Rolling Philosophy

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1598 of them)

i thought that was why the nope

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:56 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

philosophy

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (4 years ago) Permalink

man

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

yeah, interdisciplinary work is so fruitless

ksh, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:04 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

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

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:08 (4 years ago) Permalink

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

Mordy, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:18 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

I don't think those people are assholes.

bamcquern, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:57 (4 years ago) Permalink

Analyze the disgusting savage archetype?

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:59 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

i read this really good book called the fountanhead once

michael, Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:19 (4 years ago) Permalink

wat was it about?

peacocks, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:39 (4 years ago) Permalink

how awesome awesome people are

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:44 (4 years ago) Permalink

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

sarahel, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:50 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:55 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

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

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:24 (4 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 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

i dont even know who that is

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:28 (4 years ago) Permalink

smdh

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (4 years ago) Permalink

i will never understand derrida

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (4 years ago) Permalink

fu omg

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (4 years ago) Permalink

lol jk

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:30 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

the key to derrida fyi is smokin pot and reading poetry

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:34 (4 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 (4 years ago) Permalink

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

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

Rilke, maybe?

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:38 (4 years ago) Permalink

well holderlin obv

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:38 (4 years ago) Permalink

rimbaud dude

AESTHOLE (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:39 (4 years ago) Permalink

bob dylan

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:39 (4 years ago) Permalink

mallarme

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:40 (4 years ago) Permalink

what does teh rolling philosophy thread think of carles' 'nothing matters'

feels derivative but ive only just started

deej loaf (D-40), Saturday, 24 January 2015 21:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

An old prof of mine wrote this: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/what-alabamas-roy-moore-gets-right/?_r=0&pagewanted=all

I feel like the ontology of institutions being suggested here is a little simplistic, the idea that marriage_2 is simply a different institution from marriage_1. For one thing, the question "Is this the same institution or a new one?" seems perspective-relative. From our perspective, same-sex marriage may appear to be such a sharp break in the history of marriage that it has to be a new institution. But if a society that had no concept of marriage at all (pretend that they have accordingly different views of gender, family, and other concepts neighbouring on marriage) were to be taught about our institution(s) of marriage, same-sex marriage might not look like a significant change, or at least, not such a significant change as to offset everything that the two forms of marriage have in common.

I'm also not sure that "discarding the old institution," as opposed to modifying it, accurately describes what we want to do in introducing same-sex marriage - but I don't know, maybe we're deceived about what we want, or maybe this is just theoretical talk and doesn't need to impinge on anyone's everyday political consciousness.

jmm, Tuesday, 17 February 2015 16:20 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

hehe I know Brian

droit au butt (Euler), Tuesday, 17 February 2015 16:24 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

he's wrong that we can't change definitions at will though

droit au butt (Euler), Tuesday, 17 February 2015 16:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I think what actually bugs me about this argument is the way it brushes over what might be the significance of our decision to use an old word in a new circumstance:

In our time, the word “marriage” is now undergoing a reference change. This is happening because of us, not the courts: we are making a social decision to apply an old word to a new institution. And why not? After all, it’s a better word than “schmarriage.”

Is he saying that it's basically arbitrary whether society decides to call the new institution marriage? That seems to deny something about the force that this word has for us. The fact that we continue to want to use the old word might be evidence that we haven't in fact transcended the old institution.

jmm, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 13:57 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah it's not the word, but the concept expressed by that word, that matters. we can choose at any time to point the word "marriage" to a different concept. that's a weighty repointing, no doubt, but nothing more than repointing. the dynamics of such repointing are where the action is.

droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 14:22 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i see that Cambridge has finally published new translations of Hegel, but no Phenomenology yet:

http://www.cambridge.org/US/academic/subjects/philosophy/philosophy-texts/series/cambridge-hegel-translations

I suppose there's no reason i can't start with The Science of Logic anyhow...

ryan, Tuesday, 24 February 2015 19:00 (1 week ago) Permalink

"...The Science of Logic is a very provocative and interesting book, inspiring thinking in directions not thought before."
--George Lăzăroiu, PhD, Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, New York, Analysis and Metaphysics

hmm, yes...quite provocative.

ryan, Tuesday, 24 February 2015 19:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

who now

j., Tuesday, 24 February 2015 19:07 (1 week ago) Permalink

i have never heard of that institute before, but it's funny to think of some think-tank type coming across Hegel and thinking "well, this is pretty provocative and interesting!"

ryan, Tuesday, 24 February 2015 19:13 (1 week ago) Permalink

i dunno if u know ryan, but a draft of pinkard's new translation of the phenomenology is available online - http://terrypinkard.weebly.com/phenomenology-of-spirit-page.html. it is, however, ~problematic~. iirc he seems to try to simplify things to the serious detriment of what's actually being said, e.g. translating begriffe as 'concepts'.

cis-het shitlord (Merdeyeux), Tuesday, 24 February 2015 21:10 (1 week ago) Permalink

friend of mine the other day claimed science of logic "could be successfully rebranded as a guide to software engineering" which i confess i found befuddling

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 24 February 2015 21:15 (1 week ago) Permalink

I did not know, thanks for the link.

that's disappointing about the ~problematicness~ but I hope it will be immaterial to a dilettante such as myself. not sure what the point of a "simplified" Hegel would even be tbh.

ryan, Tuesday, 24 February 2015 21:16 (1 week ago) Permalink

ignorant question but what better could you do than 'concepts'?

j., Tuesday, 24 February 2015 22:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

'concept' would be fine, 'concepts' is very peculiar because it seems completely at odds with the kind of totality and the unified movement hegel is trying to evoke when he uses the singular term. or something like that. i've successfully erased a lot of hegel from my memory since i knew this point well.

cis-het shitlord (Merdeyeux), Wednesday, 25 February 2015 00:38 (1 week ago) Permalink

like, 'concept' is a very difficult term in the phenomenology and seems a lot easier if it's rendered as 'concepts', but that's also wrong and so very very misleading

cis-het shitlord (Merdeyeux), Wednesday, 25 February 2015 00:42 (1 week ago) Permalink


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