Rolling Philosophy

"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."

can i pretend to have this already and cite it in the article im working on? ah, scholarly ethics.

How can you use language like 'the One' and then call it non-philosophy?

http://videomusicaonline.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/yes-going-for-the-one.jpg

not really philosophical

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.

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

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.

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

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

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. :''(

http://objectsobjectsobjects.com

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"!

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.

http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/object-lessons-series/

good price on this http://www.amazon.com/Being-No-One-Self-Model-Subjectivity/dp/B008SM2VO0/

might pull the trigger on it tbh

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/334656775196393473

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/

bitter old racists on twitter, why even engage

.@RichardDawkins "Continental Breakfast". What kind of a Breakfast is region-specific? Continental Bacon? Continental Eggs? What nonsense!

Love the fact that most of the replies turn into a discussion on Ayn Rand. Of course.

.@RichardDawkins "Continental Breakfast". What kind of a Breakfast is region-specific? Continental Bacon? Continental Eggs? What nonsense!

― emil.y, Friday, May 17, 2013 1:03 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is amazing

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.

ban scientists

philosopher-scientists like georg lichtenberg are the best

perhaps alan sokal is the most sympathetic example of this pious rationalist strain, but he's still lacking in generosity

i find Sokal pretty far from sympathetic tbh

yeah that's not saying much. hated what i read of 'beyond the hoax', some awful stuff on kuhn.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/970550_627836968047_1532407780_n.jpg

"wright"

ouch.

i have to admit i've written a few letters like that (or emails). whenever i read an obscure or out-of-print book that i really love and if the author isn't well known i try to let them know that someone out there read it and liked it. i've gotten some really nice responses.

Is there a good intro text for philosophy of mind, with particular attention to language if poss, that's targeted at psych students who need their minds broadening? (me)

do you mean like Daniel Dennett kind of stuff?

not necessarily a fan but Lakoff and Johnson's stuff might be helpful and up your alley.

if you really wanna get freaky try Douglas R. Hofstadter.

I wish I knew what I meant! I'm not very inspired by experimental psychology at the moment and I'm trying to work out whether it's because in my lab/on my courses there just isn't enough effort to link things back to theory, or whether it's something more fundamental about the problem of conceptual confusion in experimental psych. (I haven't read any Wittgenstein - that is just an isolated snippet I happen to have heard about that struck a chord...) I certainly ought to read more Dennett (only ever got half way into Consciousness Explained). Hadn't even heard of L&J or Hofstadter - Hofstadter looks fascinating (especially the Strange Loop) but not the place to start; I'll check out L&J.

hey everybody come to this conference philosophyandtheoutside.wordpress.com/

looks like fun!

ljubljana, Hofstadter is fascinating and Gödel Escher Bach is a rewarding read for general audiences on a lot of topics. It's the book that turned my undergrad advisor on to AI when he was an aimless young person in Boston after graduation. Super idiosyncratic but lotsa fun. We used this anthology (Crumley, ed., Problems in Mind) in the one class I took on the subject and there's a good assortment of "classix" in there, including such greatest hits as Meditations II and VI, "Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes", and "What is it like to be a bat?".

Weirdly it doesn't contain Turing's Computing machinery and intelligence; I will refrain from making grandiose claims about its importance but you should read it right now.

The Stanford encyclopedia article on consciousness is a good intro.

Hofstedter is fun but more a "gee whiz" guy than making light of the unknown.

Making light or shining light? Dennett certainly in the former camp. There are no unknowns in his humble opinion.

thanks all, I will delve in.

shining light

ljubljana if you end up more interested in the philo side of psych, there's a great interdisciplinary Ph.D. program between psych (cog sci, neuroscience, etc) & philo at Washington University in St. Louis. you might also / instead think about the masters in philo programs at Tufts (where Dennett teaches) & at Georgia State (which has become a leader in the philosophy of neuroscience

Wertsch is at St. Louis, isn't he? He's actually the only somewhat-philosopher I've read! I still have Mind As Action somewhere.

So tempted to look at those programs, but as an international student I don't think I could transfer without nixing all savings and taking on debt, which is something I don't want to do for grad school because I'm lol old and won't ever manage to work it off. Good to know where and what they are, though. When I was choosing programs I did look into working with a particular philo-psych guy at UMD, but got an email back saying firmly that if I didn't have an undergrad degree in philo then there is no point applying. That seemed inflexible, but if you added '... or show us evidence at an interview that you've read extensively' or something like that, then it would be very reasonable I think. I definitely can't say that at this point.

grad programs in the USA don't distinguish between international & citizen students. you'd get a fellowship if you were admitted into Wash U that would pay your tuition + a stipend that would cover living expenses (around $15k a year). Georgia State offers every admitted student free tuition + health insurance, & many students get fellowships for living expenses as well. that's for a masters! they have a neurophilosophy masters track there.

so you wouldn't get rich but you needn't plan on much if any debt

the advantage of those masters programs is that they have extremely good placement records in Ph.D. programs in philosophy. they're *designed* for people without strong backgrounds in philosophy. the two I listed are the two best such programs in the USA, & they're both tops in the interface of psych & philo.

Wertsch has an appointment in the joint program at Wash U that I mentioned

Interesting! - I knew some US programs would not distinguish, but thought this was limited to a relatively small number of programs - will look into it. Also v interesting about the masters. Tbh I am not sure that at 41 I can face spending 6 or so more years in school though (vs. finishing this program as fast as I possibly can, maybe in 2 more years instead of 3 more years if I am lucky and my projects go well). But I will for sure look into it, and will then take it to the grad school threads - sorry for slight derail!

no derail! I am happy to keep philosophy rolling

rolling off philosophy 2013

popped a Dennett three hours ago now I'm coming down hard :/

What do people think of Giulio Tononi? I read one of his books and enjoyed it but like a lot of materialist accounts of consciousness it sorta ended with a lot of hand waving.

another guy worth looking at is perhaps Antonio Damasio