Rolling Philosophy

huh, that is a change from the day or two ago when i was looking at 'critique'

well maybe you were on this page: http://www.versobooks.com/books/1623-the-critique-of-everyday-life

oh, that's why—i want volume 3

note the "may 2014"

this is insane though. whatever they were hoping to accomplish with this, it's gonna probably work and get me to sign up for their store, which i wouldn't have done otherwise.

if i had more money now i'd drop a lot on this

xp or, when it is issued, a ~900 page CRITIQUE OF ALL YALL MOTHERFUCKERS W/ BLACK AND WHITE TEXT-ONLY COVER ART

for a hardcover! http://www.versobooks.com/books/437-fanaticism

wanna order...three books from verso, what are your favourites everyone? give me a wide spread.

minima moralia

signs mistaken for wonders

and, i dunno, one i'd like to read, say rancière, hatred of democracy

i didnt think id want anything but after looking at the website Élisabeth Roudinesco's book on Lacan looks good!

zizek - sublime object of ideology
zizek - living in the end times
various artists - aesthetics and politics
hal foster - the art-architecture complex
anabel hernández - narcoland

Contingency, Hegemony, Universality remains a favorite. and anything by Ernesto Laclau in general. wish i knew more, but Verso tends to cover things outside my competence. which is why i should read more of their stuff.

i can't find any info on "signs mistaken for wonders"--what is it? good title.

nevermind! it's moretti.

shit it's not in stock.

Jameson's Late Marxism is really good, though i read it probably a decade ago.

minima moralia out of stock :(

you should order it used anyway, to get the bad-motherfucker black cover instead of the newer grosser one

o wait i see the new sexxxier series has a kewl black hardcover now

i'll wait for a library copy.

went hardcore suck-up and bought a bunch of stuff by ppl in my department.

know Brouwer's math pretty well, had no idea about that element of his philosophy! saw some very out-there heyting quotes the other day that inspired me to want to learn more. sort of painfully naive claims about mathematics being that which is 'immediately evident' and thus not needing a philosophy. maybe brouwer's intuitionism really went that deep too.

for me it's just striking how deep into some kinda pro-christian (anti-world) schopenhauerian dutch nationalist melange it is, apparently w/o much buildup. that level of philosophical uh embeddedness is not exactly surprising in mathematicians/scientists of that age or earlier, i just wonder at its specific sources (since it is evidently more or less a repetition of dogmas common to the schopenhauerian tradition).

schopenhauer has a weird philosophy of mathematics that stems somehow from his ways of claiming to correct/simplify kant (esp. in the direction of affirming unusual doctrines about perception which i think from an orthodox kantian perspective just sound uncritical?).

Brouwer's sources include Fichte and Schelling and Goethe ; he's drawing on German idealism

well yuh, i meant something a bit more recent

can't post it now but there are p close textual similarities b/w Fichte et al & Brouwer's text, kinda striking

talk was excellent - thought there were some pretty clear connections between his mathematical work and his solipsism, or at least his idealism

this discussion sent me on a bit of reading. lots of texts seem to suggest schopenhauer was directly key, and more directly his teacher Gerrit Mannoury. want to read more about him and the signific circle now, but not sure how much if anything is available in english.

also didn't read that it was originally brouwer that coined the term (apparently) 'metamathematics'! i had always thought that it originated more as a _concession_ to those who claimed certain stuff wasn't 'real math' than as a point of pride and distinction...

re. Brouwer's influences, this is a secondary lit article I'd recommend, in this volume

started reading more on mannoury and wow that guy is interesting. anyone know more about him and the significs group? dude was talking about speech acts 30 years before austin. the connection with Adriaan de Groot and cognitive psych is also really interesting.

cool search feature

http://www.versobooks.com/search?q=zizek&scope=Authors

was browsing amazon and came across a new zizek, "absolute recoil: towards a new foundation of dialectical materialism." On verso in October.

www.buenosairesherald.com/article/156933/ernesto-laclau-passes-away-at-78

i bought hegemony & socialist strategy when i was in college, but i don't know how much of it i read, if any

zizek's also putting out:

http://www.versobooks.com/books/1688-comradely-greetings
http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745663746
http://www.amazon.com/Event-Slavoj-Zizek/dp/1612194117/

the last of those is already available here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Event-Philosophy-Transit-Slavoj-Zizek/dp/1846146267/

I've heard the 'Event' book is quite good, a rare recent example of Zizek not on autopilot.

that's actually a little surprising. i did a reading group on violence in 2009 and i don't remember how much of it was original stuff but i doubt it was all of it

ended up buying nothing from the verso sale

i've been meaning to reread that

which? violence?

i didn't buy it from the sale, but the website alerted me to the existence of s. critchley's (and co-author's) "The Hamlet Doctrine," so i impulsively got it on my kindle. it was pretty fucking stupid though. a nice tour through some famous takes on an intrinsically fascinating topic (benjamin, freud, lacan, nietzsche, joyce) but it's really indulgent and doesn't come to anything new. a book that focused on Hamlet as a topic for philosophy would be pretty cool though, and this book approaches that but doesn't really come close to what I wanted.

which is a shame, because i thought "faith of the faithless" was pretty good and worth engaging with. getting tired of so many stupid cash-ins from these guys (uh, philosophers). i swear half of the new books i read come across as a collection of semi-edited notes.

it probably depends on who you're reading. ray brassier has only put out one book and is working on a new one but it's been seven years.

well brassier, from the little ive read of him and some interviews, certainly strikes me as more serious than many. glad he's taking his time.

if i ever get to write another one (unlikely) i'd like to take 10 years or so on it. people who publish a lot of frivolous garbage should be frowned upon.

I've been wanting to check out that Critchley book. I've been dipping into Cavell's Disowning Knowledge lately, his essays on skepticism in Shakespeare. His essay on Hamlet is so short and sketchy that it doesn't really establish itself as not-crazy. Was wondering if Critchley took it up at all.

There are a few other books out there on skepticism in Shakespeare that might do better. Millicent Bell's Shakespeare's Tragic Skepticism looks good.

they don't bring up cavell except once. cavell on shakespeare >>>> the critchley book.

will check out those others though!

honestly i rarely find anything by a uk 'continental' type, esp. the pop variety, to be very substantial. their weird mix of matter-of-factness and across-the-board, nonspecific endorsement of french/german ideas, terminology, etc. makes them come across as unserious. posturing.

there's definitely a thing with philosophers getting some kind of non-academic popularity and then having the pressure / feeling the desire to just churn out new book after new book at the expense of actually doing serious work and having any new thoughts, the zizeks and rancières of the world just repeating themselves into eternity. tbh i don't think there are too many people who have a good level of popularity and aren't doing that. critchley's a slightly different model in that every couple of years he decides to write about something completely different and never really gets beyond his shallow beginnings before finding a new fancy.

good post

imagine of zizek had a handful of books instead? each of which was focused, etc.