2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

Recommendations

Info

176 P HILOSOPHY, NON-PHILOSOPHY, AND SCIENCE by de Beauvoir) are very close to the theses of the philosopher, they should not come too close, since they would threatens the very possibility of philosophy as such. “only the philosophical consciousness of intersubjectivity, he adds in the same essay from which we quoted above, allows us, in the last instance, to understand scientific knowledge. Without it, the meaning of scientific knowledge will escape indefinitely”(127). Thus, structuralism receives from philosophers a treatment that is similar, although re- versed, to the one it gets from social scientists: interesting results but it has better defer to the philosophers a real understanding of the meaning of its discoveries. The situation, however, is not symmetric, because what make scientists wary of Lévi-Strauss’s generalizations toward an understanding of “deeper realities” is his suspicious affinity with philosophy. However, philosophers are not worried—as one might expect from a symmmetric reversal of the scientists’ criticism—from an excessive dose of science. Rather, they are worried that the scientist may be taking himself to be a philosopher, in which case he will necessar- ily miss the meaning of his results, as Merleau-Ponty stresses. In short, the sour point of both confrontations is constituted by what may perhaps be called the “philosophical con- tamination” of Lévi-Strauss’ work. Either structuralism is too philosophical to be scientific, or it takes itself to be philosophical, when the metaphysical business of understanding deeper realities should rather be left to the professionals. This excessive proximity with philosophy, to put it differently, cannot be accepted by the philosophers because structuralism refuses to be assimilates and it proves unwilling to defer to philosophy the explanation of any meaning that may lie hidden in its results. It refuses to do so because, as Lévi-Strauss proclaims again and again, structuralism business is rather to end philosophy, i.e. to termi- nate it (since it is the science, presumably, that has become “strong enough to replace it”). The parallel with the AI case we explored above is apparent. Although Lévi-Strauss never coined, as Minsky did, a term like “pre-structuralist philosophy,” his position does not seem that different. 57. See Simone de Beauvoir, Les Temps modernes, (1949); Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Signes (Paris: Gallimard, 1960) 154.
AI, STRUCTURALISM, AND SPIEL Of course, such an excessive proximity was destined to breed comtempt, under the guises of a full scale conflict between the philosophers and the anthropologist. The first scuffles were to happen with Jean-Paul Sartre, who criticized structural anthropology in the Critique de la raison dialectique, and was harshly rebutted by Lévi-Strauss in the last chapter of La pensée savage. 58 Then, in the early 1960s, came the debate with the hermeneutic philosopher Paul Ricoeur that was to continue, although mstly indirectly for the rest of the decade. I will discuss at length this full-scale confrontation with philosophy in chapter 7 below, sicen a full analysis of the key concepts of structuralism is preliminary to any at- tempt to gain more clarity on the “non-”philosophical status of Lévi-Strauss’ project. 6. AI, Structuralism, and Spiel In the previous chapter, I argued that a clearer understanding of the relationship between Spiel and the end of philosophy could possibly be reached if it were possible to find examples of non-philosophical discipliens whose theoretical articulation depended essen- tially on the concept of Spiel or some particuular articulation thereof (given the intrinsic complexity of the latter concept). After the long trip through Artificial Intelligence and the previous brief excursus on Structuralism, it should now be clear why, an in which sense, these two theoretical efforts can be considered as relevant examples of “non-philosophy” (in a sense, however, still to further specified for what concerns Structuralism). The next two chapter will provide an analysis of their relationships with the issue of Spiel, and, in particular with the concept of game that they articulate as a particular instantiation of the much larger Spiel. Chapter IV will be devoted to show how Artificial Intelligence entertains an essential relationship with 58. The main texts of this debate are Jean-Paul Sartre, Critique de la raison dialectique (Paris: Gallimard, 1959) and “L’anthropologie,” now in Situations IX, (Paris: Gallimard ; Lévi-Strauss response is contained in La pensée savage (Paris: Plon, 1962) ; Engl. tr. The Savage Mind (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1966) 245-269, plus a few largely implicit references scattered in Tristes Tropiques and in the introduction and conclusion of Mythologiques. 177
Page 1 and 2:
ENDGAMES Game and Play at the End o
Page 3 and 4:
I. Prelude 1. Mr. Palomar 3 2. Mr.
Page 5 and 6:
PRELUDE
Page 7 and 8:
M R . PALOMAR will make clear, hope
Page 9 and 10:
M R . PALOMAR’ S CHECKMATES I wil
Page 11 and 12:
M R . PALOMAR’ S CHECKMATES Conce
Page 13 and 14:
M R . PALOMAR’ S CHECKMATES “sh
Page 15 and 16:
M R . PALOMAR’ S CHECKMATES after
Page 17 and 18:
T HE WORLD OF CANDRAKIRTI we have s
Page 19 and 20:
T HE WORLD OF CANDRAKIRTI in a manu
Page 21 and 22:
T HE WORLD OF CANDRAKIRTI securing
Page 23 and 24:
T HE WORLD OF CANDRAKIRTI and combi
Page 25 and 26:
tion: T HE WORLD OF CANDRAKIRTI 1.
Page 27 and 28:
T HE WORLD OF CANDRAKIRTI interpret
Page 29 and 30:
T HE WORLD OF CANDRAKIRTI biguity,
Page 31 and 32:
T HE IRREPARABLE LIGHT OF DAWN the
Page 33 and 34:
T HE IRREPARABLE LIGHT OF DAWN In M
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER I THE END OF PHILOSOPHY in
Page 37 and 38:
2. Philosophy P HILOSOPHY Discourse
Page 39 and 40:
P HILOSOPHY cably intertwined that
Page 41 and 42:
P HILOSOPHY As this passage shows,
Page 43 and 44:
H EGEL’ S PARADOX inner contradic
Page 45 and 46:
H EGEL’ S PARADOX for better or f
Page 47 and 48:
H EGEL’ S PARADOX a series of eve
Page 49 and 50:
H EGEL’ S PARADOX Let us go back
Page 51 and 52:
H EGEL’ S PARADOX then I am clear
Page 53 and 54:
H EGEL’ S PARADOX opened up for u
Page 55 and 56:
P HILOSOPHY’ S ENDS Therefore, ou
Page 57 and 58:
P HILOSOPHY’ S ENDS Western tradi
Page 59 and 60:
P HILOSOPHY’ S ENDS goes, has chi
Page 61 and 62:
P HILOSOPHY’ S ENDS his argument.
Page 63 and 64:
P HILOSOPHY’ S ENDS sented as sep
Page 65 and 66:
P HILOSOPHY’ S ENDS The first opt
Page 67 and 68:
P HILOSOPHY’ S ENDS to philosophy
Page 69 and 70:
P HILOSOPHY’ S ENDS This multipli
Page 71 and 72:
O F LINES, CIRCLES, AND SPHERES. co
Page 73 and 74:
O F LINES, CIRCLES, AND SPHERES. 12
Page 75 and 76:
O F LINES, CIRCLES, AND SPHERES. on
Page 77 and 78:
“EIN SPIELEN DER LIEBE MIT SICH S
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
CHAPTER II ABSOLUTE(S) SPIELEN in w
Page 89 and 90:
“ TO DIE GAME” Spiel is actuall
Page 91 and 92:
“ TO DIE GAME” context of a “
Page 93 and 94:
“ TO DIE GAME” tion that is the
Page 95 and 96:
A BSOLUTE( S ) SPIELEN tragic: this
Page 97 and 98:
A BSOLUTE( S ) SPIELEN the player m
Page 99 and 100:
A BSOLUTE( S ) SPIELEN Hegel is the
Page 101 and 102:
A BSOLUTE( S ) SPIELEN tation, woul
Page 103 and 104:
A BSOLUTE( S ) SPIELEN the roots of
Page 105 and 106:
B ORDERING PHILOSOPHY holds itself
Page 107 and 108:
B ORDERING PHILOSOPHY informal expl
Page 109 and 110:
B ORDERING PHILOSOPHY ditions that
Page 111 and 112:
B ORDERING PHILOSOPHY inside the bu
Page 113 and 114:
B ORDERING PHILOSOPHY The existence
Page 115 and 116:
B ORDERING PHILOSOPHY duction that
Page 117 and 118:
S PIELEN, THE ABYSS, AND THE CHILD
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
T HE GREAT BEYOND source, from the
Page 131 and 132:
T HE GREAT BEYOND completion. This
Page 133 and 134:
T HE GREAT BEYOND proach practiced
Page 135 and 136: CHAPTER III PHILOSOPHY, NON-PHILOSO
Page 137 and 138: N ON-PHILOSOPHY does not build the
Page 139 and 140: N ON-PHILOSOPHY new fields of inqui
Page 141 and 142: N ON-PHILOSOPHY would do more justi
Page 143 and 144: N ON-PHILOSOPHY odology which is no
Page 145 and 146: O N THE VARIOUS MEANINGS OF “X IS
Page 157 and 158: B ETWEEN ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND
Page 175 and 176: A RTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A NON-
Page 181 and 182: S TRUCTURALISM AND PHILOSOPHY sight
Page 183 and 184: S TRUCTURALISM AND PHILOSOPHY terme
Page 185: S TRUCTURALISM AND PHILOSOPHY Geert
Page 189 and 190: CHAPTER IV CHESS, GAMES, AND FLIES
Page 191 and 192: T HE DROSOPHILA OF AI. involvement
Page 193 and 194: T HE DROSOPHILA OF AI. analogy. 6 T
Page 195 and 196: T HE DROSOPHILA OF AI. engine of th
Page 197 and 198: T HE DROSOPHILA OF AI. tists belong
Page 199 and 200: G AME THEORETIC GAMES reductive. Th
Page 201 and 202: G AME THEORETIC GAMES There are two
Page 203 and 204: G AME THEORETIC GAMES player outsid
Page 205 and 206: G AME THEORETIC GAMES The typical g
Page 207 and 208: G AME THEORETIC GAMES After this ex
Page 209 and 210: G AME THEORETIC GAMES become the st
Page 211 and 212: C OMBINATORIAL EXPLOSIONS the diffi
Page 213 and 214: C OMBINATORIAL EXPLOSIONS “soluti
Page 215 and 216: C OMBINATORIAL EXPLOSIONS good move
Page 217 and 218: C OMBINATORIAL EXPLOSIONS possible
Page 219 and 220: C OMBINATORIAL EXPLOSIONS tive Beha
Page 221 and 222: C OMBINATORIAL EXPLOSIONS in 1958 a
Page 223 and 224: C OMBINATORIAL EXPLOSIONS tics pose
Page 225 and 226: CHAPTER V STRUCTURES (AND SPACES) i
Page 227 and 228: G AMES AND STRUCTURES same function
Page 229 and 230: G AMES AND STRUCTURES ically limiti
Page 231 and 232: conscious phenomena. F ROM LANGUAGE
Page 233 and 234: F ROM LANGUAGE TO MYTH ulating an e
Page 235 and 236: F ROM LANGUAGE TO MYTH ers, see as
Page 237 and 238:
F ROM LANGUAGE TO MYTH sents itself
Page 239 and 240:
Cadmos seeks his sister Europa, rav
Page 241 and 242:
F ROM LANGUAGE TO MYTH of oppositio
Page 243 and 244:
F ROM LANGUAGE TO MYTH blood relati
Page 245 and 246:
F ROM LANGUAGE TO MYTH spected, and
Page 247 and 248:
F ROM LANGUAGE TO MYTH It means tha
Page 249 and 250:
S EARCH- SPACES AND STRUCTURES peat
Page 251 and 252:
S EARCH- SPACES AND STRUCTURES or n
Page 253 and 254:
S EARCH- SPACES AND STRUCTURES betw
Page 255 and 256:
CHAPTER VI ANACLASTIC SUPPLEMENTS i
Page 257 and 258:
T HE SUPPLEMENT We now have an answ
Page 259 and 260:
T HE SUPPLEMENT Furthermore, let su
Page 261 and 262:
T HE SUPPLEMENT bers of ~C and AB.
Page 263 and 264:
T HE SUPPLEMENT the three sets A, B
Page 265 and 266:
T HE SUPPLEMENT Notice, again, that
Page 267 and 268:
F ORM AND CONTENT very word “stru
Page 269 and 270:
F ORM AND CONTENT that the former p
Page 271 and 272:
F ORM AND CONTENT completely differ
Page 273 and 274:
F ORM AND CONTENT pressing games, e
Page 275 and 276:
S TRUCTURE AND SUBSTANCE This does
Page 277 and 278:
S TRUCTURE AND SUBSTANCE classical
Page 279 and 280:
S TRUCTURE AND SUBSTANCE contexts]
Page 281 and 282:
S TRUCTURE AND SUBSTANCE Strauss’
Page 283 and 284:
S TRUCTURALISM, PHILOSOPHY, AND AI
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
T HE CHALLENGE OF CLOSURE methodolo
Page 297 and 298:
T HE CHALLENGE OF CLOSURE on any co
Page 299 and 300:
T HE CHALLENGE OF CLOSURE ing to L
Page 301 and 302:
T HE CHALLENGE OF CLOSURE other wor
Page 303 and 304:
T HE ANACLASTIC ILLUSION OF A TRANS
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
CHAPTER VIII A MOVABLE CONCLUSION w
Page 327 and 328:
A FTER GAME- BASED SPIELEN Play, th
Page 329 and 330:
REFERENCES Adorno, Theodor, Hegel:
Page 331 and 332:
Johns Hopkins UP, 1974). Derrida, J
Page 333 and 334:
Hewson, John, “Saussure's Game of
Page 335 and 336:
Mirowski, Philip, “When Games Gro
Page 337 and 338:
Searle, John, The Rediscovery of th
show all

2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?