Speculative realism

[Gord Barentsen]

4 hours ago, NotWithoutMyOntic said:

self-evident realist correlationism

Can you explain what this is for those of us who aren't reading speculative realism? 

[NotWithoutMyOntic]

So embarrassed I didn't see this before - 1000.13123 apologies 

I'm still very new to speculative realism.  Seems they disagree with each other just like any other area in philosophy, but the one thing you can say of all of them is that they reject the tradition in Western philosophical thought that equates (correlates) human thought with Being.  So you have Hegel, who (AFAIK) says that existence unfolds according to the logic of dialectical thinking, which means that  whatever we call the absolute can be known by human thought, because, well, they are ultimately identical or have the same "accesibility."

So the self-evident part is the belief that reality is self-evident, that objects and such are simply "right there" for us to gain full knowledge of.  That their "reality" is not in need of dispute.

[Gord Barentsen]

Thanks for that!  I've been lurking about speculative realism's margins for a while now, convinced that it should be dialogued with Jung.  I've started reading Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects.

[stimmung79]

On 2/11/2017 at 2:31 PM, Gord Barentsen said:

Thanks for that!  I've been lurking about speculative realism's margins for a while now, convinced that it should be dialogued with Jung.  I've started reading Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects.

so how is it?  are you going to post a review?

[Gord Barentsen]

On 2/13/2017 at 11:51 AM, stimmung79 said:

so how is it?  are you going to post a review?

Not sure...right now I don't feel confident in my knowledge of SR to review any of its texts.  All I could do is noob-review it.  It makes me want to go off and read Meillassoux (although someone else told me that way lies madness), and Grant's Philosophies of Nature After Schelling has been on my to-read list for a loooong time.

What I can say right now is that it's quite accessible and the footnotes are well worth looking at because they refer to a lot of different texts of any given author that explore different dimensions of their thought.

[NotWithoutMyOntic]

On 2/14/2017 at 4:00 PM, Gord Barentsen said:

What I can say right now is that it's quite accessible and the footnotes are well worth looking at because they refer to a lot of different texts of any given author that explore different dimensions of their thought.

So you would recommend this yeah?  Does it have a good bibliography?

[Gord Barentsen]

2 minutes ago, NotWithoutMyOntic said:

So you would recommend this yeah?  Does it have a good bibliography?

I think it does.  Following citations in the chapter notes is sometimes a little difficult, but it doesn't really affect the discussions.