Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, Bataille wrote that some time ago.
What piqued my interest was Ayers and Bataille meeting. Ayers being my first foray into positivism, my temperamental Antipodes.
But what challenges posed by 'continentals' have you been unable to answer analytically? And does it work the other way around?
To answer your last question, I guess my expression betrays my preference for positivism. I want
it to go in that direction, because I find that science and empiricism are the methods by excellence through which knowledge is accumulated. Why? I guess, I have to be absolutely circular here and claim that it is through observation and empiricism that I think these methods yield the most accurate results.
In many ways, continentals address this issue and come to radically different conclusions. Conclusions that I can only attack via the circular argument I mention before.
Of course, I'm oversimplifying these descriptions for the sake of brevity, but the gist of the bottom-line question is: Which is more likely, that I do not find the logical error in some "continental" objections or that empiricism must be rejected? I choose the humble approach and blame myself.
Edit - Of course, this error may be a consequence of how outdated I am...