Frames /sing


Skepticism refuted in Under Ten Minutes

Philosophy is part performance (as much as it would like to purge every element of the contingent from its expression). Without the performative of bodies, and affects of words, images, metaphors, analogies, meanings would circulate airlessly. Convicition is performed, and Peitho was a goddess.

Watch Randy Helzerman “disprove” skepticism using Davidson’s notion of a Principle of Charity like a rapier, and see the whole thing cohere. Impressive.

As a secondary, more philosophical note, I find it interesting that as the skeptically deprived subject is “drained” of substantive belief, he becomes a determined thing, something indistinguishable from a “taperecorder”, not at all unlike Spinoza’s concept of our own “spiritual automaton” status. It would merely be an automaton with whom we could not communicate. Something out of the order of our Form of Life.

4 responses to “Skepticism refuted in Under Ten Minutes

  1. Randy Helzerman May 25, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    Thanks for your kind words about my vid; I’m glad some sort of coherence came through because when I rewatch it now I cringe about all extra “uh”‘s and “right?”s which are there. I wish I knew more about Spinoza so I could understand the connections you drew do his philosophy at the end there.

  2. kvond May 26, 2008 at 12:24 am

    I’ve watched a few times now, if simply for the enjoyment of its performative value (though also a friend of Davidson’s argument). I was amazed really that you carried off the task in time much shorter than the ten minutes of the title. I could feel the “ahs” and “uhs” on the multiple viewings, but they just make your performance all the better. The pauses just make it organic to your conception.The best Triangulation argument sum I have seen or read.

    As to Spinoza, I am unsure how deeply your interest in Davidson runs, or whatever interest you may have in knowing Spinoza, but you may enjoy the rather worthy comparison of his work to Spinoza, “Davidson and Spinoza: Mind, Matter and Morality”by Floris van der Burg (unfortunately pricey outside of college libraries); it does not take up my point here, but does put the two thinkers in intimate context.

  3. Overspread June 19, 2008 at 1:03 am

    Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation 🙂 Anyway … nice blog to visit.

    cheers, Overspread.

  4. Pingback: How Do the Molten Centers of Objects Touch? « Frames /sing

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

%d bloggers like this: