realities I would like to call this transcendental stupidity.
But actually it's quite a cunning way of dog-whistling to religious bigots, that he will seek to restore the permission to discriminate against others that they used to have before the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation which in most cases is at least a couple of decades old. You can blithely use this fallacy to dismiss any "transcendental thinking" you don't personally like as "stupid", "trivial', "insignificant" or "irrelevant". The fact that you find the idea "intuitively obvious" pretty much says it all.
It 'seems' right to you, so it is right and anyone who sees things another way clearly must be wrong. How do you see this as democratic Is it being done by vote?
Who's doing the judging about which expositions express this base stupidity. Give me an example of someone not using the idea as a cudgel for an ideology. This is the broadest invariant which governs the very conflictual traditional relations of philosophy and the people. But the problem of what philosophy is, what its existence means, and what its values are worth, is nonetheless left unresolved despite this new gentleness.
Spinoza is only the Christ of immanence, just as Deleuze is only its evangelist. The two have stopped believing in God and Grammar, but they still believe in Christ and Philosophy. From the transcendental idiot to the radical poor The transformation of the transcendental idiot into the notion of the radical poor is perhaps the least explored formulation of the subject of non-philosophy.
This confusion is precisely why I very much prefer to utilize the term radical poor to indicate the radical poverty of the idiot, the idiot who is no longer this private individual but the Unteachable, neither teacher nor student, nor convertible with education, pedagogy, and intelligence.
Transcendental Idiot proper. The essence of man is first being-divided, the essence takes the form of a doublet or a hierarchy: division between a subject and an attribute man as religious, political, linguistic, metaphysical…animal ; between a proximal subject of the empirical or animality and an attribute opened onto the universal the rational, the collective, etc.
Philosophy submits the essence of man to its teleology, claiming to intervene in it and change it in accordance with the essence of Being or the ends of thought. Like bio-technologies, it carves into human identity, deciding that human identity is wolf or god; eagle or sheep; master or slave; sovereign or subject; soul or body; understanding or intuition.
A consequence: man begins in the pre- or in-humane and leads to the superhuman. Man is therefore not for philosophy a first given, outside of the question and givenness; rather, man is first a confused and blended matter, to breed [ dresser ] or educate philosophy as pedagogy, discipline, indeed breeding , so that man is rather a terminal question Kant , an object that is only realized at the end of philosophical times or through becoming, labour, history, etc.
The sub-sets of philosophy which are called anthropology and humanism are apparently only contrary to ontology and metaphysics; rather, the former are commanded by the latter, by the general hierarchy which submits man to Being, Cosmos, Physis, God, Spirit, Subject, Dasein , etc.
The demon is not at all god, and even less the Unique God, but the demon is closer to a multiple god. The philosopher is this amphibological being as the excellent or superior form of man.
Can man open themselves to the superhuman or the extra-human? This is what philosophy believes. Yet do we have need, as man precisely, to share philosophical belief? These all speak for themselves and supplement the definition provided earlier regarding anthropo-logical parallelism. Elsewhere and much earlier in his career, Laruelle nuances the transcendental not as the correlate of the transcendent, but the inverse in a way that the correlation is determined-in-the-last-instance alone by an absolute later termed radical immanence, a real presupposed — without-presupposition.
The being of man is already real before being realized; given to oneself within an immanence which escapes from any intuition that is always objectivating or simply donational. Man is therefore more than a simple philosophical misinterpretation and an incomprehension for critical or phenomenological idealism: man is the philosophically, the phenomenologically unreceivable, the first nonphilosophizable.
In truth and in irony, man will merit, when their essence is completed, the name Transcendental Idiot. Man is without-Being and without-World, without-humanism, and further still devoid of universal determinations grounded on transcendence, forming and making up Universal Humanity in contrast to cosmo-logical and cosmo-philosophical orders that are seen-in-man or in-One prior to the decision.
This includes the knowledges and metalanguages, or rather metahuman localities, that confuse man themselves with the universals that make up the World. The point to form the transcendental idiot is not someone stupid, intelligences are equalized as contingent alone in the last instance, where the authority is grounded by the Unteachable.
Radical poverty. If we understand that by invention there is some clandestine activity that requires borrowing prior to invention, [33] there is a necessary struggle, a politics of invention [34] towards the invention of new conditions, that these conditions nevertheless pose limits on what we can do.
A second time, but briefly as well, appears in Anti-Badiou , to relate radical poverty to the role that invention plays towards the scientific stripping-bare or denuding of philosophical authority of Communism as an Idea.
0コメント