tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post461220405480227001..comments2023-06-27T16:51:05.805+02:00Comments on The Pangrammaticon: Tractations IIThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-46032854128476025542012-03-23T22:33:35.546+01:002012-03-23T22:33:35.546+01:00There is clearly a difference between political an...There is clearly a difference between political and scientific representation. In both case, however, its about "standing in the place of". It is tempting to think that science represents things, and therefore that politics represents people, but things and people (a moment's reflection confirms) always speak for themselves. It is the arrangement of things (into facts) that science can speak for. And the arrangement of people (into acts) that politics can speak for.<br /><br />I haven't yet gotten to subjects and objects. It's going to be killer.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-79060481534173006842012-03-23T17:50:28.033+01:002012-03-23T17:50:28.033+01:00Neat!.... I am, however, a bit unsure about "...Neat!.... I am, however, a bit unsure about "Politics represents the acts (not people)."... What does "represent" mean here? All the obvious possible canditates seem excluded: It is not the sense of e.g. "representational democracy", because politics does reprensent the people. It is not the sense associated with the representation of "facts", because politics is not science. And it doesn't jibe well with the determination of politics as the construction of injunctions, because injunctions are a paradigm example of non-reprensentational sentences... <br /><br />(("Politics presents precepts, not concepts"???))Presskornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03480116067878605339noreply@blogger.com