Rust said “I don't see how this forum allows only two roles except where he says it does. Even if I grant him that it does so currently, then I still don't see how that's a reason to leave the forum instead of trying to change the state of affairs.” I considered this, and thought I would throw an idea out there.

In critical theory there is a very simple idea called ‘critique’, sometimes ‘criticism’. The latter term is unfortunate, however, because when the uninformed hear it, they naturally think of the common definition. But ‘critique’ is not some damning disapproval of a doctrine, theory, or concept. Rather, it is the act of suspending judgment on an idea’s truth or falsity to better comprehend it. Instead of dismissing or accepting the idea, the critic attempts to draw out its conditions of possibility, present a descriptive account of it in its entirety, and deduce all logical consequences that can be derived from it.

This is useful, because it allows you to discover and make explicit notions that were originally only implicit in the idea; and, if you so wish, it also allows you to pass better judgment. Furthermore, I think its implementation would bypass the hostile and tired arguments about the existence of God or evolution or whatever, and open up a whole new range of possible discussions. For I have noticed that everyone tends to instantly jump to asserting that the concept under discussion does or does not exist. And that they appear to expect everyone else to be operating in this mode of debate (which may explain why so many people misunderstood what I was doing here (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2109437), where I myself implemented ‘critique’). But by doing this, I think that you are missing out on investigating and discovering much that you did not know before, and that you run the risk of committing yourself to ideas without realizing it, because they were implicit in beliefs of yours that you did not bother to flesh out.

Now, most people know how to deduce logical consequence, and everyone has their own way of determining and describing concepts. But one notion that may be unfamiliar is that of conditions of possibility, and so I want to give a brief description of what exactly conditions of possibility are. But to save myself the trouble of writing it all out again, I shall rather link to a wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condition_of_possibility) I co-wrote.

And that sums up everything I had to say.

-If you're still ignoring me, well, okay...that's a bit resentful for an internet forum, but your choice, nonetheless-

A question on conditions of possiblity:

(This question presupposes the existence of a supreme deity for purposes of simplicity, so leave that argument aside for the moment...I'm just checking to see if I understand the concept correctly)

Say for example, a god is necessary for any action to occur. The big bang creates the universe. This action, then, presupposes the existence of the necessary god. Then, in this instance, god would be a condition of possibility for the universe's existence, yet not the entity/action/etc. responsible for it?

If I fail to understand, I would love for some clarification. Thanks.

Say for example, a god is necessary for any action to occur. The big bang creates the universe. This action, then, presupposes the existence of the necessary god. Then, in this instance, god would be a condition of possibility for the universe's existence, yet not the entity/action/etc. responsible for it?

I think that a condition of possibility for an object's existence can also be the cause of the object's existence, but I know for certain that it is not necessarily so. Take the example I gave in the wikipedia article of a cube made by an artisan. A cube is three-dimensional, so it can only exist on the condition that space exists. But space did not build or cause the cube, even though it is a condition of its possibility. Now, if we say that only artisans can build cubes, i.e. cause them to exist, then an artisan must exist before a cube can exist. Therefore the artisan is both a condition of possibility and a cause.

Anyway, what I like about the concept of conditions of possibility is that it allows philosophers and theorists to escape from having to explain everything in terms of cause and effect, and that the idea is even hierarchically above the idea of causality, as evidenced by Kant’s exploration of the conditions of causality’s possibility. For example, in literary theory, you can ignore the speaker, i.e. the cause, and examine the other conditions that make his speech (the effect) possible, such as dichotomies that are implicit in language, e.g. good/bad, nature/culture, normal/abnormal, etc. etc. And this would enable deconstruction, for instance, to show how these dichotomies destabilize the meaning or structure of the speech.

Thank you for clarification Mr. Geist.