>L. J. Hurst


Things exist. But then so do holes. How does a hole exist – it is defined by its surrounding solidities (earth, doughnut, wood etc). But if we can talk of the earth and the doughnut and the wood we know we are talking of something existing that is also physical. But there can be holes in arguments, in budgets, in understanding – again we know what arguments, budgets ad understanding are – though they are not physical. Mustn’t the opposite also exist? Mustn’t non-being also be, in order to identify what is?

3 thoughts on “>L. J. Hurst

  1. s.A

    >"The Paradox of Culture: Antinomy From The Academy to The Dome (A Talk to the Cafe Philosophique at Scarthin Books, Cromford, Derbyshire)" by L. J. Hurst

  2. s.A

    >The ruling thought of any day takes various names. A popular name today is "The third way". This carries the implication that it is a third stage, as well, as if perhaps it were the third, synthetic stage of the dialectic we mentioned in the introduction. Is this implication intentional? I don't know.

    If we are to understand "the third way" we have to understand the concept of antinomy, because the way of modern politics is to maintain opposites. Society, like Zeno's race, keeps on going, and winners continue to emerge- but it is at the cost of logic. And at a far greater cost, as we can see on our streets.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *