I had dinner with Claire Harlan-Orsi last week before she jetted off to San Fran to visit Amelia. She mentioned she's been reading Crime and Punishment and that I should too. At one point later in the conversation I'm trying to explain to her the difference between a trope and a universal (Lord knows how this came up), and she looks at me and says, "See, Crime and Punishment's all about that kinda thing, Rach. You'd love it."
I'm still a little confused by this -- Dostoevsky wants me to care about haecceities? -- but it reminded me of your friend suggesting Anna Karenina to you last week.
Whenever I see "trope" in a philosophical context, I think "that's a funny word," and my mind shuts off.
I need to get this off my chest to somebody, and you are conveniently available: I just saw the last quarter or so of the original Ghostbusters movie, and damn is it good.
LOL. Aside from the fact that you're one of the few people I've ever come across to employ the concept haecceity, a sentence with haecceities and Dostoevsky in it is LOLerific.
I haven't read any of Fyodor's tomes, but perhaps there's plenty of indexicals involved, context-sensitivity and attempts at universalizing the Humean condition too. Speaking of universals, I'm pretty sure Joyce believed that his works were the quiddity -- he used it to mean radiance -- of Everyman and Noman. Get back to your English lit major already. It looks like your solutions lie elsewhere. The men have spoken.
Oh, and trope theory in the philosophy of language seems so utterly bizarre.
Oh, god. White Russians remind me of the awesomeness of Lebowski and some vile, vile retchings my freshman year. It was neither the quality nor the quantity that was at fault. It was the mixture. Grasp that and you have the root of the matter.
You haven't missed much in LJ land; things have been rather ho-hum lately.
I actually spent a couple minutes thinking about how funny that looked in print, and whether I should clear up the ambiguity, but in the end decided to leave it free.
Comments 12
I'm still a little confused by this -- Dostoevsky wants me to care about haecceities? -- but it reminded me of your friend suggesting Anna Karenina to you last week.
Reply
I need to get this off my chest to somebody, and you are conveniently available: I just saw the last quarter or so of the original Ghostbusters movie, and damn is it good.
Reply
LOL. Aside from the fact that you're one of the few people I've ever come across to employ the concept haecceity, a sentence with haecceities and Dostoevsky in it is LOLerific.
I haven't read any of Fyodor's tomes, but perhaps there's plenty of indexicals involved, context-sensitivity and attempts at universalizing the Humean condition too. Speaking of universals, I'm pretty sure Joyce believed that his works were the quiddity -- he used it to mean radiance -- of Everyman and Noman. Get back to your English lit major already. It looks like your solutions lie elsewhere. The men have spoken.
Oh, and trope theory in the philosophy of language seems so utterly bizarre.
Reply
trope theory in the philosophy of language seems so utterly bizarre.
I'm only familiar with it as a metaphysical thesis. It applies to phil/lang too?
Reply
You haven't missed much in LJ land; things have been rather ho-hum lately.
Reply
Retchings are accurately rated.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I actually spent a couple minutes thinking about how funny that looked in print, and whether I should clear up the ambiguity, but in the end decided to leave it free.
Reply
Leave a comment