![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apollianaTalked to professor about coteaching existentialism. Horrible realization that none of the stuff I like is "proper" existentialism. And that my Sartre book is hidden behind some old yearbooks on a bottom shelf in Georgia. I need to look at Sartre again anyway: he has things to say about self-deception.
Catered Kant: celery & peanut butter, rosemary toast slices (in bag, imported), hummus (made, topped with irrelevant basil from window), roasted garlic (leftover from hummus, untouched), pumpkin prune oatmeal cookies, 2 bottles Lurisia mineral water.
Had "moment" re: transcendental arguments. Kant's works, or is supposed to work, because he starts not from a picture opposite Hume's but from a small point that Hume would concede--that we have experience of objects. (Similarly, SW says his starting point is that we have experience as of objects.) And this is why transcendental arguments are not prefutation. And it's also why we have to go on (see previous entry) in ordinary language philosophy; that is, the distinctions in language we can get others to see are the small points everyone agrees upon on which the argument (against whatever it is) is based.
Catered Kant: celery & peanut butter, rosemary toast slices (in bag, imported), hummus (made, topped with irrelevant basil from window), roasted garlic (leftover from hummus, untouched), pumpkin prune oatmeal cookies, 2 bottles Lurisia mineral water.
Had "moment" re: transcendental arguments. Kant's works, or is supposed to work, because he starts not from a picture opposite Hume's but from a small point that Hume would concede--that we have experience of objects. (Similarly, SW says his starting point is that we have experience as of objects.) And this is why transcendental arguments are not prefutation. And it's also why we have to go on (see previous entry) in ordinary language philosophy; that is, the distinctions in language we can get others to see are the small points everyone agrees upon on which the argument (against whatever it is) is based.
