Getting back to Architectonics

Posted by Edward Willatt on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 Under: Architectonics

I am currently working on an introductory lecture on architectonics which I will be delivering in Zurich next week.  I am always struck by the way in which this subject makes one return to the basics of philosophy.  A concern with the foundation, or lack of foundation, of knowledge is refreshing.  One has to think about whether philosophy has, or should have, solid ground beneath its feet.  It may be argued that this is too simple and naïve in its approach given the advances made in philosophy.  Can we talk about such simplistic and naïve things as the foundation of knowledge today?  Of course the crisis of foundations has profoundly questioned such an approach.  However, thinking about whether one walks upon solid or treacherous ground (a treachery of appearances which Nietzsche urges us to affirm) still concerns us.  It is the starting point for thought, even if it is not explicitly formulated.  We need to feel in touch with reality or on solid ground.  This is true even of Alain Badiou’s set-theoretical ontology which does not resemble the ground upon which everyday knowledge claims are based.  It is not a combination of abstract and concrete that we recognise as having the right feel.  Instead it is supremely abstract and its foundation is the void.  For Badiou we are on solid ground when we introduce the void into every situation as foundation both of this situation and of a future one which represents a radical break.  For me architectonics brings a lot of things into relief and gets to the heart of philosophy.  However, its importance needs to be established, particularly when it can seem to be a way of over-simplifying things.

In : Architectonics 



null

Getting back to Architectonics

Posted by Edward Willatt on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 Under: Architectonics

I am currently working on an introductory lecture on architectonics which I will be delivering in Zurich next week.  I am always struck by the way in which this subject makes one return to the basics of philosophy.  A concern with the foundation, or lack of foundation, of knowledge is refreshing.  One has to think about whether philosophy has, or should have, solid ground beneath its feet.  It may be argued that this is too simple and naïve in its approach given the advances made in philosophy.  Can we talk about such simplistic and naïve things as the foundation of knowledge today?  Of course the crisis of foundations has profoundly questioned such an approach.  However, thinking about whether one walks upon solid or treacherous ground (a treachery of appearances which Nietzsche urges us to affirm) still concerns us.  It is the starting point for thought, even if it is not explicitly formulated.  We need to feel in touch with reality or on solid ground.  This is true even of Alain Badiou’s set-theoretical ontology which does not resemble the ground upon which everyday knowledge claims are based.  It is not a combination of abstract and concrete that we recognise as having the right feel.  Instead it is supremely abstract and its foundation is the void.  For Badiou we are on solid ground when we introduce the void into every situation as foundation both of this situation and of a future one which represents a radical break.  For me architectonics brings a lot of things into relief and gets to the heart of philosophy.  However, its importance needs to be established, particularly when it can seem to be a way of over-simplifying things.

In : Architectonics 



null

 

 
Make a Free Website with Yola.