also it's funny b/c I spend lots of time in France, and my colleagues here are always amused at what Americans think of French philosophy (the reality afaict is that French philosophers take history way more seriously than your typical American or English philosopher)---on the other hand Bernard-Henri Lévi is on tv all the time here so maybe Americans do have the right idea.
― Euler, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
i think its less that analytic doesnt get the word out and more that people tend to get into ILX via the music side of the board which leans heavily on criticism steeped in continental philosophy! whereas WHAT CAN YOUR FASCIST MATH-THOUGHT TEACH ME ABOUT MUSIC, MAN
― max, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
analytic/continental divide is boring -- there's good stuff on both sides
― ksh, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
robin hanson, man, that dude...
― goole, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
implacably insane, in a good way
― goole, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
"analytic philosophy can be a pain in the ass to get into & it tends to be kinda "deflating" rather than ~mystical~ or ~political~ "
whoa this sounds like such a drag
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
Did analytic philosophy at university and critical theory at MA level, so I have time for both sides of the discipline. Moving more towards literary theory these days, though, so I'm interested in hearing the logicians' debate on this thread.
― emil.y, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
logic rules & I'm supposed to write something on it for a "general audience" later this year & when I do I may bounce it off ILX b/c tbh I could use feedback on it from non-specialists...gonna be a few months though.
― Euler, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 18:39 (2 years ago) Permalink
― ksh, Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:22 PM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark
h8 this approach to... everything really
― ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
kinda like
imo
― ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
lol buddhism?
― Mordy, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:41 (2 years ago) Permalink
nah like judeo-christio-buddho-hindu-islamo-shinto-donkey-wheelism, aka 'the best bits of everything'
― ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
LOST
― ULTRAMAN dat ho (jjjusten), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
I just meant the circled thing isn't donkey wheelism, it's buddhism.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmacakra
oh hah i hadnt even looked at the image, i was just having a kneejerk response to all those words in a row
― ULTRAMAN dat ho (jjjusten), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
they are not reborn in lost i think
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
i thought that was why the nope
cos its like, pan-religiousy in a fucking marshmallowy meaningless way.
is the point
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
philosophy
man
ho shit. i thought the donkey-wheel was just meta.
n e ways, plaxico otm
― ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah, interdisciplinary work is so fruitless
― ksh, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
even if you don't consider analytic and continental philosophy to be two separate disciplines—maybe they are, and maybe they aren't—saying that you need to take sides doesn't really make much sense. not saying you can just take random aspects of the two and mash them together, but if you notice a place where the two lines up, you certainly can link them together and work from there
― ksh, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
seems like u r def. the man to do that good look
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
btw, lol that ILX Philosophy thread started discussing Lost less than 50 posts in
― Mordy, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
Ugh, maybe I won't be looking forward to this thread as I had initially thought. Fucking assholes coming out of the woodwork already.
I don't believe that analytic and continental disciplines can ever be reduced into each other, and nor should they, but to suggest that they cannot both be appreciated is the most disgusting savagery.
― emil.y, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 23:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't think those people are assholes.
― bamcquern, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
Analyze the disgusting savage archetype?
― Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'm just going to treat this as the rolling talk about academics thread, fuck distinctions imo
― dyao, Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
anyway, picked up history of sexuality part I, it's actually my first full on foucault book instead of a few scattered essays and excerpts here and there. have only read the prologue but excited
not wanting to put you off or anything, but dunno if history of sexuality is the best place to start w/ foucault - i think it's one of his most esoteric and least satisfying bks, tbh. for me, discipline and punish was a really gd intro to his thought and style - works as a piece of theory and as (obv contentious) history
― Ward Fowler, Thursday, 17 June 2010 06:39 (2 years ago) Permalink
i am so goddamn out of touch w/philosphy these days, i am a bad philo grad. it bugs me, because i think ive lost a lot of what i already knew just through not engaging with it, kind of a tough discipline if you dont stay on top of it.
― ULTRAMAN dat ho (jjjusten), Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:41 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^^^^ I double majored and am working in the field of my other major so yeah, I'm stupid again so to speak. Hopefully this thread will bring back that loving feeling of my brain turning inside out.
― peacocks, Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
i found history of sexuality I quite satisfying and not as hard to get through as d&p
― harbl, Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
i read this really good book called the fountanhead once
― michael, Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
wat was it about?
― peacocks, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:39 (2 years ago) Permalink
how awesome awesome people are
― Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
i think it was about rape and architecture, kinda like Discipline & Punish, only longer.
― sarahel, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah i woulda said history of sexuality was totally perfect intro to foucault, kinda feel like its both the most developed and clearest version of many of his tropes etc.
― plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
the Foucault lecture courses that have been coming out in english translation over the past few years are also great -- I find the lecture format really easy to follow (not that Foucault's other books are particularly offensive in this regard; just sayin'), and there's a lot of great stuff in there
― INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:48 (2 years ago) Permalink
lately my reading has been directed more toward early-20th century european philosophy (phenomenology, Diltheyan hermeneutics, various neo-Kantianisms) in an effort to get a better grasp on the origins of the main postwar intellectual (and some political) movements. and maybe to finally understand Heidegger, but I'm not holding my breath.
― INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:51 (2 years ago) Permalink
― plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
ha, was just about to post that. It's funny because it's true.
I'm currently doing my Masters dissertation in (continental) philosophy, fuck it all I say I'll just get a cosy office job. Altho my reading at this very moment is fun, Jacques Attali's Noise: The Political Economy of Music.
― NYC Goatse.cx and Flowers (Merdeyeux), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
really makes me want to read hegel and hausel to understand late heidegger to understand derrida (kinda thought socrates was supposed to be the key to derrida though)
― plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
That clip is amazing. Also -- loved the Attali. A lot of my undergrad thesis was devoted to him.
― Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
xpost oh yeah I'm also hoping that, after reading some Husserl, I'll be able to (and still want to, heh) read Derrida's early stuff on him and maybe get a better understanding of JD's whole project
― INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
husserl is awesome but the phenomenological aspects of derrida are crazy confusing to me
― plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
I saw this thread title and initially thought it would be about best approaches to throwing the D20 in a role playing game.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
man that clip is my h8ed approach to... everything really. "You can't understand x without y, z, or q". You could say that in any academic discipline, or any non-academic discipline. Fuck it. Secondary texts ftw.
btw another mostly lapsed MA here, although I keep up my subscription to The Philospher's Magazine.
― sent from my neural lace (ledge), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
plax what's yr favorite husserl? I'm reading crisis of the european sciences right now but that's obv. a very late and not very representative work so I'm wonderin' what I should check out next.
― INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
from that link, Caputo's blurb:
The project is formidable: nothing less than “non-philosophy”—as in “non-Euclidean”— which is not the simple lack or absence of philosophy, nor what philosophy has marginalized, nor anti-philosophy, nor meta-philosophy, nor the end or death of philosophy. What’s left? A withdrawal or suspension of the authority of philosophy in order to undertake a new practice of philosophy more “rigorous” than philosophy, to think not “about” but “from out of” and “according to” the non-objectifiable experience of what Laruelle calls radical immanence, the One, or the Real. It sounds at times not unlike Heidegger’s idea that there is something to be thought in metaphysics to which metaphysics has no access.
yesssssss....bring it!
― ryan, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:38 (1 week ago) Permalink
not Heidegger's idea, Kant's idea
― Euler, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:39 (1 week ago) Permalink
ok i'm in. i'll read along.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:40 (1 week ago) Permalink
true, Euler!
― ryan, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:40 (1 week ago) Permalink
the prof who ran a Being and Time seminar i took oh so long ago always liked to say Heidegger got way more from Kant that is usually acknowledged.
― ryan, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:41 (1 week ago) Permalink
"This deduction, which appeared impossible to my sagacious predecessor, and which had never even occurred to anyone but him, even though everyone confidently made use of these concepts without asking what their objective validity is based on – this deduction, I say, was the most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics; and the worst thing about it is that metaphysics, as much of it as might be present anywhere at all, could not give me even the slightest help with this, because this very deduction must first settle the possibility of a metaphysics."
― Euler, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:42 (1 week ago) Permalink
can i pretend to have this already and cite it in the article im working on? ah, scholarly ethics.
― ryan, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:43 (1 week ago) Permalink
How can you use language like 'the One' and then call it non-philosophy?
― lazulum, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:51 (1 week ago) Permalink
not really philosophical
― Koné 2013 (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:53 (1 week ago) Permalink
unfortunately looks like i have to wait until july though
huh, I hadn't noticed that Bloomsbury US seem to be shuffling their feet on the release for some reason, the official UK release is in two days but places (inc. amazon.co.uk) are shipping it already.
Despite having seen him talk a bunch of times and having read this and that by and on him I can't claim to have anything but a vague grasp on Laruelle's general thing. (Really I'm just shilling for the friends who do have a grasp.) But I do have a pdf of the book so ONE STEP AHEAD SUCKERS.
― ohmigud (Merdeyeux), Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:53 (1 week ago) Permalink
my guess at the term "non-philosophy" that he's trying to get at an essential non-identity of thought, and not in the hegelian way of the "identity of identity and non-identity" but more like, uh, "the non-identity of identity and non-identity." a big contemporary challenge (imo) is find frameworks for discussing difference, non-identity, distinctions without the automatic production of a third and synthesizing term--or perhaps a third term which takes the "side," so to speak, of difference against unity.
there's some philosophy speakin' for ya
― ryan, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 20:00 (1 week ago) Permalink
ha. yeah, one of the things i've seen him trying to deal with recently is how different paradigms of thought can reconfigure the question of how that kind of synthesis between disciplines etc operates. i can't really remember the details, safe to say it was complicated. i may have a copy of the paper somewhere, i'll see if i can find it.
i do think it's a legitimate criticism that while he's trying to set up a flattening of the relation between realms of thought he himself remains largely with the vocabulary and performative gestures of philosophy. but i think also part of that stance is a genuine modesty on his part, as someone who's trained in philosophy and less so the other modes of thought he's engaged with, so he's really hoping that other people in those fields can take what he's doing and develop it elsewhere.
― ohmigud (Merdeyeux), Tuesday, 7 May 2013 20:20 (1 week ago) Permalink
I don't think this is the paper I was thinking of but iirc it's an interesting one anyway: http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/documents/seminar_supplements/LaruelleInLondonMayConference.pdf
― ohmigud (Merdeyeux), Tuesday, 7 May 2013 23:09 (1 week ago) Permalink
thanks! skimming through that...this is interesting (formatting may be wonky in what follows):
We are not saying that the contemporary is “the” “future” metaphysics or philosophy, as Kant and Feuerbach did, neither is it anamnesic like the moderns would have it. We will be happy to say, for now and in a negative way, that its futurality is not of course ontic or ontological, in any way a being or thing, ecstasy or horizon, it has the nature of a directed throw, vectorial; it is, if we can put it this way, an ascendant or invented clinamen that pushes into the individual subject instead of finding its origin and basis there.
had to look up "clinamen": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinamen
― ryan, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 23:30 (1 week ago) Permalink
clinamen is the best concept! i remember now how very very long i took to work out what he was getting at with all of the talk of vectors there. and now i've forgotten. :''(
― ohmigud (Merdeyeux), Tuesday, 7 May 2013 23:37 (1 week ago) Permalink
http://objectsobjectsobjects.com
― markers, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 22:49 (1 week ago) Permalink
finished that Laruelle essay. Had some trouble with a few of his key terms, and I dunno if it's the translation but the syntax is very weird at times.
surprised and pleased to see that "hylomorphism" plays such a big role. there definitely a lot in here I find suggestive and agreeable. gotta get a handle on what he means by the "generic subject" though, or even just what he means by the "generic"!
― ryan, Thursday, 9 May 2013 17:55 (1 week ago) Permalink
ya I think during the talk he may have had an aside (he has lots and lots of asides when he speaks) where he went into how 'generic' should be taken, but I forget now. The translation was done quickly so there may be a little sloppiness but I'm sure most of the weird syntax is Laruelle's own, his style is very odd and ever-changing (including e.g. mimicking the writing styles of the people he's writing about, which is why his Badiou book is called Anti-Badiou despite Laruelle's own philosophy always aiming to be very positive and inclusive). Apparently he's v v v hard to translate for that reason (among others), trying to render him in a way that's somehow true to the original text without being horrendous in English.
xp I find that OOO-via-Latour thing of long lists of random shit so annoying, WELL DONE YOU ARE AWARE THAT DIFFERENT THINGS EXIST you smug nerd you.
― ohmigud (Merdeyeux), Thursday, 9 May 2013 20:08 (1 week ago) Permalink
http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/object-lessons-series/
― markers, Thursday, 9 May 2013 20:10 (1 week ago) Permalink
good price on this http://www.amazon.com/Being-No-One-Self-Model-Subjectivity/dp/B008SM2VO0/
― markers, Friday, 10 May 2013 01:56 (1 week ago) Permalink
might pull the trigger on it tbh
― markers, Friday, 10 May 2013 01:58 (1 week ago) Permalink
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/334656775196393473
― markers, Friday, 17 May 2013 04:50 (2 days ago) Permalink
dawkins sucks. i read an advance copy of this book, which does a good job taking down dawkins' narrowmindedness, not just in terms of religion (the writer of this book is an atheist), but just like generally his disdain for any kind of question that can have more than one answer. the book is better than the blurb makes it seem. http://www.mhpbooks.com/books/the-science-delusion/
― Treeship, Friday, 17 May 2013 04:55 (2 days ago) Permalink
bitter old racists on twitter, why even engage
― resulting paste of mashed cheez poops (silby), Friday, 17 May 2013 05:09 (2 days ago) Permalink
.@RichardDawkins "Continental Breakfast". What kind of a Breakfast is region-specific? Continental Bacon? Continental Eggs? What nonsense!
― emil.y, Friday, 17 May 2013 13:03 (2 days ago) Permalink
Love the fact that most of the replies turn into a discussion on Ayn Rand. Of course.
― emil.y, Friday, 17 May 2013 13:05 (2 days ago) Permalink
― emil.y, Friday, May 17, 2013 1:03 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is amazing
― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 17 May 2013 15:10 (2 days ago) Permalink
generally his disdain for any kind of question that can have more than one answer
I've been reading the new Isaiah Berlin collection Against the Current which is also awesome on the same subject. I have a lot of triumphalist Sam Harris-loving scientist acquaintances so while reading I'm constantly smiling smugly to myself all like "yeah, take that!" Which is not really productive but.
― eris bueller (lukas), Friday, 17 May 2013 16:05 (2 days ago) Permalink
ban scientists
― Euler, Friday, 17 May 2013 16:25 (2 days ago) Permalink
philosopher-scientists like georg lichtenberg are the best
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 17 May 2013 16:57 (2 days ago) Permalink
perhaps alan sokal is the most sympathetic example of this pious rationalist strain, but he's still lacking in generosity
― ogmor, Sunday, 19 May 2013 12:20 (10 hours ago) Permalink
i find Sokal pretty far from sympathetic tbh
― the league against cool sports (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 19 May 2013 12:26 (10 hours ago) Permalink
yeah that's not saying much. hated what i read of 'beyond the hoax', some awful stuff on kuhn.
― ogmor, Sunday, 19 May 2013 15:49 (7 hours ago) Permalink