Rolling Philosophy

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1946 of them)

i thought that was why the nope

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

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

is the point

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

philosophy

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

man

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

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 (5 years ago) Permalink

yeah, interdisciplinary work is so fruitless

ksh, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:04 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink

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

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

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

Mordy, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:18 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink

I don't think those people are assholes.

bamcquern, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

Analyze the disgusting savage archetype?

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:59 (5 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 (5 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

dyao, Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink

i read this really good book called the fountanhead once

michael, Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

wat was it about?

peacocks, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

how awesome awesome people are

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

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

sarahel, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:50 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:55 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink

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

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:24 (5 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, 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.

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:26 (5 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, June 17, 2010 6:03 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i thought levinas was the key to derrida

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

i dont even know who that is

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

smdh

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

i will never understand derrida

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

fu omg

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

lol jk

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

lithuanian jew, student of husserl (and heidegger i believe?), key concepts 'the other' 'ethics as first philosophy' 'face-to-face' 'alterity'

derrida has two long essays about him--'violence and metaphysics' and a published (extended?) version of the eulogy he gave at levinas funeral

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

the key to derrida fyi is smokin pot and reading poetry

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

I don't think levinas was a student of heidegger (maybe yr thinkin' of marcuse?), but yeah, he was (I believe) the first french translator of husserl, and in general had a big influence on the french reception of phenomenology

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

xpost halfway there; which poetry should I be readin'?

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

Rilke, maybe?

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

well holderlin obv

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

rimbaud dude

AESTHOLE (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

bob dylan

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

mallarme

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

btw i've read Tool-Being and been exposed to some of this stuff but I am far from an expert. it's just not my thing, right or wrong.

ryan, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:44 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

when people use the word "weirdness" in an academic as if it denotes something useful i just have to leave the conversation. tired of the pursuit of vagueness as an end in itself.

ryan, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:45 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

academic discourse

ryan, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:45 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Of course an object is what it is, otherwise it wouldn't be what it is?

Frederik B, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:48 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

'Is' and 'being' are imperfect descriptors, but...

Frederik B, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:49 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

this is ontology, not a form of logic that has to obey laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction (for which i say sure, but we need to devise higher level logics...not talk about "weirdness")

ryan, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:50 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It seems way too generous to talk about 'logic' with this kind of thing to me.

Frederik B, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah, the pictures are not on trial here

disco Polo (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I'm not a philosopher, and when I read philosophy it's mostly continental, or semiotically based, or linguistics. But to me there's a thin border between problems of logic and problems of language. And that upthread seems to be problems of language. There are so many problems with the word 'is', which is why Heidegger/Wittgenstein writes about 'does' or Deleuze writes of 'becoming'. But the problems with the word only doubles if trying to define the things not captured by the descriptions of what things 'are', as being things that they 'otherwise are'.

Frederik B, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 23:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

imho

Frederik B, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 23:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

more like that a paperclip has the same relationship to disclosedness/hidden-ness (ie, that it's both) that we'd normally reserve for something like a human subject. an object more or less always holds something back in its phenomenal manifestations, a kind of reservoir of potentiality.

"Perhaps the answer lies in the thought which now comes to my mind; namely, the wax was not after all the sweetness of the honey, or the fragrance of the flowers, or the whiteness, or the shape, or the sound, but was rather a body which presented itself to me in these various forms a little while ago, but which now exhibits different ones."

droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 13 April 2016 10:51 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

ha!

if you want a vaguely sympathetic overview of the whole scene, Steven Shaviro's "The Universe of Things" was a good read, if I remember correctly. (Thought in an aside he gets Niklas Luhmann totally wrong--as does the philosopher he's talking about--and it bothered me so much I hold a slight grudge against the book--but that's literally one sentence.) One thing about shaviro book is that it makes the more recent stuff that quentin meillassoux is up to sound genuinely strange, and not the "aren't I cute" way of some of these guys.

ryan, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 14:12 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i can't read futures markets that well--but OOO is presently in that broad dissemination stage where it seems like every grad student on the planet is squeezing every last drop out of it. something else will be along shortly.

ryan, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 14:14 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

it's funny b/c quentin m is now my colleague, I could just go "down the hall" and talk to him about this
(except we don't get offices b/c lol Paris)

droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 13 April 2016 14:41 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

ha, recent meillassoux is definitely very strange though i'm not sure to what extent it's a merit. my reaction to reading some of his post-after finitude stuff is largely "uhhh...". definitely preferable to the quarks + the united nations + slime molds, oh my! school of things though.

lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living (Merdeyeux), Wednesday, 13 April 2016 16:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

Has anyone checked out this Paul Guyer history of aesthetics? I probably don't need it, even with a price reduction, but I'm curious. 1752 pages!

http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Aesthetics-Set/dp/1107643228/

jmm, Thursday, 28 April 2016 01:25 (3 days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.