The world is the totality of facts, not of things. (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)
I think Wittgenstein is wrong.
The world is the totality of things, not of facts.
To be sure, his assertion is a firm rejection of materialism. I firmly reassert it. What remains always are things, not facts, not souls. This is an inducted reason. Like a good philosophical citizen, I do not claim deduction.
Logic has its failings. It regards language as flawless a medium for expressing ideas. It is far from it. Philosophy must investigate language as well.
signature103 
Language/objects … and I shall try to put my case forward that language/thought/objects is the ground of contention.
There is no escaping language, thought or objects. To ignore any one of aspects to be like missing a wheel on a tricycle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. I do not disagree: So the idealists make a case. And then the materialists make a case. 🙂 and they make the case that that are talking about something that is more than the case; that the world is this as opposed to that: they make a case. This ability to see more that what is the case is what I call, for a term, “communing with or being inspired by transcendence”. As ZiZek even says: modernity is inherently involved with transcendence. Miellassoux: correlationalism. Deleuze and guattari: the plane of immanence (which is just the full explanation of extension-transcendence).
To make the case does not change the world Becuase the world is everything that is the case. How could making a case change the world? The world is everything that is the case.
The issue is not whether the world is the case ; the issue is, how Harman puts it (as you corrected me), how people overmine and undermine the case, how they extrapolate out from what is true of the object. The issue is not that such extrapolation is an incorrect way of doing things; (even though Harman argues that something is wrong with it—that’s what I disagree with his ontology) far from it: it is the only way reality occurs. Hence a description of how that extrapolation operates is a different way of viewing what objects are.
I’m not making the case that it is wrong for the case to not be everything that is world; on the contrary, my work is about explaining how everything that is the case is not commonly understood as such for the effective functional reality. Why or how it could be so is an explanation of the object called philosophy. Very Zizek-psychoanalytical I think.
I think that your project of language /objects. Is ironically about the situation that you yourself find yourself within, and is thus the real world. Nothing wrong about that. How could it be wrong ?
But as you write more about accumulation, I will offer some constructive criticism which, I hope, would make your formulation more water tight, so to speak. 🎅🏿
@
When you have some time, maybe you might look at The Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Event.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whether you make a case or not the world is. To make the case does not change the world.
This is the point of contention between the idealist and materialist positions.
For the materialist the world remains. For the idealist the world disappears.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But that second one comes under the first one which is “the world is everything that is the case”.
The point you were making is the case.
Any case that you make constitutes the whole world.
That’s the same as saying philosophy concerns only itself.
Because any case you make involves the whole world of philosophy. Any argument you make it to the contrary is a philosophical case, and constitutes the whole world that you’re addressing that is the case at hand.
There’s no getting beyond it except to make a case that you are getting outside of the case that you’re making.
🙂🙃🙂🙃🙂🙃🌈
LikeLiked by 1 person