I actually have been following Pat and whatshisname's discussion carefully, but was hesitant to say anything because I'm not grounded well enough in my (working) convictions on these matters. I'm with Pat on having faith (haha) in science, because it is a working definition of the dynamics and constitution of our universe. The laws of physics/nature are contingent only to this universe (we cannot yet prove that this is the only universe) and those laws formed randomly and evolved from primordial cosmic conditions, as did life on earth a few billion years ago.
My epistemology is that we never 'get' anything, rather we 'are getting' it. We are always beneath Plato's divided line, in the realm of becoming, and our knowledge of reality is just as subject to temporality as the subjects of that knowledge. Any attempt to impose any element of absolutes or permanence is delusional, whether that be to posit the existence of God or to describe anything in language, which just like any theology is an attempt to impose order on chaos. Language evolves and so do the concepts it attempts to isolate outside of temporality.
I think I agree with most of what you said. In
The Order of Things, Foucault basically tries to show that throughout history, different eras are governed by different epistemes that dictate how humankind structures its knowledge about the world around it. There's a chapter on scientific classification that is very interesting.
Einherjar is right about this shit because I agree with him and his continual referencing of this Zizek guy keeps making me want to check him out.
Yeah, Žižek's cool. He's become kind of a "pop" philosopher in recent years, unfortunately. He does lots of work with movies and popular culture; but he's achieved such a high seat in the academic hierarchy that he can basically throw around complicated terminology, attributing it to whatever he pleases without substantiating his claims. His most recent works, such as
Living in the End Times, are more sensationalist than anything.
For his most interesting and influential stuff, look into his earlier material. His book
The Sublime Object of Ideology is both highly intellectual and was hugely influential. It put him on the map, and it's a great read.
His other good ones (that I've checked out) are
Welcome to the Desert of the Real (his critique of the political reaction to 9/11), and
First As Tragedy, Then As Farce.
To say we impose order onto chaos is completely subjective and false. The truth is reality imposes order onto us and we adapt to our condition.
I'm not that familiar with analytic philosophy, but you sound like you walked straight out of their camp.
I have to emphatically disagree with your above comments. I think that we biologically adapt/evolve to our surroundings, but our application of language to nature, the attempt to account for the universe mathematically, the entire system of Linnaean classification; none of these are forms of us adapting to our surroundings. They are blatant impositions upon an inhuman realm.
