Rolling Philosophy

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

lol jinx

fourth of july party at my house, where we'll sit in a circle and reading this aloud from front to back

from that link, Caputo's blurb:

The project is formidable: nothing less than “non-philosophy”—as in “non-Euclidean”— which is not the simple lack or absence of philosophy, nor what philosophy has marginalized, nor anti-philosophy, nor meta-philosophy, nor the end or death of philosophy. What’s left? A withdrawal or suspension of the authority of philosophy in order to undertake a new practice of philosophy more “rigorous” than philosophy, to think not “about” but “from out of” and “according to” the non-objectifiable experience of what Laruelle calls radical immanence, the One, or the Real. It sounds at times not unlike Heidegger’s idea that there is something to be thought in metaphysics to which metaphysics has no access.

yesssssss....bring it!

not Heidegger's idea, Kant's idea

ok i'm in. i'll read along.

true, Euler!

the prof who ran a Being and Time seminar i took oh so long ago always liked to say Heidegger got way more from Kant that is usually acknowledged.

"This deduction, which appeared impossible to my sagacious predecessor, and which had never even occurred to anyone but him, even though everyone confidently made use of these concepts without asking what their objective validity is based on – this deduction, I say, was the most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics; and the worst thing about it is that metaphysics, as much of it as might be present anywhere at all, could not give me even the slightest help with this, because this very deduction must first settle the possibility of a metaphysics."

can i pretend to have this already and cite it in the article im working on? ah, scholarly ethics.

How can you use language like 'the One' and then call it non-philosophy?

http://videomusicaonline.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/yes-going-for-the-one.jpg

not really philosophical

unfortunately looks like i have to wait until july though

huh, I hadn't noticed that Bloomsbury US seem to be shuffling their feet on the release for some reason, the official UK release is in two days but places (inc. amazon.co.uk) are shipping it already.

Despite having seen him talk a bunch of times and having read this and that by and on him I can't claim to have anything but a vague grasp on Laruelle's general thing. (Really I'm just shilling for the friends who do have a grasp.) But I do have a pdf of the book so ONE STEP AHEAD SUCKERS.

my guess at the term "non-philosophy" that he's trying to get at an essential non-identity of thought, and not in the hegelian way of the "identity of identity and non-identity" but more like, uh, "the non-identity of identity and non-identity." a big contemporary challenge (imo) is find frameworks for discussing difference, non-identity, distinctions without the automatic production of a third and synthesizing term--or perhaps a third term which takes the "side," so to speak, of difference against unity.

there's some philosophy speakin' for ya

ha. yeah, one of the things i've seen him trying to deal with recently is how different paradigms of thought can reconfigure the question of how that kind of synthesis between disciplines etc operates. i can't really remember the details, safe to say it was complicated. i may have a copy of the paper somewhere, i'll see if i can find it.

i do think it's a legitimate criticism that while he's trying to set up a flattening of the relation between realms of thought he himself remains largely with the vocabulary and performative gestures of philosophy. but i think also part of that stance is a genuine modesty on his part, as someone who's trained in philosophy and less so the other modes of thought he's engaged with, so he's really hoping that other people in those fields can take what he's doing and develop it elsewhere.

I don't think this is the paper I was thinking of but iirc it's an interesting one anyway: http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/documents/seminar_supplements/LaruelleInLondonMayConference.pdf

thanks! skimming through that...this is interesting (formatting may be wonky in what follows):

We are not saying that the contemporary is “the” “future” metaphysics or philosophy, as Kant and Feuerbach did,
neither is it anamnesic like the moderns would have it. We will be happy to say, for now and in a
negative way, that its futurality is not of course ontic or ontological, in any way a being or thing,
ecstasy or horizon, it has the nature of a directed throw, vectorial; it is, if we can put it this way,
an ascendant or invented clinamen that pushes into the individual subject instead of finding its
origin and basis there.

had to look up "clinamen": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinamen

clinamen is the best concept! i remember now how very very long i took to work out what he was getting at with all of the talk of vectors there. and now i've forgotten. :''(

http://objectsobjectsobjects.com

finished that Laruelle essay. Had some trouble with a few of his key terms, and I dunno if it's the translation but the syntax is very weird at times.

surprised and pleased to see that "hylomorphism" plays such a big role. there definitely a lot in here I find suggestive and agreeable. gotta get a handle on what he means by the "generic subject" though, or even just what he means by the "generic"!

ya I think during the talk he may have had an aside (he has lots and lots of asides when he speaks) where he went into how 'generic' should be taken, but I forget now. The translation was done quickly so there may be a little sloppiness but I'm sure most of the weird syntax is Laruelle's own, his style is very odd and ever-changing (including e.g. mimicking the writing styles of the people he's writing about, which is why his Badiou book is called Anti-Badiou despite Laruelle's own philosophy always aiming to be very positive and inclusive). Apparently he's v v v hard to translate for that reason (among others), trying to render him in a way that's somehow true to the original text without being horrendous in English.

xp I find that OOO-via-Latour thing of long lists of random shit so annoying, WELL DONE YOU ARE AWARE THAT DIFFERENT THINGS EXIST you smug nerd you.

http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/object-lessons-series/

good price on this http://www.amazon.com/Being-No-One-Self-Model-Subjectivity/dp/B008SM2VO0/