the dialectic requires markers to be down for it
― The term “hipster racism” from Carmen Van Kerckhove at Racialicious (nakhchivan), Thursday, 26 January 2012 21:47 (twelve years ago) link
kinda looks like "finally, zizek's hegel book" really means "finally, zizek's most thorough unfolding of his own thought". but yeah could be interesting. i understand that he had an editor for the first time in many years for this one, so it shouldn't be stricken with the chronic laziness that's characterised a lot of his recent work.
― Merdeyeux, Thursday, 26 January 2012 22:24 (twelve years ago) link
incidentally, i'm in the middle of marking a big pile of essays on hegel right now. it's kinda fun.
― Merdeyeux, Thursday, 26 January 2012 22:25 (twelve years ago) link
I'd be up for both a new-Zizek or Hegel ilx reading group, hell yeah!
― future debts collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 26 January 2012 22:31 (twelve years ago) link
what if the group took place in an infinite loop? :P
― Mordy, Thursday, 26 January 2012 22:41 (twelve years ago) link
Haha, fair play, I'd be down with that too
― future debts collector (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 26 January 2012 22:46 (twelve years ago) link
http://onwhatmatters.tumblr.com/
― markers, Saturday, 28 January 2012 00:48 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Coordination-Interpretation-Daniel-Klein/dp/019979412X
― Mordy, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 00:50 (twelve years ago) link
43 bucks
― markers, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 00:51 (twelve years ago) link
i kno :(
― Mordy, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 00:52 (twelve years ago) link
if i wanted to read all of nietzsche's books in translation, in order, which translator should i go with? are kaufmann's translations the ones to read?
― markers, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 02:52 (twelve years ago) link
from what i remember kaufmann and hollingdale are the two big ones. dont know if one is preferred. kaufman has a reputation for being a little looser, but more readable.
the one exception is that i read this genealogy of morality (translated by Maudemarie Clark and Alan J. Swensen) and thought it was great. but i dont think they translated any other nietzsche.
http://www.amazon.com/Genealogy-Morality-Friedrich-Wilhelm-Nietzsche/dp/0872202836
― max, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:01 (twelve years ago) link
im reading strikethrough banging my head against strikethrough sturggling w/kant atm
― the parable is the parable of the (Lamp), Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:05 (twelve years ago) link
I don't think there is any other way to read kant tbh
― dayo, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:07 (twelve years ago) link
i think the general consensus is that Kaufmann's are to Nietzsche what Constance Garnett is to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. ie, questionable accuracy but by far the most famous and readable translation.
― ryan, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:07 (twelve years ago) link
yo kant is clarity incarnate. if you're confused it's bc your brain is all twisted up from life + shit.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:08 (twelve years ago) link
I remember going through Being and Time painstakingly, almost line by line, with a notepad trying to put things in my own terms. those were some long afternoons in the library.
― ryan, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:08 (twelve years ago) link
@markers - fwiw kaufmann and hollingdale are the ones i have as well. this guy agrees with max on the clark/swensen
― the parable is the parable of the (Lamp), Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:09 (twelve years ago) link
man I don't know anybody who still reads the constance garnett translations! but kaufmann is still widely used afaict
― dayo, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:10 (twelve years ago) link
i was at a dissertation defense a few weeks ago where one of the professors went on quite vociferously about how crappy the new translations were (the married couple) and how much better Garnett was. but she is probably a minority opinion.
― ryan, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:11 (twelve years ago) link
I'm not a terribly big fan of the married couple
― dayo, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:13 (twelve years ago) link
theyre translations are really good imo
― the parable is the parable of the (Lamp), Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:14 (twelve years ago) link
I can't remember who I contraristan for above them though, I'll have to check my contraristan log, I've definitely expressed this opinion elsewhere on ILX
― dayo, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:15 (twelve years ago) link
i think the Garnett translations are almost their own thing at this point, with their own cultural relevance, given when they came out and the number of writers who first encountered D and T in that form.
― ryan, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:17 (twelve years ago) link
i do this all the time but i also really cannot recommend this book enough as a secondary
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-New-Nietzsche-David-Allison/dp/0847689794
― max, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 03:29 (twelve years ago) link
Pre-ordered the Zizek too. Up for reading group.
― stet, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 23:53 (twelve years ago) link
count me in on that
― encarta it (Gukbe), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 05:24 (twelve years ago) link
just got Simon Critchley's new one in the mail: http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Faithless-Experiments-Political-Theology/dp/1844677370/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328075101&sr=8-1
― ryan, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 05:45 (twelve years ago) link
and speaking of Critchley and Zizek, here's essay response to Zizek by Critchley on politics and violence. I found it interesting and it articulates some of my reservations about Zizek:
http://nakedpunch.com/articles/39Violent
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2012 00:51 (twelve years ago) link
way too long but my two initial thoughts:1. i think he misunderstands zizek's "ultraviolence" which could easily be the violence he describes (and for many activists, even the smallest suggestion of violence becomes this revolutionary historic moment, ie Occupy Wall St)2. kinda feels like a secret defense of obama + the doctrine of marginal gradual change tbh
― Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 01:45 (twelve years ago) link
i don't think i can read the whole thing tho. i bailed out after his reading of Benjamin and i realized that despite stating his case four or five times already i still had 3/4ths of the article to go
― Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 01:46 (twelve years ago) link
I think 2 is the gist of Zizek's disagreement with Critchley. I am in broad disagreement with Critchely. I think. I do know Zizek's rhetoric bothers me, and i also don't really think Marxism/Leninism is really the only game in town as far as thinking outside Capitalism goes.
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:11 (twelve years ago) link
oops. I am in broad AGREEMENT with Critchely, i meant to say.
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:12 (twelve years ago) link
(especially since you'd think Zizek would be the first to admit that kind of rhetoric doesn't really escape from the domain of Capitalism anyway. he's got nostalgia for an "outside" that's not really accessible anymore. then again i'll shut up since im dumb about political philosophy.)
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:13 (twelve years ago) link
...
― the parable is the parable of the (Lamp), Friday, 3 February 2012 02:14 (twelve years ago) link
x-post: hence Critchley's point that Z is basically advocating doing nothing...
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:14 (twelve years ago) link
i don't think Z is advocating doing nothing bc i think he's not an advocate. who said that the role of philosopher is to advocate for political revolutionary? i think he's making an observation tho about the kinds of violence that actually shift hegemonies, and even if Critchley wants to encourage ppl to revolt now and even in minor ways (with the hope that they make gradual shifts), I don't think Zizek is totally off-base to suggest that's itself an apology for the hegemony
― Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:17 (twelve years ago) link
advocate for the* political revolutionary
― Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:18 (twelve years ago) link
maybe he discusses it further down but where are all these non-ultra-violent revolutions that are seriously challenging capitalism? i don't see them.
― Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:21 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i see what you're saying. that's the crux of the problem isn't it? it wouldn't really be hard to turn that whole argument against Z as well (ie, that what he's doing is an "apology" for hegemony. hence Critchley's quote of Lacan telling the Leninists, "What you aspire to as revolutionaries is a master.")
but Critchley definitely steps in it when he shifts to being an advocate (even if one for "infinite" demands)...and perhaps what's at stake is a (philosophical) defense of that act.
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:21 (twelve years ago) link
and that's why his demands have to be "infinite" (or effectively without content).
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:22 (twelve years ago) link
Though perhaps it'd be fun to read Z as basically posing exactly the "infinite demand" that Critchley wants, just in the form of a nostalgic Leninist mode.
― ryan, Friday, 3 February 2012 02:25 (twelve years ago) link
new spivak apparently
http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-Education-Era-Globalization/dp/0674051831
― markers, Thursday, 23 February 2012 17:05 (twelve years ago) link
ryan, did you finish the critchley book? worth reading?
― markers, Thursday, 23 February 2012 17:06 (twelve years ago) link
markers: I thought there was some value in it, and the parts about mysticism were really interesting to me, but overall I'm kinda left wondering why he felt he needed to stage his argument in the way he did, and perhaps his sense of the organizing power of religion is more a holdover from theocratic politics than something that belongs to religion per se. Anyway, I liked it and learned stuff, though I'm not sure it leads anywhere.
― ryan, Thursday, 23 February 2012 17:50 (twelve years ago) link
I mean "your conflating religion with politics" at once a dumb criticism since thats the argument of the book! But at the same time I think he fails to articulate what the secular meaning of "sacralization" in contemporary politics could be. He wants a positive form of religious feeling that leads to spontaneous political organization where I only see negative theology.
― ryan, Thursday, 23 February 2012 17:55 (twelve years ago) link
oooh that spivak looks really interesting. was just thinkin about schiller again the other day!
― Despite all my cheek, I am still just a freak on a leash (bernard snowy), Friday, 24 February 2012 11:39 (twelve years ago) link
ya i've been reading schiller lately, SHE'S ONTO US.
― shart practice (Merdeyeux), Friday, 24 February 2012 12:27 (twelve years ago) link
nick land goes in for the post-austrian paleo-reactionary scene
http://www.thatsmags.com/shanghai/article/1880/the-dark-enlightenment-part-1
against democracy! (in a strange coincidence i just brought up "mencius moldbug" yesterday)
this line is particularly glib, considering the blistering pro-rumsfeld/cheney line he took on the old hyperstition blog. he condemns, in a slew of other things, "reckless evangelical ‘wars for democracy’
― goole, Thursday, 8 March 2012 17:46 (twelve years ago) link
nobody? jeez, should have gone to the right-wingery thread
― goole, Monday, 12 March 2012 15:05 (twelve years ago) link