Rolling Philosophy

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1376 of them)

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

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 21:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

navihchkan (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 21:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

still all

navihchkan (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 21:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

navihchkan (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 21:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

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.

Merdeyeux, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 21:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

j., Wednesday, 16 May 2012 23:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah i've seen both in the last few months

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

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 23:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

"The Pete Townshend Defence"

Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 23:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

talkin bout deterritorialization

navihchkan (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 23:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

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.

Träumerei, Thursday, 17 May 2012 01:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

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.

ryan, Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

found this for freebies online. heard good things about it:

Mordy, Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

Mordy, Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

anyone UK-based should take advantage of an Amazon error and pre-order the collection 'Laruelle and Non-philosophy' for just £4.99: currently at #83 in the sales ranks, we can get it to #1!

Merdeyeux, Saturday, 19 May 2012 18:53 (2 years ago) Permalink


Serov devochka s persikami (nakhchivan), Saturday, 19 May 2012 18:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

Serov devochka s persikami (nakhchivan), Saturday, 19 May 2012 18:56 (2 years ago) Permalink


Mordy, Saturday, 19 May 2012 23:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

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:

ryan, Saturday, 30 June 2012 23:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

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

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 July 2012 07:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

Studies show professors of ethics don't behave any more ethically than other people.

ledge, Thursday, 19 July 2012 08:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

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.

ledge, Thursday, 19 July 2012 08:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

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.

emil.y, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

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.

emil.y, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

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.

ledge, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

ogmor, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

ledge, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

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.

Merdeyeux, Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

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)

Mordy, Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

first we must start with the face to face encounter

max, Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

reasons such as

goole, Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

well, that sounds compelling to me

Mordy, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 03:33 (1 year ago) Permalink

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.

kmfdotm (ledge), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 08:43 (1 year ago) Permalink

lol utilitarians

emil.y, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 11:24 (1 year ago) Permalink

BUZZZZZZZ snark penalty, deducted 0.5 utils.

(500) Days of Sodom (Merdeyeux), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 12:28 (1 year ago) Permalink

i'm going to allow it

Shrimpface Killah (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 16:55 (1 year ago) Permalink


turtwig greenturty (Matt P), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 17:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

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"

fire-rated aeroplane components I have melted (bernard snowy), Thursday, 9 August 2012 11:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

god, utilitarian bros

j., Thursday, 9 August 2012 23:37 (1 year ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

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.

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink

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

emil.y, Friday, 7 September 2012 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink

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

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 20:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

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

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink

j., Friday, 7 September 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink

Blumenberg! yes, perfect.

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

So, um, something like this?

emil.y, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:09 (1 year ago) Permalink

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...).

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

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

goole, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink

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