Rolling Philosophy

implacably insane, in a good way

"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

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.

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.

analytic/continental divide is boring -- there's good stuff on both sides

― ksh, Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:22 PM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark

h8 this approach to... everything really

kinda like

http://cdn.videogum.com/files/2010/05/church.jpg

imo

lol buddhism?

nah like judeo-christio-buddho-hindu-islamo-shinto-donkey-wheelism, aka 'the best bits of everything'

LOST

I just meant the circled thing isn't donkey wheelism, it's buddhism.

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

they are not reborn in lost i think

i thought that was why the nope

cos its like, pan-religiousy in a fucking marshmallowy meaningless way.

is the point

philosophy

man

ho shit. i thought the donkey-wheel was just meta.

n e ways, plaxico otm

yeah, interdisciplinary work is so fruitless

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

seems like u r def. the man to do that good look

btw, lol that ILX Philosophy thread started discussing Lost less than 50 posts in

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.

I don't think those people are assholes.

Analyze the disgusting savage archetype?

I'm just going to treat this as the rolling talk about academics thread, fuck distinctions imo

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

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.

i found history of sexuality I quite satisfying and not as hard to get through as d&p

i read this really good book called the fountanhead once

wat was it about?

how awesome awesome people are

i think it was about rape and architecture, kinda like Discipline & Punish, only longer.

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.

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

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSdHoNJu5fU

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.

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)

That clip is amazing. Also -- loved the Attali. A lot of my undergrad thesis was devoted to him.

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

husserl is awesome but the phenomenological aspects of derrida are crazy confusing to me

I saw this thread title and initially thought it would be about best approaches to throwing the D20 in a role playing game.

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.

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.

i read the cartesian meditations recently enough and its a pretty sweet intro.

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, June 17, 2010 5:48 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

YES--birth of biopolitics is GREAT i think, not to mention the clearest/'easiest' of any foucault book ive read too.

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, June 17, 2010 6:03 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i thought levinas was the key to derrida

i dont even know who that is

Wow

Anyone reading/read Korsgaard’s Fellow Creatures? I’m enjoying it - it’s very good.

wait, how did i only just find out that colin mcginn's legal defence was "in a sense there is nothing that is not a hand job" ?

A young Adorno expresses his distaste for the academy in a letter to Kracauer (29.5.1931): "I don’t want to produce scholarship or a worldview, but something...which embitters people who basically only ever want to enquire into the meaning of existence using Aristotle or Hegel."

— Adam Baltner (@schaumahaltmal) December 5, 2019

Speaking of Adorno, do any of you have any opinions on Raymond Geuss?

i geuss not

i like him, even so much of what i've read of his has that uh i dunno how to describe it that clever oxbridge impatience to it - at least he turns it against his own social circle which is sweet. still have never really read his long-ago book on critical theory. it seems lately he's in one of those late-career periods that philosophers go through when they're hitting a big ~publish all~ button, which is fine.

his casually thrown off book of essays on historical philosophers 'changing the subject' is very good, with some differences of taste it actually feels like a representation of ~my~ history of philosophy for once.

and i really like his little book - reprinting lectures i think? - on public goods & private goods.

Does anyone know of a good reference (preferably an article) that neatly summarizes the Heidegger-and-Nazism debate? I'm writing an essay where I have to allude to this but since it's not really central to what I'm talking about I would like to avoid wading into a huge pile of literature.

scruton: dead

pic.twitter.com/uH8W5RAlW2

— where are the pobblebonks of yesteryear (@AmneMachin) January 21, 2020

:D

Doug struggling with Kant. I feel you buddy pic.twitter.com/Nf2yvucyPP

— Graham (@onalifeglug) May 30, 2020

Good obituary:

https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/bernard-stiegler-in-memoriam/

Reportedly a suicide, in reaction to an unnamed chronic illness (echoes of Deleuze).

Thanks pom, good piece

Seconded, thanks for posting that. Very sad this is how he went.

I did not know of him, but thanks for posting this.

Here he is in the 2004 documentary film The Ister, which is how I got wind of him in the first place:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymtnUDAOEWc

The entire thing is very much worth watching btw.

I was aware of him but that obituary definitely inspires me to read him

Vol. 1 of Technics and Time is the watershed, even though it may not be the most approachable starting point (that distinction goes to Acting Out, which incidentally overdetermines the theatrical undertones of Passer à l'acte, but such are the vagaries of translation). His treaties on 'symbolic misery' are also quite thought-provoking, albeit shot through with the typically French assumption that high brow culture needs to be democratized because it is 'superior'. I am less taken with his later works, which frantically aspire towards a Theory of Everything of technocapitalist oppression – a laudable aim yet one that requires a bit more caution than he exhibits.

Totalization always feels like a daft game tbh but I understand the lure, totally

sounds like the later stuff is more up my alley then as i'm a total whore for technocapitalist oppression theorizing

Don’t get me wrong, his ‘late period’ is a treasure trove as well. He tackles the topic with more depth and aplomb than e.g. Baudrillard imo.

His daughter, Barbara Stiegler, is also a noted philosopher and based on what little I know of her work she is also drawn to the same kinds of themes, e.g. adaptability as neoliberal imperative.

Yes, she teaches in Bordeaux I think. I knew her name but not his.

the obit is really good. i just ordered "The Neganthropocene (Critical Climate Chaos)" because amazon says it will arrive before i go on a no-internet camping trip over the weekend. it looks fun.

Haven't read that one. Do report (if you feel like it, of course)!

hm yea i am still on that trip... progress at large : you know it : nada

Having read the Grundrisse and Capital in 2025, me and a buddy are now doing Hegel...starting with the Phenomenology then the Lesser and Greater Logics. 2027...Kant?

i've never read grundrisse but the stuff about "general intellect" in fragment on machines (that iirc got left out of capital) is pretty interesting, and more relevant ideas to the contemporary "knowledge economy" than the technology chapters of capital. (also in a way a convoluted way a precursor to cambridge capital controversy?)