>...and as perception, consciousness has arrived at thoughts, which it brings together for the first time in the unconditioned universal... If it were related to this, it would itself be unessential, and consciousness would not have escaped from the deception of the perceptual process... This unconditioned universal, which is now the true object of consciousness, is still just an object for it; consciousness has not yet grasped the Notion of the unconditioned as Notion... consciousness is not yet for itself the Notion. 133. ...It is through awareness of this completely develop object, which presents itself as an object that immediately is, that consciousness first becomes a consciousness explicitly a consciousness that comprehend [its object].134. ...But the result has, implicitly, a positive significance: in it, the unity of 'being-for-self; and 'being-for-another' is posited; in other words, the absolute antithesis is posited as self-identical essence. ...Since the antithesis in its truth can have no other nature than the one yielded in the result, viz. that the content taken in perception to be true, belongs only to the form... This content is likewise universal; there can be no other content which by its particular constitution would fail to fall within this unconditioned universality.
>>25257231wtf is he on about sheesh what is this low iq slop?
>>25257245I'm drunk so it came out sloppy. But he is saying that the perceptual is process can only be true because consciousness has not arrived the concept of the unconditioned concept. Because consciousness is aware of the concept as completely unconditioned, the force of an intuition contradicts the idea that the objects are given to us in consciousness and as a consequence of this perception is not the truth of the understanding.
no i'm imagine it's an even shorter amount of time then that
>>25257231Took a couple classes with him, one of the best living philosophers imho but Brandom is a much better teacher and more approachable guy.
>>25257325You've taken classes with Dranom and McDowell?
>>25257327Brandom*
>>25257327Yeah I did PhD courses at Pitt. Funny thing is (which iirc McDowell admits in the intro here) he hadn't actually read Kant all that deeply when he wrote this and was basing this off of Strawsons similarly bastardization of Kant in Bounds of Sense. Still an amazing work in its own right but it's not great Kant scholarship. Having the World in View is better in tjat regard but I still like this work a lot more. Sadly I dislike how Hegel obsessed he and Brandom have become at the end of their careers. I liked Making it Explicit a lot more than Brandom's Hegel book (took the Hegel class w him while he was still writing it)
>>25257343you have a PhD and you post here? can you check my Heidegger post for errors?
>>25257344I honestly know very little about Heidegger so I don't feel it's right to pretend I have any mind of expertise in something on him. I mostly just know analytic stuff and Kant. I always try shilling Sellars on here but no one takes me up on it (at least, I havent seen anyone else Sellarsposting)
>>25257325wut??? dude lucky
>>25257349If you go to his site (just google "brandom pitt") and go to courses he posts the full lecture series for a lot of his classes, along with links to secondary reading and the syllabus. The 2022 Philosophy of Language course (Making it Explicit) is the best course I've ever taken in my life and I'd also recommend checking out the 2021 Hegel course lectures as well. Brandom posts so many of his papers and books and lectures online he's easily the greatest and kindest professor I've ever had, really dedicated to philosophy and spreading knowledge.
>>25257348So when it comes to the myth of the given are intuitions non-conceptual content?
>>25257358The slogan for McDowell is that it's "conceptual all the way down," even intuitions are conceptually laden, he has a sort of odd Aristotelian view and way of describing it based off his intellectual history.
>>25257358>>25257364McDowell is really against saying intuition is purely passive and desu the reason I like Brandom more is because he's a lot more explicit (heh) about what he believes whereas McDowell tends to be sort of vague, almost mystic about the way he describes the "experience" process (Brandom NEVER uses the word "experience, unlike John, which he points out a lot in the lectures). Best way I can describe it (which McDowell wouldn't necessarily like) is concepts work in a passive way wrt intutions and a more active way as regards the understanding. When someone who is trained in music "hears" a note they really do immediately process it as a C#, the intuition is conceptually laden with that information. iirc he describes it as a sort of "second nature" which is similar to how he talks about the Ancient Greeks understanding of the virtues involved in virtue ethics.
>>25257364do you think the transcendental is essentially/perceptually intelligible or unconditioned?
>>25257378Well I'm a more strict Kantian so I actually believe the ding-an-sich is an inaccessible, but neither Brandom or McDowell believe this, they're far more Hegelian and don't really believe in noumena like Kant did
>>25257343>Yeah I did PhD courses at PittNo, you didn't. Why are people so desperate for /lit/'s approval that they'll tell wild lies like this?
>>25257385oh, well, I have in mind more something like is a supervenient frame of reference immanent, or does transcendental thing mean a noumenal idea.
>>25257400Well I would view a transcendental object X as being something that lies behind our perception of X that has to then conform itself to our concepts, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. In that sense yes it would be the noumena and ultimately inaccessible because we can't grasp it and really "understand it" without judging it and thereby distorting it, and there's really no way out of the conundrum. I'm ultimately a skeptic as regards objective truth. Brandom and McDowell both have there own stories whereby we can ultimately grasp this thing sans-distortion and I'd look into one or the other depending on if you like Hegel or Aristotle more and if you find Inferentialism or Empiricism more compelling, respectively.
>>25257458So from a life advice perspective how does one get outside of themselves? Are you a presentist?
>>25257231Pittsburgh school is super watered down German Idealism. They have no idea what to do with passages from Hegel like:>For these thousands of years the same Architect has directed the work: and that Architect is the one living Mind whose nature is to think, to bring to self-consciousness what it is, and, with its being thus set as object before it, to be at the same time raised above it, and so to reach a higher stage of its own being.
>>25257488I think in the itroduction he does say he doesn't want to fully commit to idealism.your options are quite literally bogged vs swamped
>>25257343>he hadn't actually read Kant all that deeply when he wrote this and was basing this off of Strawsons similarly bastardization of Kant in Bounds of Sensecringe
>>25257492tbf it's not German Idealism it's just an appropriation of them cleansed of all the icky actual idealism and schizo stuff.
>>25257498and bald naturalism is literally the problem with thoughts that aren't ideal, they require subjective concepts and objective essences
>>25257488>>25257498It's analytic philosophy + German idealism or as Brandom likes to call it "conceptual realism" but yeah his book barely touches the second half of the phenomenonolgy despite being 800 pages
>>25257474Hard for me to answer desu because that's a way of talking I don't really ascribe to and I'd argue "getting outside oneself" is nonsense it the Wittgensteinean sense (im a big Wittgensteinean)
>>25257493not cringe at all, I just checked his wiki page and he talks about particular individuals, which i imagine are a kind of ideal content
>>25257348> just know analytic stuff and KantImagine doing a PHD and coming away with this
>>25257514no it's pretty cringe
>>25257521pretty cringe, yes.
>>25257519If he didnt respond to your last post samefagging may work
>>25257488You’re right, the Americans take Hegel plainly at his word with regard to mysticism.
>>25257524Utterly assbroken schizopost, touch grass
>>25257519Well I also know a good bit about American Pragmatism but I don't really get your point regardless. PhD is about specialization and Pitt offers 0 heidegger courses at the graduate level. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on everything like some Twitter charlatan
is amphiboly what i want it to be?>>25257528
>>25257535>like some Twitter charlatani am offended
>>25257537bro how it's literally just a cube?
>>25257528You should be less hard on yourself. But i agree you should go outside. Maybe even get a job.
>>25257557easy to break but hard to fold
