Appendix G, Part VI: Realism/Antirealism in “A Thing of This World” (2007) by Dr. Lee Braver

     Realism/Antirealism Scheme in “A Thing of This World” (2007) by Dr. Lee Braver

(Click on graph to see full size)

 I finally recovered from writing what is for me a long essay, “Postmodern Socrates on Virtue,” originally thinking it would be about eight thousand words, but turned out to be twenty four thousand words, or only about 40 pages. I really didn’t want to write it, but there were certain issues that continuously annoyed me to no end so I talked myself into writing it, and now I’m glad it’s done. 

My section in the essay dealing with Kuhn and Kant (“Kant on Wheels”) needed some research and that is when I found Dr. Lee Braver’s book “A Thing of This World,” (ATTW); a beautiful title for the study of Continental Antirealism examining the philosophical thought of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida. Each philosopher is listed in the graph’s vertical columns while the six theses of realist epistemology are listed in the horizontal rows: the intersection of rows and columns have a very brief summary (sometimes only a term) of a philosopher’s position in relation to a realist “R”, or antirealist “A” thesis. 

The graph itself is not in the book as a picture; rather, I compiled it from re-reading Dr. Braver and then drew the grid as a mnemonic device to keep track of each philosopher’s viewpoint on a specific thesis of realism “R.” Braver invented this very useful and clever scheme for understanding realism/antirealism and also provides in depth analysis for each thinker. 

Initially, I only read the chapters on Kant and Hegel to use in my essay as secondary support, and completed reading ATTW only after finishing my essay. In the past, I read very little of Foucault, and nothing of Derrida. My graph sticks closely to the text, except for Derrida where I freestyle a bit because, for me, Derrida is describing the (necessary?) conditions for the possibility of paradigms—that’s one reason his writing is so weird—he is deconstructing paradigms in their various forms as language, discourse, signs, and text. Iterability and Différance are just two principles he identifies that enable paradigms to function as they do. 

Derrida has really bad press from my reading the background literature; and I was going to skip the chapter, then decided to read the chapter’s introduction and was hooked. I’m hesitant to read Derrida: I need to learn another language philosopher like social media needs another wing-nut. However, I was wrong about Derrida…after realizing he is writing about the very topic dearest to me—paradigms! I first learned about paradigms from Thomas S. Kuhn’s work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,”(1962) during the late 1970s (see my essay, “Ideological Paradigms” @ Strange Phenomenon). I am not going to read Derrida just yet to avoid his influence; although, I may have picked up some of his views already through studying other thinkers. I want to know just how far Kuhnian paradigms can take me. 

“A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism” is a massive 583 pages! (…And I was whining about writing forty pages!). Braver’s realism/antirealism scheme holds up well when applied to the six continental thinkers selected by contrasting each with the other which reinforcing one’s own understanding of them all while providing an orderly overview of these various versions of antirealism—that’s Différance. Braver’s writing is very clear which is typical of most analytic philosophers (Derrida’s chapter is the most difficult in my opinion)--so clear that this text is a good introduction for the enthusiastic reader. As an advanced reader, I learned new concepts and see old ones in a new light. My personal method of study is to always read around a new philosopher first: cultural-epochal background, biographies, journals, encyclopedias, secondary sources, and then lastly the primary sources—I don’t want to waste my time going down empty rabbit holes! Friends and fellow students can also help find new philosophers with book recommendations.  

ATTW’s documentation is mind-boggling. Don’t skip the footnotes and miss other additional insights by the author. The selected bibliography of secondary and primary sources is worth the price of the book alone! So buy the book, and advance years in your understanding of these philosophers. 

There are only two YouTube videos at this time featuring Dr. Braver and they are illuminating!

 How Language Shapes Our World with Dr. Lee Braver (Chasing Leviathan)

 Lee Braver: Beauty, Language, Heidegger, and AI — The Road to Reason Podcast #1

 

Groundless Grounds

 Dr. Braver has written another book titled “Groundless Grounds: A study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger” (2012)(GG) that I also postponed reading until my essay was completed just to see if my understanding of Wittgenstein was consistent with him. There were times I thought my interpretation of Wittgenstein might be far out on a thin limb with Tractarian object logic, but instead I am in synch with Braver running a parallel path leading to the same general conclusions on Wittgenstein. 

Because there is such a division between analytic and continental philosophy, I was blind to the similarity of Wittgenstein and Heidegger’s turn in their later philosophies. Wittgenstein’s later thought turned from his belief that logic had a transcendental essence--that language was a hidden calculus--to his new viewpoint of how language is used contextually in everyday life. On the other hand, Heidegger was not just turning away from a Husserlian phenomenological search for eidetic essences in describing the Dasein analytic, but changed his views about the self in a slow move away from Kantian transcendental philosophy to a more passive epochal self, or a fully historical self (see graph for early and later Heidegger). This is just a case were carefully comparing/contrasting one philosopher with another helps with understanding both. 

GG is written very clearly, suitable for new readers of Heidegger and Wittgenstein, also with a valuable bibliography for both thinkers. Again, the footnotes have references to primary and secondary sources and are useful for finding famous and obscure quotations from these two philosophers. Braver’s book is by far the best book I have read on Wittgenstein’s philosophy.