Rolling Philosophy

ugh lacan, avoid lacan

i suppose postcolonibros would be helpful here too

postbrolonial studies

^^ someone write this paper please

I kinda skipped over hegel in uni tbrr, supposed it's time to get into him again

lacan + maybe buber (who isn't as good, but easier read), levinas too. for postcolonbros i'd recommend achebe, said (def), um abjection theory should deal with this too

also feministbros

kristeva

sara ahmed has some really interesting (pretty contemporary) stuff about othering + particularly wrt hate and affect

*takes notes*

thanks postbrolonials

if u wanna take the feminist route which i am p much biased towards i would recommend a course of debeauvoir irigaray and wittig def. but then france+chicks is kindof how i roll w/ these things (recently found out irigaray is belgian tho!)

feministbros seems kindof the wrong way of phrasing that i think

irigaray's speculum of the other woman is my jam. it got her thrown out of lacan's school. hardcore.

lacan is such bullshit

not saying it's true here but 90% of the time someone tells me that lacan is bullshit it turns out they have almost no experience (or comprehension) of his work. they just think that because they don't understand it it is stupid

side note: did the band Aa get their name from lacan?

psychbronalysis

nah i just think that psychoanalysis is bs, fuck the subconscious

Lacan was a bro.

i'm a reasonable fan of lacan, but happy to label him bullshitter supreme. unlike yer derridas and yer deleuzes i think there's genuinely no reason for him to write in the dumb way he does.

After giving a talk at Berkeley once a guy accosted me at tea afterwards & would not shut up about Lacan, even though my talk was on logic. I'm pretty sure that what this guy was saying was bullshit, but I guess I'm not sure that he was getting Lacan right.

another music side note: have always wondered whether Smashing Pumpkins "Zero" was Lacan inspired.

i will say that lots of Lacan fans tend to be very passionate + outspoken in academia and generally aren't as smart as Lacan

(all this in my experience in academia, obv, ymmv, etc etc)

is that because when you challenge them they point to lacan and then it is hard to refute lacan

i mean more bc they talk about lacan-this and lacan-that and when pressed a lot of their ideas break down. (i've seen this at conferences where questions reduce the presenter to just repeating, 'you'll have to look in lacan to understand' in some form over and over)

i will say a lot of my lacan comes second hand via griselda pollock and other feminist art historians but it tends to be the point at which its difficult for me to take seriously what they're saying anymore. like theres this chapter in vision and difference where she does this lacanian analysis of rossetti's paintings and its just a bit like "oh ok thats the phallus is it? right ok" (she is otherwise awesome, i just wish ppl could use marx instead of lacan bc eg. spivak is a way more credible writer for me bc of this and only this)

some dude who picked me up hitchhiking once got into a mad argument w/ me about this and i resolved to read society and its discontents but i uh havent

civ + discontents. this is btw why i love Walter Benjamin (and Adorno) so much. Marx + some psychoanalysis. it's hot shit.

i like benjamin bc he is mystical

benjamin is my bro

mystical benjamin is the scholem connection

I like Benjamin but I find him TOO HARD a lot of the time because of his mystical shizz. Like, I can totally follow Agamben saying much the same thing but Benjamin makes my head hurt.

gershom brolem

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?showall=true&bookmarkedmessageid=2246786&boardid=77&threadid=81522

the brolitical unconscious is levels for a 'modern conception of literature'

Lacan isn't bullshit

re: the other: as somebody said, it starts with Levinas on the one hand and Kojeve's existential-marxist interpretation of the master-slave dialectic on the other (lol). and Kojeve begat Sartre and Lacan, who begat Fanon and a bunch of feminist theory, with probably some stuff I'm missing somewhere in there

what's the thread nakh linked? i'm still not on 77

reading lots of/about Heidegger these days

bro-ing-toward-death

the thread nakh linked to is about l0u1s jagg3r and the post he linked to is a gif of a book about gershom scholem

right

come join snowy! let thee not be the other of 77

gershy schol kinda looked like a 'bro' when he was young, anyway

xp I tend to forget that it exists! but nah, I'm cool — I guess I just lack "a taste for the secret"

http://www.thechinabeat.org/?p=2631

huh, very sneaky Dr. Land

I suppose this is the best place to ask: does anyone have any recommendations for a overview of 20th century philosophy? (mainly continental, mainly french) Not afraid of depth, but what I'm really looking for is something with a lot of breadth which actually attempts some kind of all-encompassing view of intellectual history during the 20th century.

the course I took in college used the critical tradition, as compiled by david richter, which was just important excerpts from a lot of big important philosophy texts, w/ some introduction and interpretation

pretty good imo

ryan, gary gutting's history of 20c. french (CUP) is good. there's a recent book 'french theory' (u. minn press) that might fill out that story on the tail end and more from the american/anglo humanities side. also a recent biography of deleuze and guattari, 'd+g: intersecting lives'.

Try - A History of Structuralism by Francois Dosse

Quick question - I'm being lazy as I just want to check something that'll only affect a couple of paragraphs, but if I want to talk about Marx, Kant and instrumentality am I right in thinking Theses on Feuerbach should be my starting point?

thanks! all of those look really good, actually.