Rolling Philosophy

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.

j. otm. i think that's exactly it. anything substantial in the book came from those other sources i mentioned. maybe i've missed that aspect of SC or been taken in by it previously.

i don't know that he's different from a lot of more academic uk academics in that regard, he's just more popular/less proximate to their (style of) debates

critchley is the worst for that. his book of dead philosophers is a similarly good/interesting idea that he doesnt really pull off

oh yeah I also forgot about that weird ny times piece he wrote about his pink shirt.

I did learn from the book that apparently Joyce gave something like a 12 part lecture series on Hamlet but it's been lost. that was something, I bet.

that's a lot of algebra

oh yeah I also forgot about that weird ny times piece he wrote about his pink shirt.

― ryan, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:43 PM

he's in charge of their "the stone" blog or blog section, i think

i've only read infinitely demanding

i am re-reading after finitude and it's p good so far

now thar's a guy who certainly hasn't gotten onto the overproduction bandwagon.

there's the divine inexistence, most of which is unpublished, then after finitude, and a book on mallarme in addition to some articles.

unless i'm wrong and there's something else

that being said, yes, this book does not fall into the category of books described upthread

xp that's right i think. i kinda wonder if he's having trouble finishing things - as i understand it he's been turning down various invitations for conferences, visiting professorships etc for about five years now, on the basis of having dedicated himself to getting the ongoing project done.

New book on Plato for a general audience from Rebecca Goldstein with rave reviews from Hilary Putnam among others.

wary

yeah, the title does not inspire confidence.

Never read anything from her after The Mind-Body Problem. But take Hilary Putnam endorsement seriously.

Just because it's Putnam? Or because he does not give out endorsements lightly?

Both

Just read the synopsis -- sounds interesting. The style in some ways echos Sandel's "What Money Can't Buy", where Sandel toured the book and introduced the subject matter to a lay audience at town hall like meetings across America.

academic luminaries blurb books for the same vain and self-serving reasons that everyone else does, i don't see why putnam should be any different

sometimes you go back to those after finishing the book and get suspicious that the blurber may not have read it!