The Wolfendale Maneuver

While I amd drafting some responses to my summary of Chapter 1 of Maimon’s Essay, I’m keeping my eye of the multi-dexterous Peter Wolfendale’s most recent oeuvre! Here and here. Jon Cogburn responds as well. Awaiting a 50,000 words post from Levi Bryant and a quick witty remark from Graham Harman.

Jon (in the original post) mentions the issue of affection (thing-in-itself “causing” appearances) and characterizes my take as Fichtean. Hopefully there’ll be plenty of time to deal with it as we discuss Maimon’s peculiar (and coherent) take on the matter, but here’s a good paper (PDF) by Claude Piché (Université de Montréal) and, of course, there’s plenty written about it.

6 thoughts on “The Wolfendale Maneuver

  1. Thanks for the link to the Piche paper. It looks great.

    Another one I want to read is Hogan’s new paper – . My friend Mark Silcox says it’s really good.

    In my post to Chapter 2, I’ll follow Buzaglo and argue that the schematism problem was the core issue Maimon was worried about in the Essay. But in the Logik and Schultze paper (both yet to be translated) Maimon shows that his solution to the schematism problem also provides a solution to the affection problem. And it was the ability of it to do this that might have been why Fichte and Hegel picked up Maimon’s ideas.

  2. I think Pete’s post has finally gotten Levi’s attention – a storm is brewing here:

    As usual, it is a pretty long tirade with names, ideas, misrepresentations, mocking and, my favorite, insecure conjuring up of all the possible ways of “countering” Pete’s arguments without actually responding to any of his objections – it’s rather brilliant in its evasiveness, I don’t know how he does it, but never has a man said so much without saying almost nothing.

    Plus, I wouldn’t want to be that poor colleague with whom he was having lunch:

    Exhibit A: “I’ll leave things here for the moment as I have to head out to lunch with a colleague.”

    Exhibit B: “Returning to your initial remarks (I apologize I was still at lunch and was responding through my phone before earlier), you write…”

    Must have been one hell of a lunch!

    • I wish I didn’t look at those posts! But I’m glad I did because I saw this:

      “Personally I’ve never quite been able to understand how a philosopher can get all excited about the question of why we prefer truth to falsehood. I confess that I fail philosophically in being unable to understand this question.”

      Other than such awesome statements, I would like to reiterate once more: I find Levi Bryant’s arguing technic to be a disgusting combination of intentional misreading, petty complaints, and “do as I say not as I do” bullshit. He always whines about how others are uncharitable and how they must psychoanalyze their opponents, and then he produces stuff like this:

      “My experience is that these thinkers [like Brandom] always seem animated by a will to power, a desire to control and master, a desire to police where they desire everyone else to follow a particular set of rules that work to their advantage. In the case of Pete this analysis isn’t so far off base, for as I noted in my last post, Pete seems to continually change the goalposts, such that if one argument doesn’t do the job, he immediately evokes another. He’d like to control what we talk about, and in his case he’d like us to talk about norms and humans. He desires a world where we all repeat his philosophy.”

      In addition to being an obvious projection, it is also extremely unfair to Pete who is most likely the most patient person in the blogosphere when it comes to arguments. How can anyone take Bryant seriously after these tirades (and many others) is beyond me!

  3. Well, Pete’s clearly a fascist with his constant demands for justifications, logical arguments, proofs and some sort of philosophical accountability. If Levi was a different person, he’d probably be smoking some weed and saying things like: “C’mmon, man, relax with your search for truth and just embrace the bullshit, learn to love it, man, it’s all speculation, you know?

    My favorite part is this:

    “From the onticological standpoint, knowledge is not a representation of objects, but is rather a construction and an action. In this respect, knowledge is closer to a recipe in cooking than a reflection in a mirror. A recipe does not represent a meal. It doesn’t tell you what a meal is “like”, nor does it maintain a relation of adequation to the dish. Rather, a recipe is a series of operations involving various implements and ingredients for producing something. A recipe says do this and do this and do this and you will produce this.”

    The man must be a brilliant cook – so recipe is giving a number of things to do, but the product (meal) does not represent any of those operations – you were trying to cook some pasta and some really nasty sticky substance came out which is not your fault and neither it is recipe’s fault – shit happens.

    Talk about a recipe for disaster!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s