[@bhii]

Originally Posted by scorpionsudhir

RC-9:

Hey post answers plz!!
so that we can verify as well..

[Ankurb]

Originally Posted by @bhii

Hey post answers plz!!
so that we can verify as well..

Post #497, previous page will interest you.

[gautam_kanu]

Rc 10
1 2
2 1
3 3
4 4
5 3
6 3
7 1
10 3

[@bhii]

Originally Posted by Ankurb

Post #497, previous page will interest you.

OOPss!!! missed it

[@bhii]

Originally Posted by scorpionsudhir

rc-10:
modern thought has realized considerable progress by reducing the existent to the series of appearances which manifest it.
its aim was to overcome a certain number of dualisms which have embarrassed philosophy and to replace them by the monism of
the phenomenon. Has the attempt been successful ?
in the first place we certainly thus get rid of that dualism which in the existent opposes interior to exterior. There is no longer
an exterior for the existent if one means by that a superficial covering which hides from sight the true nature of the object. And
ibis true nature in turn, if it is to be the secret reality of the thing, which one can have a presentiment of or which one can
suppose but can never reach because it is the “interior“ of the object under consideration-this nature no longer exists. The
appearances which manifest the existent are neither interior nor exterior; they are all equal, they all refer to other appearances,
and none of them is privileged. Force, for example, is not a metaphysical conatus of an unknown kind which hides behind its
effects (accelerations, deviations. Etc.); it is the totality of these effects. Similarly an electric current does not have a secret
reverse side; it is nothing but the totality of the physical-chemical actions which manifest it (electrolysis, the incandescence of
a carbon filament, the displacement of the needle of a galvanometer, etc.). No one of these actions alone is sufficient to reveal
it. But no action indicates anything which is behind itself; it indicates only itself and the total series.
the obvious conclusion is that the dualism of being and appearance is no longer entitled to any legal status within philosophy.
the appearance refers to the total series of appearances and not to a hidden reality which would drain to itself all the being of
the existent. And the appearance for its part is not an inconsistent manifestation of this being. To the extent that men had
believed in noumenal realities, they have presented appearance as a pure negative. It was “that which is not being”; it had no
other being than that of illusion and error. But even this being was borrowed, it was itself a pretense, and philosophers met with
the greatest difficulty in maintaining cohesion and existence in the appearance so that it should not itself be reabsorbed in the
depth of non- phenomenal being. But if we once get away from what nietzsche called “the illusion of worlds-behind-the-scene,”
and if we no longer believe in the being-behind-the-appearance, then the appearance becomes full positivity; its essence is an
“appearing” which is no longer opposed to being but on the contrary is the measure of it. For the being of an existent is exactly
what it appears. Thus we arrive at the idea of the phenomenon such as we can find, for example, in the “phenomenology” of
husserl or of heidegger-the phenomenon of the relative-absolute. Relative the phenomenon remains, for “to appear” supposes
in essence somebody to whom to appear. But it does not have the double relativity of kant's erscheinung. It does not point over
its shoulder to a true being which would be, for it, absolute. What it is, it is absolutely, for it reveals itself as it is. The
phenomenon can be studied and described as such, for it is absolutely indicative of itself.
the duality of potency and act falls by the same stroke. The act is everything. Behind the act there is neither potency nor
“hexis” nor virtue. We shall refuse, for example, to understand by “genius”-in the sense in which we say that proust “had genius”
or that he “was” a genius-a particular capacity to produce certain works, which was not exhausted exactly in producing them.
the genius of proust is neither the work considered in isolation nor the subjective ability to produce it; the work is considered as
the totality of the manifestations of the person.

1. 2
2. 4
3. 3
4. 4
5. 1
6. 3
7. 1
8.
9. 3
10. 3
.

[Ankurb]

RC-10:
1.2
2.4
3.3
4.4
5.2
6.3
7.3
8.2
9.3
10.3

17 minutes, might have attemtped only 6-7 questions.

[subash_r]

Originally Posted by scorpionsudhir

RC-10:

1.2--
4.4--
5.1--
6.3--

Damn tough RC... Attempting very few

[xaerooo]

i am sorry puys to be posting this here.. i absolutely love this thread.. i want to follow it but i dont know how to (newbie to PG) .. please tell me where is the option to follow the thread and get regular updates of this thread by email..

[subash_r]

Originally Posted by xaerooo

i am sorry puys to be posting this here.. i absolutely love this thread.. i want to follow it but i dont know how to (newbie to PG) .. please tell me where is the option to follow the thread and get regular updates of this thread by email..

Click on THREAD TOOLS on top.. and then select SUBSCRIBE TO THE THREAD

[scorpionsudhir]

RC-10

My Take:

1.2
2.4
3.4
4.4
5.3
6.3
7.1
8.2
9.3
10.1