ch1, baynes

 Okay, let's do this. To the in this first introductory chapter. I mean, there's the. Biographical stuff on the one hand and on the other there's the the debate about well it. The author tries to. Show how hover us. Like. What's representative of his? Philosophy as a whole like the representative anecdote is this sort of tension through not necessarily the tension between the manifest image and the I believe the technocracy thesis.

Which is associated with you know, behaviorism and. I mean, I guess really. Psychoanalysis to because it's like, you know, you're just propelled by desires or you know, self-interest. That kind of thing the reductionist. View of the world, anyways, so. It's not that. The tension between the manifest image and the technocracy pieces.

Because that plays out in the history of philosophy, so like for example, I mean, he runs through those those three different people, you know, like all the the only one you really know is Kant he's like, well some people have. Been like there is no like there's no problem like the the the technocracy thesis the the the scientific this the image that we get about people from science that the the naturalistic.

Or purely naturalistic image like that one's correct, like some people say that. Other people say it's like no, they're completely due to two different things like. People are. The there's like the numeral self and you know, and then the so like the scientific image is correct. But like there's just other thing called the numinous self and they're like two completely different things and like one doesn't pinch on the other so like that's caught.

So anyways, but hover us his contribution to. Philosophy as told through this representative anecdote is.

Basically he says that we can go. Again, it's it's kind of like a square in the circle type thing, he's like well we can go. Because like back in ancient Greece or okay, so like the. There was a move in I guess kind of you you might say could be your represented by Walter Litman in a way but that there that we need to overhaul this like older version of politics like this is politics, that's.

You know, I know the word virtues wasn't there but. This is like a politics of.

You know, people kind of deliver like citizens deliberating about the common good. You know in public probably, you know, probably so that's like there's like this like classical kind of image of that on the one hand and on the other hand there's hopper mouse who or I'm sorry the,

This this scientific image like negative science people people basically wanting to.

Like apply science to politics right so like you were remembering Herbert Spencer, you know and like social Darwinism right like people wanting to.

Yeah make a science of politics, basically. So anyways, what hovers I guess so like partly. What his contribution is to the history of philosophy is he's like well.

We because he it's not like an either or thing so it's it's not it's not like he goes the scientific. Image is correct or or he's not regressive or reactionary being like we need to go back in the the ancient classical model is more correct, he's like well. Um, these things are like these two sides are like always intention and like.

So like the. Manifest image. Exists is like a kind of prior or. There's been like and I think this like the word colonization doesn't there's no there's there there's no mention of colonization in this first chapter, although there was mention of one-sided. Because he's like at one point the author is like, you know, maybe wait like, The the development of the productive forces he doesn't say productive forces, but like the development of productive forces, maybe like really one-sided to like that doesn't mean that.

The manifest image or really agency has been eliminated. But so he will and this I guess gets to his content and pragmatism so. The so he takes this practicum pragmatism here being this idea that you know common like your everyday people like not experts not only well elite people too but you know, like you're every day typical person has agency and they they have the ability to make a difference and speak truth to power.

And. That's just kind of derives from their ordinary everyday competence. You know. Of that they derive from being in the world.

So.

So nice so what hovermass does is he? Says that like, The he takes the manifest image and he like exports it to the background basically the life world.

Saying that. It can come so it's always there. As a kind of. I shouldn't say resource but.

Like we don't. Typically notice it but like when things break down. You notice it and it kind of comes out in.

You know, and I mean the author doesn't say this but. I kept thinking of like, you know the court structure and things like that because in the core, you know, I like that's like a that's a very much like. Reification or maybe realization or materialization of that prior structure.

So yeah, so I mean, well there there there's also the haggle thing to so like he talks about. Hegel in this the author does. You know, and like he's like yeah, it's like it's a kind of Galion because.

There's like this recognitional. Structure that you know, it's like when we speak and this is you know getting in so I get okay well. Going back a little like the author says that like harbor masses.

Like his originality. Partly was like the fact that he. Took there's that there's this there's just there's a debate right that takes place in the history of philosophy. You know, again the manifest image versus. The. The technocracy pieces type thing. So anyways, that's that's just.

Right, so there's been a debate but like what he does is he connects it to speech activity. And uses speech act theory in order to. Say like look.

You can't this is part of this transcendental structure, like you can't actually deny. The. The manifest image without. You know performatively contradicting yourself so it's like it can't be like and again as he says like you you can't even imagine a world. Where this wouldn't be the like that where people wouldn't have this kind of competency or where people wouldn't.

You know that where where people that you were speaking to didn't have the capacity to like say, no. Or. You know, question your promise or? Things like that.

And again you always you always think of like disability studies here. But. Wasn't I? Disabilities studies.

Oh the whole like they can always say no or like again it comes back to the blaming the victim which I think is a good example because like the pointing the victim is a good example because it's like,

Like you like you invited this but like you are responsible for this like you you wore that outfit. Right, you went into. His house. You know, like you said yes like you had such like. So agency is this thing that.

I don't know like people.

Like people like affirm it in these contexts and like deny and others. So there's like kind of inconsistencies there. But anyways, um. So what's I mean, how does this get us back to like the. Main thing here. I mean, it's that's pretty much it. Right he uses paycheck theory in order to.

Make the argument that and you're gonna use those claims to like remember like the whole like narrow foot hold point or that like it's like very thin. Because his notion of a person is.

Just a person who has it's just this this competency to.

Promise or.

Say no to a competency to like. Believe you.

Yeah, there's probably even a step to the argument to be between those two points, it's like. Like a whole narrow foothold. And like extremely thin part. I don't know if I necessarily can get that those two steps. Because it goes.

But anyways, that's.

I mean, that's like the basic idea though is that people.

Just that people are agents, maybe there's something with language too, it's like the human nature like we can know. You were kind of I don't know you were looking a little bit confused because there's like well. I don't hover monsters made it sound like it's a girl like we can know like we can't really know nature but we can no language like this is this is the ground.

Which is probably. Maybe why he gets into so much trouble with people like like dairy dog because like he's like you you you can't know language. So, that's you. Were probably right at least suspicious about. That. I mean, it's courses overly humanists too, but like. Whatever.

So yeah, the manifest image.

Is just it's latent. It's tacitly presupposed by so again, it's it's basically. It's basically high degree with speech activity, right? Because like the whole. Because like without. The speech activity, it's just Heidegger.

Right?

Or ciral, which is you know to say the same thing. So it's to you they keep probably uses the hosel as like a starting point and then synthesizes that with speech activity.

In order to make the point that. You know. It's linguistic or that.

Has to do with well again it thinking back to maybe what if it was this maybe was the other article you're reading with however much but it was like the whole subject to subject thing. It's like 'cause it's no longer we're no longer doing like subject object. We're like we're dealing so if he moves it maybe to like subject to subject in like that whole.

Again enter subjectivity. So, so that's I mean again, so it's like, Jose roll plus. The coastal roll plus several plus heideger. I'm sorry plus hegel. And then you were also thinking of here, shut the end a door now and Weber Baber.

I like the totally administered society and the iron adorno and the iron cage.

Weber. I think that was around the place where they were displayed what they did the whole one-sided thing but. Anyways. See I did.