tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post7056712934257073806..comments2024-03-28T09:51:55.365-06:00Comments on ECOLOGY WITHOUT NATURE: On a Fundamental Difference with MeillassouxTimothy Mortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05067377804366363020noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post-21923641747198324032011-05-10T00:27:31.442-05:002011-05-10T00:27:31.442-05:00Tim,
For this to be a fundamental difference, th...Tim, <br /><br />For this to be a fundamental difference, the PNC would have to be an essential ingredient of Meillassoux's project. If necessary beings are possible so long as the PNC is false, then the truth of the PNC would indeed be essential. Perhaps in Meillassoux's forthcoming work we will see a strong argument along these lines. But in After Finitude the situation is, as perhaps you allude to in your post ("[t]his slight slippage..."), somewhat confused. Specifically, it is not clear that Meillassoux has properly distinguished the PNC from the PNT (The Principle of Non-Triviality). And so it is not clear whether it is the former or the latter which is essential to his project. In particular, when he says that he has proven that a trivial being cannot exist, how is it supposed to follow that merely contradictory beings cannot exist?<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />JamesJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317298680264519025noreply@blogger.com