Rolling Philosophy

i've been pleasantly surprised to discover how much radical philosophy is available in formats that need to be converted

oh wait it's probably ppl just downloading the ebooks from amazon &c and then converting them isn't it

still all

-of hegel and kant and spinoza is on gutenberg and that never got me to read it

i think most of it is still scans, disproportionate anger can be redirected from publishers who want to stay in business to the idiots who don't ocr their pdfs for easy searchability.

actually i think a lot of it is now pre-publication pdfs straight from somewhere in the editing/publication process.

yeah i've seen both in the last few months

while trial downloading books to evaluate the current state of book piracy, obviously

"The Pete Townshend Defence"

talkin bout deterritorialization

The most interesting part of the Cavell thing is a discussion starting at 1:16:00 of "tact, morality, and the everyday" - interesting because I don't think "tact" elsewhere arises as a topic in Cavell's books, though it could easily have been made to.

the new Zizek has turned up 'cheap' 'somewhere' already, if you can be bothered figuring out how to convert from a .mobi file...

that's true of cours, but i want the BOOK.

I only got halfway thru the Cavell thing but it was enjoyable, will finish later--some of the questions reminded me why i tend to avoid those kinds of things, however.

found this for freebies online. heard good things about it:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Radical-Enlightenment-Solomon-Maimon/dp/0804751366

Not really sure what other thread to mention this in, so--I'm reading "The Coming Insurrection," it's alternately constructively provocative and bullshit.

oh man, i remember reading that. it's kinda ridiculous

anyone UK-based should take advantage of an Amazon error and pre-order the collection 'Laruelle and Non-philosophy' for just £4.99: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Laruelle-Non-philosophy-Critical-Connections-Mullarkey/dp/0748645349/ref=zg_bs_276315_1 currently at #83 in the amazon.co.uk sales ranks, we can get it to #1!

lol

pretty sure there are legal get outs maybe amazon will be a mensch and 'low it

nonlaruelle

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OD10wcOkTpU/Tgna0f9iSRI/AAAAAAAAAgM/8lxd_wHfsIk/s1600/05001Ag.jpg

I am sorry if anyone is annoyed if i continue to bring up stuff that isn't strictly "philosophy" but has anyone read any Anthony Wilden? I've just started "System and Structure" (1980 edition) and find it pretty amazing in its interweaving of Bateson, Lacan, and Marx.

here's his wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Wilden

http://80000hours.org/blog/46-how-to-be-a-high-impact-philosopher

hmmm this is why ethics isn't very interesting to me

Studies show professors of ethics don't behave any more ethically than other people.
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/EthSelfRep.htm

I think it would be great if philosophy were more practical, but aside from kicking aside any religious figure ever trying to talk about ethics on current affairs shows or ethics committees (whatever they are) i don't know how it would be possible.

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2012/07/syllabus-idea-making-difference.html

Haha, who would think that profs of ethics *would* behave any more ethically? I mean, maybe I'm tainted from being taught ethics by an amoralist, but man, the point is to question ethics, not to suddenly turn into a good Samaritan. Or maybe I'm just far too interested in meta-ethics.

Also, I'm not sure that that study can possibly be sound. I mean, how do you measure the morality of charitable donation? There are very compelling reasons to believe that (at least a large proportion of) charity is morally reprehensible in itself.

Real amoralists are probably few and far between though, I think the mainstream position even among moral skeptics or error theorists (including me) is that we still can & should treat each other decently.

xp reprehensible's a pretty strong word! study's just a bit of fun let's be cool, anyway.

I think the mainstream position even among moral skeptics or error theorists (including me) is that we still can & should treat each other decently

i think even being vague&superficial to the point of meaninglessness like this is more likely to spark debate than build consensus

i think you mistook my casual remark for a detailed moral argument.

it was a class on analytic ethics that comprehensively turned me to the dark side of continental mentalism. Dire debate after dire debate on consequentialism vs deontology wrt particular situations felt like a huge exercise in skirting the actual question of ethics, so in my dissatisfaction with the entire field I instead turned to the super concrete world of um thinking about the excessive infinite ethical relation to the other and such.

the point is to question ethics

yeah, this i think and from that link imo the most interesting questions are

How should we act under empirical uncertainty – in particular should we follow expected utility even when it comes to tiny probabilities of huge amounts of value? (Relevant to extinction risk)

All other things being equal, should we prioritise the prevention of wrongs over the alleviation of naturally caused suffering? (Relevant to abortion, animal suffering)

Given that we aren’t ever going to be certain in answers to the above questions, how should we take into account uncertainty about these moral issues in our decision-making? (Relevant to: global poverty, abortion, animal suffering, extinction risk)

first we must start with the face to face encounter

There are very compelling reasons to believe that (at least a large proportion of) charity is morally reprehensible in itself.

reasons such as

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/08/no-theory-x-in-shining-armour.html

well, that sounds compelling to me

If I have to accept something, I accept the repugnant conclusion.

How about accepting that all theories are inadequate? I recently discovered Bernard Williams who "believes that ethical thinking cannot be systematised without intolerable distortions and losses, because to systematise is, inevitably, to streamline our ethical thinking in a reductionist style"

Suppose for example that I, an officer of a wrecked ship, take the hard decision to actively prevent further castaways from climbing onto my already dangerously overcrowded lifeboat. Afterwards, I am tormented when I remember how I smashed the spare oar repeatedly over the heads and hands of desperate, drowning people. Yet what I did certainly brought it about that as many people as possible were saved from the shipwreck, so that a utilitarian would say that I brought about the best consequences, and anyone might agree that I found the only practicable way of avoiding a dramatically worse outcome. Moreover, as a Kantian might point out, there was nothing unfair or malicious about what I did in using the minimum force necessary to repel further boarders: my aim, since I could not save every life, was to save those who by no choice of mine just happened to be in the lifeboat already; this was an aim that I properly had, given my role as a ship's officer; and it was absolutely not my intention to kill or (perhaps) even to injure anyone.

So what will typical advocates of the morality system have to say to me afterwards about my dreadful sense of regret? If they are—as perhaps they had better not be—totally consistent and totally honest with me, what they will have to say is simply “Don't give it a second thought; you did what morality required, so your deep anguish about it is irrational.” And that, surely, cannot be the right thing for anyone to say. My anguish is not irrational but entirely justified. Moreover, it is justified simply as an ex post facto response to what I did: it does not for instance depend for its propriety upon the suggestion—a characteristic one, for many modern moral theorists—that there is prospective value for the future in my being the kind of person who will have such reactions.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/williams-bernard/

lol utilitarians

BUZZZZZZZ snark penalty, deducted 0.5 utils.

i'm going to allow it

otm

I like the snappy way I put it, in an argument with a utilitarianbro some time ago: "the ethical field does not permit of closure"

god, utilitarian bros

1) does anyone know if there's a "preferred" version of Hegel's Phenomenology? the top results on amazon all seem pretty old. im surprised there's not some new-ish edition with a sexy cover that will make me look cool when i read it.

2) i have been craving a big and ambitious intellectual history, confined mostly to western philosophy. any favorites? the bigger and more general the better. wacky overreaching thesis = still better.

Uh, so, what you're looking for... is a history of Western Philosophy?

if it's something a little more than a "survey" then sure!

(don't want to be too specific, just curious what people might suggest...)

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/author/default.asp?aid=851

Blumenberg! yes, perfect.

So, um, something like this?

i wish I could find Blumenberg's "Legitimacy of the Modern World" for a decent price. been looking forever.

and yes emil.y i think Russell's book definitely fits (though unfortunately I've read it--maybe wouldn't hurt to read it again...).

not read this but it was a big deal when it came out

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pDxGPgAACAAJ&dq=from+dawn+to+decadence&source=bl&ots=Xq_5KFH-eJ&sig=MlbASFaqU2yDVqUrY8eeoxK1xPM&hl=en