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
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
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
― 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
― 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
― 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
― 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
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'?
― 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
― AESTHOLE (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:39 (six years ago) Permalink
― max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:39 (six years ago) Permalink
― INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:40 (six years 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 (one month 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 (one month 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 (one month 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 (one month 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 (one month 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 (one month 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 month ago) Permalink
almost done with Gauchet so I ordered Taylor's "A Secular Age." very excited to finally read it.
I've come across a few other books that look intriguing. Karl Jasper's "The Origin and Goal of History," for one, and Gregg Lambert's "Return Statements" (a new book) for another. but I'm most curious about Alain Badiou's "Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism." I'm not well versed in Badiou, and I don't really know what to make of him. Has anyone read this book?
― ryan, Saturday, 21 January 2017 18:59 (one month ago) Permalink
A Secular Age has the breadth and depth that I expected, but I didn't expect that it would be as relevant for my own concerns as it is. and yeah I think i've discovered about a half dozen other books through it. I think the way Talyor uses Victor Turner's "The Ritual Process" is especially cool and interesting and something that is now bouncing around obsessively in my own mind.
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2017 15:59 (three weeks ago) Permalink
Has anybody checked out any of the Squashed Philosophers summaries? The idea looks good, I'm wondering about the execution.
― International House of Hot Takes (kingfish), Friday, 3 February 2017 18:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink
Oh, neat, an Austin lecture. Strange that it took so long to surface.
― jmm, Tuesday, 7 February 2017 15:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink
strange that it took so long for any to surface, or this one in particular?
― Mordy, Tuesday, 7 February 2017 15:18 (two weeks ago) Permalink
This one in particular, I guess. It just got uploaded to Youtube yesterday. Given that a recording of an Austin lecture existed, I was curious where it had been sitting all these years. But looking around, it appears that a tape of the recording has been in the British Library for a long time. http://allbutthedissertation.blogspot.ca/2005/11/listening-to-jl-austins-1959.html
― jmm, Tuesday, 7 February 2017 15:27 (two weeks ago) Permalink
ryan I'm glad A Secular Age is interesting you! the book is kind of a mess, too much repetition, but it's so big that some readers probably need that. for me Part V, and in particular the two Dilemmas chapters, are the richest parts, as in 10 years later I'm still trying to follow them through. it'll probably take 30 more years to even begin doing that.
― droit au butt (Euler), Tuesday, 7 February 2017 15:31 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Badiou's book on St Paul is a bit odd, but interesting and provocative. It was the first thing of his I'd read a while ago and I found it to be a good introduction to his system (for lack of a better word), or at least I found the story of Paul allows him to clearly and attractively illustrate it through the historical account of Paul.
That said, he does submit it to the machinery of his philosophical method and, in doing so, kind of recasts Marx/Lenin into the Jesus/Paul relationship which, yeah, well there are some issues there. I guess it can be productively placed within the line of misprision/deliberate mis- or re-interpretation that runs through so much of 20th century French philosophy/theory.
I still do want to get around to A Secular Age sometime...
― Federico Boswarlos, Tuesday, 7 February 2017 17:16 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Took a break from "A Secular Age" (finished part 1) to read Peter Berger's "The Sacred Canopy." I liked it quite a bit--especially the chapters on alienation and legitimation--in that way you appreciate a book that helps you find tune your disagreements with it. Might have to read his new-ish book on religious pluralism.
Has anyone read Sloterdijk's "In the Shadow of Mount Sinai"?
― ryan, Saturday, 18 February 2017 17:32 (one week ago) Permalink