Rolling Philosophy

Merdeyeuz this was posted in the "quiddities" ny times thread but it is relevant to your interests:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/opinion/sunday/the-trauma-of-the-pink-shirt.html?_r=0

aka english lit philosophy

haha yeah and even worse is that my true interests are really adjacent to both and thus don't really have a secure departmental home :-/

ugh curse my neverending typos: Merdeyeux

still lollisimo that you'd expect people in anarchist studies to play by the rules

well the idea WAS that these were outsiders looking to grab some post-anarchist cred by swooping in, which sure enough they ended up succeeding at (assuming critchley et al aren't besmirched, since leiter's talking it up and critchley has that nyt job, it might get some play, then again, leiter has a well-published butthurt w/critchley).

chin up, ryan. it could be worse. you could be in a trauma studies department

j are you in the game?

anyone know if someone into anarchist studies wrote about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management not ""the art of getting things done through people"" but something more like "people's art of getting things done together " . deturning their concepts to humanize maximal effectiveness , stuff like that. what if nietzsche was in the audience of a Customer relationship management seminar?

i am a victim of the game, suckered by the game, laid low by the game, clinging desperately to the margins of the game

hate the game + the players

done and DONE

its too bad to hear critchleys a dick, i always liked him even if i never really read any of his real philosophy

i want this

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674724992/

damn, disappointed to hear about critchley. like him a lot.

http://afterxnature.blogspot.ca/2013/04/iain-hamilton-grant-interview-with.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/books/daniel-dennett-author-of-intuition-pumps-and-other-tools-for-thinking.html

is dennett even really a philosopher? is that just the name he gets because nobody else wants to claim him?

Hey kantians how do i know the other party wants what i'd want cheers

now we can know what it's like to enjoy xkcd, and feel bad about ourselves:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/37395600.jpg

(more - http://memegenerator.net/Scumbag-Analytic-Philosopher)

Hey kantians how do i know the other party wants what i'd want cheered

oh that's a good one. someone will be along with a better answer but I imagine for Kant it may have to do with the universality of transcendental subjectivity? (hence why you don't have ethical duties towards, say, animals.) so there's a baseline presumption of an essential commonality? maybe.

Dennett is def a philosopher

xp ya that's about it I think. I would have to revisit my first and third critiques to remember the details but it comes down to the three faculties of the mind - understanding, imagination, and sensibility - being reciprocally bound up with each other, meaning that our rational understanding of things is constructed from a perceived world as much as the world as we perceive it is constructed by our categorial understanding of it (with imagination doing the complicated work in the middle), and as there's only one world (or is there???) the basic characteristics of human understanding always emerge in the same way and so there's always a foundation for communication.

Dennett is def a philosopher

― Euler, Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:44 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

man, philosophy sucks.

answer the fucking question wordeyeux gah 'philosophers'

didn't bother to read the whole q tbh, that's how we roll.

universality of transcendental subjectivity?

?!

like, you can assume they want what you'd want because their experience of the world is built from the same parameters as yours.

and ppl take this guy srsly

so, given that YOUR experience of the world is necessarily structured by certain universal faculties then that's really the ONLY place from which you could presume an ethics. or something like that. that's sorta the broad Kantian move.

we only keep talking about him so we can amuse ourselves by pronouncing his name properly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWNMtcVxa10

there's a great sidney morgenbesser story about that

the best way that I think we can be 'Kantians' today (and maybe this is just my idiotic reading, I don't know the literature that well) is to think of the passage from Kant through to post-Kantian continental philosophy as one in which the dubious realm of freedom, which has to be assumed for our sureness about the universality of our faculties to hold, is replaced by matter, whatever we take matter to mean. As such the subject is a much more rickety and semi-biological construct but is still something we can think about starting from the genetic terms Kant sets up for thought, neither falling back on any kind of linguistic relativism nor religious dogmatism. I suppose this means a move from transcendental idealism to transcendental materialism, but then I'm just being fashionable.

*and this isn't a huge leap from Kant since the second half of the third critique basically signals the invention of biology as a science

xp do share!

Morgenbesser was leaving a subway station in New York City and put his pipe in his mouth as he was ascending the steps. A police officer told him that there was no smoking on the subway. Morgenbesser pointed out that he was leaving the subway, not entering it, and hadn't lit up yet anyway. The cop repeated his injunction. Morgenbesser repeated his observation. After a few such exchanges, the cop saw he was beaten and fell back on the oldest standby of enfeebled authority: "If I let you do it, I'd have to let everyone do it." To this the old professor replied, "Who do you think you are, Kant?" The word "Kant" was mistaken for a vulgar epithet and Morgenbesser had to explain the situation at the police station.

yeah i think both of those could be shortened tbh lads

i just copy/pasted it from this thread: Sidney Morgenbesser Has Done Some Funny Shit

ha, nice. i'm sure there's a good 'those fokkers were flying messerschmitts format joke to be made out of 'kant' too.

xp i'm only blethering hard 2 annoy u. i suppose short story is - kant thinks we can have universal communication cuz he's ultimately religious, nietzsche (actually hegel did it already, and others before him) points out that god is dead, et voila 100+ years of philosophy trying to work out how communication works.

i think someone ought to communicate to them that that might be fun but there're scientists on the case

Hey kantians how do i know the other party wants what i'd want cheers

― the norman wisdom of gaffers (darraghmac)

you don't.

Destroy all ethics tbh

Who would you push onto the trolley track, the Kantian or the utilitarian?

was gonna

can I do both?

Save the utilitarian and s/he probably wouldn't testify against you.

the only acceptable ethics is to cease existence

Laruelle sounds fun and I look forward to reading that magnum opus this summer. It almost sound similar to the things I find most interesting in systems theory, peirce, et al.

― ryan, Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:53 PM (2 months ago)

out now btw http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/principles-of-non-philosophy-9781441177568/

nice! looking forward to reading it.

the only acceptable ethics is to cease existence

i'm committed to that solution, but you'll have to be patient.

nice! looking forward to reading it.

― ryan, Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:05 PM

let us know how that goes.

who wants to run a tutorial teaching interested ilxors how to speak philosophy?

im sure i'll be popping up to demand clarifications from Merdeyeux. unfortunately looks like i have to wait until july though.

also, unless i'm missing something . . . from amazon:

Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic; 1 edition (July 4, 2013)

and the link merdeyeux posted:

Published: 07-04-2013