In one sense, Badiou would as a whole disagree with the ruling power, yet he seems to transfer it to the philosopher all the while- a type of subversive philosopher-king. As philosophy must be absolutely distinguished from politics, this necessarily creates a gulf of ideologies not represented in the work. The dominant ideology here is obviously the words and world of the philosopher and the intellectually elite.
In using rhetorical strategies to convince the reader that, for example, in the electoral process the vast majority of voters must be uneducated and unaware of potential implications of their choices, a mass is excluded from ideological representation due to the rationale of an inferior intellect. Who may question the philosopher? In implementing a rhetorical criticism, we may utilize the artifact as the basis for proposing new ideologies that allow other ideologies and interests to be more visible.
Ironically enough, in the end, this has remained the ultimate goal of the philosopher all along: to pursue and encourage a love of wisdom and knowledge. As Badiou has said, there is a hidden agenda behind every ideology.
The Past, Present, and Future of Integrated History and Philosophy of Science
It is in the critique and deconstruction of a text and ultimately ideal that we see what human potential is being thwarted by existing ideologies, and esteem to better understand ourselves and the world around us. Philosophy in the Present. New York: Polity Press, Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 2 nd Ed.
Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account.
What Is The Present Nature, And The Future, Of Philosophy? | Issue 98 | Philosophy Now
Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Standard Posted by Diana Christine Hereld. Posted on May 14, Posted under Philosophy , Politics , Rhetorical Criticism.
Comments 2 Comments. Like this: Like Loading Badiou Ideology Philosophy Sonja K. Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:. Email required Address never made public. Name required. Post to Cancel. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. Cleatly some people deny the reality of the present, as some reject the idea of tense altogether.
And maybe even it's true that the present is an infinitely small instant. I see no pressing need to accept either from your question, and would I think humbly suggest that our mathematical models and expressions are robust enough to handle infinitesimals. An important thing to consider is that everything you have conceptualized relies on time being continuous rather than discrete. Because it is not necessarily the case that time is continuous I. As an analogy think of water. It certainly doesn't look discrete, but actually it is composed of typically imperceptible atoms.
If you had a bucket of water, slowly poured it out, and defined a plane over the top of the bucket such that all water to the left of the plane was considered in the bucket and all water to the right of the plane was considered out of the bucket, you might think, if you thought that water was not in any sense discrete in nature, that all water must be inside or outside the bucket because the thickness of the plane is 0.
But actually water is composed of discrete atoms that of non-zero volume in 3D space, and so any atom of water sliced by that plain is neither inside nor outside the bucket at least not totally. If water in the bucket is present time and water out of the bucket is past time the water atoms sliced by the plane are now time. We have no reason to believe that time is discrete, but we have no reason to believe that it is continuous either except that we perceive it as continuous in the same way that we normally perceive water to be continuous.
I think your question gets at something very interesting. If the present is an infinitely narrow interface between the past and the present, how does anything happen at all? You can look at resolutions of Zeno's Paradox for some methodological answers, and energy and momentum derive from them which are invariant through time. I wrote a quick summary of some views from modern physics on time and causality in Is it possible for something to have no cause? Something like, there are no things only sets of possibilities and echanges, which we call events.
Next Question of the Month
There are different functional roles for the meaning of present. The physics one, which is limited by the speed of light, with things getting closer in time-connection with closeness in space. There is a psycological present for humans too, to do with our ability to take in perceptions and react. We might analogise back, to say that speed of interactiin can be imagined as the finite extension of 'now', in physics for light to bounce out and back, like in psycology for perception and reaction.
A hummingbird has a different sense of the present to a human, and a cosmic ray particle a speed of change much closer to the fundamental light-speed limit, than the practical speed of change of say an atom of frozen helium. The past is created by your memory of a present time.
The future is based upon your your present minds abilities to draw upon those memories of the past The mistaken assumption you're making is that the present moment is infinitely small.
- 10 philosophy books to help you govern your life and mind - Big Think.
- The Average American Male: A Novel.
It's not. This is the same reason why the mathematical notion of the continuum fails to capture the notion of the physical continuum. It's a lot more complex than that. But whereas it's easy! The Planck time is well out of reach of present technology.
You ask whether there is such a thing as "the present". Presumably, you are asking whether or not "the present" is a quantifiable, identifiable period in "time", presupposing that there is an objective, linear flow of time in a line from past, possibly through the present, towards the future. That is, the question assumes the universe is three dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.
And it is a fascinating question, the answer to which is probably unknowable. But in theory, I agree that if you view the universe as merely three dimensional, the "present" would be so infinitesimal and fleeting as to be virtually non-existent. This contrasts significantly with those "guilty" of presentism - suggesting that the present is, in fact, all that exists. In other words, the only reality is what can be discerned at any given point in time by any individual.
I personally subscribe to the block universe theory of space-time, or eternalism, which suggests that space-time is actually an unchanging four dimensional block in which time is the fourth dimension and different times are as real as different places and all existence in time is equally real and "already there". Thus, I would say that "the present" does exist, and go further and say that it actually co-exists with the future and the past. As a real in a sense: of human reality, as opposed to conceptualizations interface or meeting point between the future and the past, the present does not exist; it is an abstraction.
Ontological time is backward: future precedes past. This is the same truth as "existence precedes essense", only expressed in terms of temporality, and the crux is that the past facts about reality borrows its meaning from the future possibilities. A man consciousness becomes temporal i.
Future does not be it is anticipated, a possibility and past is what "is" has being. Psychological aka secondary aka physical aka natural aka profane time is segmented, consisting of triplets past-present-future, and the vector from past to future is not inherent to it, it is applied as a parameter serving utility.
In the secondary time, future is a being, therefore it is always future-in-the-past.
- Mathematical Modelling for Sustainable Development.
- Comparative Veterinary Pharmacology, Toxicology and Theraphy: Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of the European Association for Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 25–29 1985, Ghent, Belgium Part II, Invited Lectures.
- The Poignancy of Abandoned Theme Parks!
So, the Present in the psychological time is just a middle link in the triplet, the role to be the middle is arbitrarily appointed, otherwise the present is indistinguishable from the other two chunks. What in ontological time stands "in place of" the "Present" is the Moment Instant. Moment is real but happens i. Moment appears when the human basic project suddenly changes i.
You'll have no trouble saying which part is water and which is oil. There will also be a very obvious boundary layer between them. But the boundary is only two dimensional. It has no substance or existence of its own, it is an artefact defined entirely by the existence of the water and oil. A four dimensional past and a four dimensional future contact each other along a three dimensional boundary layer, which we call the present.
Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Is there such thing as the present?
- Android Application Development: Programming with the Google SDK.
- Similar books and articles?
- Structure and Bonding in Crystalline Materials!
- See a Problem?!
- American Philosophy?
- All That is Solid Melts into Air!
Ask Question. Asked 2 years, 8 months ago. Active 2 days ago. Viewed 4k times.