Rolling Philosophy

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2125 of them)

i thought that was why the nope

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

philosophy

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

man

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

yeah, interdisciplinary work is so fruitless

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think those people are assholes.

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

Analyze the disgusting savage archetype?

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:59 (six 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 (six 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 (six 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 (six 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 (six 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 (six years ago) Permalink

i read this really good book called the fountanhead once

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

wat was it about?

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

how awesome awesome people are

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

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

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

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

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

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:24 (six 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 (six 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 (six years ago) Permalink

i dont even know who that is

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

smdh

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

i will never understand derrida

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

fu omg

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

lol jk

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

the key to derrida fyi is smokin pot and reading poetry

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

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

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

Rilke, maybe?

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

well holderlin obv

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

rimbaud dude

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

bob dylan

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

mallarme

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

not terribly well versed in phenomenology but the early chapters are kind of a tour de force.

ryan, Tuesday, 3 January 2017 23:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I'd seen references to Henry before and been curious when I'd been more interested in more theologically inflected phenomenology (of which I'm also not especially well versed). What is it about the book/first chapters that you're finding so striking?

On a somewhat related note (at least inasmuch as he's explicitly critical of the religious "return" in contemporary continental philosophy), I found an inexpensive copy of Meillasoux's After Finitude at a used book store and decided to pick it up. It's my first foray into speculative realism (materialism?/whatever one wants to call it) and I'm still reading it, so will withhold any substantive comments until I finish reading and get my bearings. I've seen there's been some discussion upthread, so am curious what anyone still checking here/posting has made of it.

One thing I'm wondering, at first blush, is how his thinking (or at least critique of the philosophical tradition) differs from Derrida, for example? Would he be a 'correlationist' in his terms? I've read he's influenced by Badiou so can infer something of an answer (or at least guess at what's to come in the book), but that has been confusing me a bit...

Federico Boswarlos, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 18:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the Henry presents a really compelling account of Christianity that's of particular interest to me because it runs counter to what I think of the Weberian "disenchantment" thesis of Christianity. and the first few chapters, I'm thinking in particular perhaps of "The Truth of the World," present a really coherent account of a Heideggerian "disclosedness" account of truth. There's a really interesting bit later on about how Heidegger's account of Being more or less remains too "Greek" (and thus ontological) in implicit contrast to the true phenomenological essence of Christianity. as a whole the book gets rather repetitive (which can help because the core concepts are necessarily slippery) but it has some really great stuff if you find this topic interesting.

I picked this book up because Jean Luc Nancy recounts in a footnote to his "Dis-enclosure" how Henry approached him after a lecture and told him he was totally wrong about Christianity.

ryan, Thursday, 5 January 2017 14:45 (two weeks ago) Permalink

next up is Werner Jaeger's "Early Christianity and Greek Paideia"

ryan, Thursday, 5 January 2017 14:47 (two weeks ago) Permalink

in fact if anyone knows any books under the broad umbrella of "Christianity and Modernity" I'd love to hear about them...(not exactly philosophy i know but i will always abuse this thread)

ryan, Thursday, 5 January 2017 15:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink

broken record here but Charles Taylor's A Catholic Modernity and The Varieties of Religion Today, and the (much) longer book from which those are both taken, A Secular Age. I've taught the 2nd and 3rd of these in philosophy of religion courses, the 2nd at the introductory level, even.

droit au butt (Euler), Thursday, 5 January 2017 15:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

some examples:
Michael Allen Gillespie - The Theological Origins of Modernity
Marcel Gauchet - The Disenchantment of the World
Hans Blumenberg - The Legitimacy of the Modern Age
Max Weber - Sociology of Religion and The Protestant Ethic (obv)

xp i was about to list the Taylor! have not read yet but it's on deck as well. thanks for the further recommendations as well.

ryan, Thursday, 5 January 2017 15:21 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Taylor's introduction to the Gauchet is really interesting.

ryan, Thursday, 5 January 2017 15:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

another one i need to read: Karl Lowith's "Meaning in History"

ryan, Thursday, 5 January 2017 15:30 (two weeks ago) Permalink

have u seen dulles' models of revelation? it's been years since i read it but i remember it was v good

Mordy, Thursday, 5 January 2017 15:42 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I should read that! xp Gauchet

As ever, Macintyre should be on your list, though he exemplifies a modernist Christianity more than writes "about" modernism and Christianity. though he does that too. Three Rival Versions is always where it's at.
I was thinking of reading God, Philosophy, Universities, but really I should just read Newman.

droit au butt (Euler), Thursday, 5 January 2017 16:08 (two weeks ago) Permalink

a secular age provides many springboards for further reading too, i think i have like an entire shelf of books suggested (explicitly or not) by taylor

adam, Thursday, 5 January 2017 17:10 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Cool, that sounds interesting (and the Nancy anecdote is pretty good - I appreciate him mentioning it in a footnote :)) - just looking a little more into Henry online and I think I can get a sense of the different approach from Weber with his idea of revelation/incarnation and becoming "flesh".

You may already be familiar with them, but in addition to Charles Taylor, I'd also recommend Hans Joas and Robert Bellah. Apparently Habermas has been rumoured to be working on completing a major work on religion, as well - though it may have been sidetracked over the past few years with his focus shifting to the Eurozone crisis.

There's so much more in that phenomenological tradition (loosely) that I've also been meaning to read myself for a long time (my MA thesis advisor worked in this area and I'm still, years later, trying to find time to get further into it - so I find the Henry recommendation welcome). In particular, I've been interested in (and they may be of interest to you!) Simone Weil, Jean Luc Marion, Hent de Vries, Gillian Rose, and some Agamben.

Another book I've been wanting to read that the Henry called to mind and which was highly recommended (it's unfortunately out of print, however) is Agape and Eros by a Swedish theologian, Anders Nygren. May be of relevance or interest? A brief summary on it - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/the-canon-agape-and-eros-by-anders-nygren/413560.article

Federico Boswarlos, Thursday, 5 January 2017 17:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink

xpost on the entire shelves of books suggested by footnotes. My groaning shelves and I feel you....

Federico Boswarlos, Thursday, 5 January 2017 17:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

One thing I'm wondering, at first blush, is how his thinking (or at least critique of the philosophical tradition) differs from Derrida, for example? Would he be a 'correlationist' in his terms?

the fun thing about being anti-correlationist is that it's very easy to accuse anybody you don't like of being a correlationist. Meillassoux's project is interesting and his selectiveness makes it interesting, but I think the broad strokes with which he often paints the people he's opposing himself to should make us ask some questions of it. e.g. if After Finitude had a serious critical engagement with Kant rather than opening with a page stating that Kant is a correlationist, would it have ended up in the same place?

re Derrida, I know that Graham Harman will often go on about how speculative realism was a necessary antidote to deconstruction's dominance over continental philosophy, allowing us to get away from trifling deconstructionist concerns with things like books and ethics and so on, and that's probably a common position. But there is also work on Derrida that has intersected with speculative realist concerns, e.g. Martin Hagglund's http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=16169. I think the general pattern is that when philosophers are saying just how different their work is from everybody else's they're probably obscuring some of the similarities and points of connection in there.

lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living (Merdeyeux), Thursday, 5 January 2017 17:34 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Yes, good point, it's a classic move. AF is, indeed, very selective - the fact that these can't be blind spots on his part is I guess what I find frustrating, but I guess that fluid/loose definition of correlationism is part of his project, as are the ways he sets up the terms and positions he opposes, as you note.

Still not sure what to make of it but I find it fascinating, even if it's recasting older critiques or points in a new vocabulary. Has anyone read his book on Mallarme? From what I've read so far from AF, I have an idea of how it may be and how it may more clearly articulate his project.

Hm, didn't realize that was Harman's position and didn't know the Hagglund book either, I'm curious to read more.

Federico Boswarlos, Friday, 6 January 2017 16:58 (one week ago) Permalink


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