Rolling Philosophy

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1991 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

Emerson! nice. somehow in my dissertation research i managed to miss Buell's stuff. how is it?

ryan, Friday, 27 May 2016 17:11 (5 days ago) Permalink

i thought it was kind of pop/light, although buell is tops so i wouldn't exclude the possibility that there was more in it than i realized at the time i read it

actually i've been reading some of the same cavell book jmm is probably reading, for a project. his work in that period can get pretty exasperating. death by over-refinement.

i've been reading kierkegaard, who i don't think i like as much as i ever thought i would. it seems i fundamentally distrust him.

j., Friday, 27 May 2016 17:22 (5 days ago) Permalink

Yeah, the Buell is quite easygoing and factual, like an intro essay. It was published by Harvard for the bicentennial of Emerson's birth, so there's a prestige aspect to it too. I'm enjoying it fine. There's lots I don't know about Emerson.

It's sort of the opposite of Cavell, who I always enjoy but who pushes the text in ways that can feel strained. He doesn't want to say anything mundane.

jmm, Friday, 27 May 2016 17:57 (5 days ago) Permalink

a good middle ground might be Sharon Cameron. i believe her two major Emerson essays are collected in "Impersonality" (also a very good book in general).

ryan, Friday, 27 May 2016 17:58 (5 days ago) Permalink

yes. i am very impressed by her book on thoreau's journal.

j., Friday, 27 May 2016 18:23 (5 days ago) Permalink

if you've got some time, jmm, you might find richardson's emerson bio just as useful - it's extremely readable for its length.

j., Friday, 27 May 2016 18:24 (5 days ago) Permalink

Reading a bunch of stuff, but I just bought a wee GE Moore book on ethics.

inside, skeletons are always inside, that's obvious. (dowd), Friday, 27 May 2016 18:25 (5 days ago) Permalink

Right, the Richardson is the one Buell mentions as consisting of a hundred vignettes. That sounds cool.

Emerson is making me want to explore Nietzsche again. I've barely read him since undergrad. Cavell's essay on the two of them is interesting, and I liked this lecture.

jmm, Saturday, 28 May 2016 14:22 (4 days ago) Permalink

to me the E-N connection is a weird one, there's evidence that it is there, and reading the middle-period works you get the feeling it is somewhere, but then you can hardly ever find a place where it could clearly be asserted to exist

j., Saturday, 28 May 2016 18:56 (4 days ago) Permalink

Mikics (the guy in that video) wrote a whole book on the Emerson/Nietzsche connection. i read it early on in my graduate career (he came to give a talk across town at my school) so i can't remember much about it. I happened to take both a seminar in Nietzsche and one in Emerson in the same semester--so it was all very synchronous, though I agree that the connections feels like its there it's hard to put your finger on it. i think they both address, in their idiosyncratic ways, something like a response to the loss of Truth in terms of affirming it.

ryan, Saturday, 28 May 2016 19:11 (4 days ago) Permalink

affirming the loss that is. but i'd never claim that for Emerson something like Meaning is threatened (if anything Meaning is overdetermined) while the absence of Meaning feels central to Nietzsche?

ryan, Saturday, 28 May 2016 19:13 (4 days ago) Permalink

kind of a hairline distinction between going on here between Truth and Meaning, so excuse my rambling!

ryan, Saturday, 28 May 2016 19:13 (4 days ago) Permalink

here's the Mikics book, which from the title doesn't necessarily take the approach i would find most interesting about either thinker:
http://www.amazon.com/Romance-Individualism-Emerson-Nietzsche-Continental/dp/0821414968/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1464462902&sr=8-5&keywords=david+mikics

ryan, Saturday, 28 May 2016 19:15 (4 days ago) Permalink

I can see why Nietzsche would love Emerson as a writer, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Nietzsche was self-consciously styling himself after Emerson to some degree. I see them both wanting their writing to be energetic and cheerful as well as ironic and mercurial. And they both emphasize self-assertion as a response to some kind of loss or lack (meaning, hope, community, happiness). I don’t like the term ‘individualism’ so much, at least as applied to Emerson. Self-reliance is a leap of faith in which you allow yourself the hope of being better than you are, which is also the hope for a better and more just world for everyone. I don’t think it’s a doctrine of selfishness. I do have a certain image of Nietzsche in which he’s saying something similar in his own way, but that may be too soft and democratic a reading of Nietzsche.

jmm, Saturday, 28 May 2016 21:56 (4 days ago) Permalink

anyone know anything about Raymond Ruyer?

http://www.amazon.com/Neofinalism-Posthumanities-Raymond-Ruyer/dp/081669205X

ryan, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 22:34 (Yesterday) Permalink

not really but i recall this article on him being fairly interesting - http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia15/parrhesia15_grosz.pdf

lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living (Merdeyeux), Tuesday, 31 May 2016 22:46 (Yesterday) Permalink


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