Rolling Philosophy

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2182 of them)

i thought that was why the nope

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:56 (seven years ago) Permalink

cos its like, pan-religiousy in a fucking marshmallowy meaningless way.

is the point

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

philosophy

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

man

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

ho shit. i thought the donkey-wheel was just meta.

n e ways, plaxico otm

ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 19:59 (seven years ago) Permalink

yeah, interdisciplinary work is so fruitless

ksh, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:04 (seven years ago) Permalink

even if you don't consider analytic and continental philosophy to be two separate disciplines—maybe they are, and maybe they aren't—saying that you need to take sides doesn't really make much sense. not saying you can just take random aspects of the two and mash them together, but if you notice a place where the two lines up, you certainly can link them together and work from there

ksh, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:06 (seven years ago) Permalink

seems like u r def. the man to do that good look

plax (ico), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:08 (seven years ago) Permalink

btw, lol that ILX Philosophy thread started discussing Lost less than 50 posts in

Mordy, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:18 (seven years ago) Permalink

Ugh, maybe I won't be looking forward to this thread as I had initially thought. Fucking assholes coming out of the woodwork already.

I don't believe that analytic and continental disciplines can ever be reduced into each other, and nor should they, but to suggest that they cannot both be appreciated is the most disgusting savagery.

emil.y, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 23:56 (seven years ago) Permalink

I don't think those people are assholes.

bamcquern, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

Analyze the disgusting savage archetype?

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:59 (seven years ago) Permalink

I'm just going to treat this as the rolling talk about academics thread, fuck distinctions imo

dyao, Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:05 (seven years ago) Permalink

anyway, picked up history of sexuality part I, it's actually my first full on foucault book instead of a few scattered essays and excerpts here and there. have only read the prologue but excited

dyao, Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:05 (seven years ago) Permalink

not wanting to put you off or anything, but dunno if history of sexuality is the best place to start w/ foucault - i think it's one of his most esoteric and least satisfying bks, tbh. for me, discipline and punish was a really gd intro to his thought and style - works as a piece of theory and as (obv contentious) history

Ward Fowler, Thursday, 17 June 2010 06:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

i am so goddamn out of touch w/philosphy these days, i am a bad philo grad. it bugs me, because i think ive lost a lot of what i already knew just through not engaging with it, kind of a tough discipline if you dont stay on top of it.

― ULTRAMAN dat ho (jjjusten), Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:41 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^^ I double majored and am working in the field of my other major so yeah, I'm stupid again so to speak. Hopefully this thread will bring back that loving feeling of my brain turning inside out.

peacocks, Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:09 (seven years ago) Permalink

i found history of sexuality I quite satisfying and not as hard to get through as d&p

harbl, Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

i read this really good book called the fountanhead once

michael, Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:19 (seven years ago) Permalink

wat was it about?

peacocks, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

how awesome awesome people are

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:44 (seven years ago) Permalink

i think it was about rape and architecture, kinda like Discipline & Punish, only longer.

sarahel, Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

yeah i woulda said history of sexuality was totally perfect intro to foucault, kinda feel like its both the most developed and clearest version of many of his tropes etc.

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:32 (seven years ago) Permalink

the Foucault lecture courses that have been coming out in english translation over the past few years are also great -- I find the lecture format really easy to follow (not that Foucault's other books are particularly offensive in this regard; just sayin'), and there's a lot of great stuff in there

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:48 (seven years ago) Permalink

lately my reading has been directed more toward early-20th century european philosophy (phenomenology, Diltheyan hermeneutics, various neo-Kantianisms) in an effort to get a better grasp on the origins of the main postwar intellectual (and some political) movements. and maybe to finally understand Heidegger, but I'm not holding my breath.

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:51 (seven years ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSdHoNJu5fU

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 21:55 (seven years ago) Permalink

ha, was just about to post that. It's funny because it's true.

I'm currently doing my Masters dissertation in (continental) philosophy, fuck it all I say I'll just get a cosy office job. Altho my reading at this very moment is fun, Jacques Attali's Noise: The Political Economy of Music.

NYC Goatse.cx and Flowers (Merdeyeux), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:00 (seven years ago) Permalink

really makes me want to read hegel and hausel to understand late heidegger to understand derrida (kinda thought socrates was supposed to be the key to derrida though)

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:03 (seven years ago) Permalink

That clip is amazing. Also -- loved the Attali. A lot of my undergrad thesis was devoted to him.

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:05 (seven years ago) Permalink

xpost oh yeah I'm also hoping that, after reading some Husserl, I'll be able to (and still want to, heh) read Derrida's early stuff on him and maybe get a better understanding of JD's whole project

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:08 (seven years ago) Permalink

husserl is awesome but the phenomenological aspects of derrida are crazy confusing to me

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:13 (seven years ago) Permalink

I saw this thread title and initially thought it would be about best approaches to throwing the D20 in a role playing game.

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

man that clip is my h8ed approach to... everything really. "You can't understand x without y, z, or q". You could say that in any academic discipline, or any non-academic discipline. Fuck it. Secondary texts ftw.

btw another mostly lapsed MA here, although I keep up my subscription to The Philospher's Magazine.

sent from my neural lace (ledge), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:18 (seven years ago) Permalink

plax what's yr favorite husserl? I'm reading crisis of the european sciences right now but that's obv. a very late and not very representative work so I'm wonderin' what I should check out next.

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:21 (seven years ago) Permalink

i read the cartesian meditations recently enough and its a pretty sweet intro.

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:24 (seven years ago) Permalink

the Foucault lecture courses that have been coming out in english translation over the past few years are also great -- I find the lecture format really easy to follow (not that Foucault's other books are particularly offensive in this regard; just sayin'), and there's a lot of great stuff in there

― INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:48 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

YES--birth of biopolitics is GREAT i think, not to mention the clearest/'easiest' of any foucault book ive read too.

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:26 (seven years ago) Permalink

really makes me want to read hegel and hausel to understand late heidegger to understand derrida (kinda thought socrates was supposed to be the key to derrida though)

― plax (ico), Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:03 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i thought levinas was the key to derrida

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:27 (seven years ago) Permalink

i dont even know who that is

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:28 (seven years ago) Permalink

smdh

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (seven years ago) Permalink

i will never understand derrida

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (seven years ago) Permalink

fu omg

plax (ico), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:29 (seven years ago) Permalink

lol jk

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:30 (seven years ago) Permalink

lithuanian jew, student of husserl (and heidegger i believe?), key concepts 'the other' 'ethics as first philosophy' 'face-to-face' 'alterity'

derrida has two long essays about him--'violence and metaphysics' and a published (extended?) version of the eulogy he gave at levinas funeral

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

the key to derrida fyi is smokin pot and reading poetry

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

I don't think levinas was a student of heidegger (maybe yr thinkin' of marcuse?), but yeah, he was (I believe) the first french translator of husserl, and in general had a big influence on the french reception of phenomenology

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

xpost halfway there; which poetry should I be readin'?

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

Rilke, maybe?

Mordy, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

well holderlin obv

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

rimbaud dude

AESTHOLE (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

bob dylan

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:39 (seven years ago) Permalink

mallarme

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 17 June 2010 22:40 (seven years ago) Permalink

I read most of it for a grad seminar on Cavell. It's a fascinating book, for sure, but I haven't much gone back to it since. It was edited together out of material written over a number of years. Some of it is based on his dissertation; other parts feel like a philosophical diary. It's a great test of how far you're able to dig his approach.

jmm, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 12:54 (six months ago) Permalink

I'm trying to recall the readings for that seminar. I think we read:

G. E. Moore - A Defense of Common Sense
J. L. Austin - A Plea for Excuses
Stanley Cavell - Must We Mean What We Say? (essay)
Kant - Critique of Judgment - Introduction and Analytic of the Beautiful
Cavell - Aesthetic Problems of Modern Philosophy
Cavell - The Claim of Reason, pt. 3
Emerson - Self-Reliance
Ibsen - The Doll’s House
Cavell - Pursuits of Happiness, ch. 1, 2, 4, 7
Cavell - Disowning Tears, ch. 5

Films: The Lady Eve, It Happened One Night, The Philadelphia Story, The Awful Truth, Stella Dallas

Cavell came in for the last session when we talked about Stella Dallas. It was a cool class.

jmm, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 13:23 (six months ago) Permalink

*Contesting Tears

jmm, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 13:27 (six months ago) Permalink

Cool, yeah I was looking to read him and had (incorrectly, it seems?) assumed that the Claim of Reason was his most representative book. From it, I'm most interested in the second half (the parts on tragedy, morality) but perhaps there are better starting points among his other books or essays?

To be honest, I'm not very familiar with him (which is one of the reasons I'm interested in reading more), so any other suggestions would be welcome!

Federico Boswarlos, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 15:42 (six months ago) Permalink

jmm was it just the part on moral philosophy that was assigned from 'claim', or are you misremembering (since that would kinda be the least representative part of that book)?

federico, 'claim' is, uh, let's see, the most central book to the remainder of this work but because of the shape of that remainder there are various ways in which it's not representative, and maybe nothing can be.

if you're interested in part 4 then you should expect it to have really very little to do with tragedy or aesthetics, although if you're interested in the epistemology underlying scenes of recognition in drama (that's not how he puts it but i think it fairly covers the many pages that are not directly concerned with drama), you will find a lot in it. the 'lear' essay and then perhaps the beckett essay are the logical pre-reading for that part, and 'knowing and acknowledging' if you're keen on seeing his background for the concept of acknowledgement (not that it makes it perfectly clear what he means by it later in 'claim'). there are certain ways in which the OLP essays (first couple in MWM) might add some perspective on his aims in part 4, but mostly he's off on his own by that point. part 1 of claim includes a preliminary look at other-minds skepticism that is taken up again in part 4, and all of part 2 is given to articulating the external-world skepticism that he frequently recalls as a model in part 4, but part 4 is not so dependent on those that you couldn't read it as is. (i did that with some friends once, and aside from the inherent difficulties cavell's writing posed for them, for the first 30 pages or so negotiating the reading of wittgenstein layered on top of everything else was actually more of an impediment to understanding for them.)

sometimes i think the thoreau book is the single best thing he ever wrote. if you're interested in moral perfectionism as it pertains to tragedy/drama/film then i suspect 'cities of words', which is a mature and poised statement made with pedagogical intent, would serve you much better than any of the talks from the 80s (but maybe not better than 'pursuits', which i've never read all the way through).

j., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 18:07 (six months ago) Permalink

I don't know Cavell at all but he's very popular with my Parisian colleagues, like, maybe the only American philosopher people care about

droit au butt (Euler), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 18:31 (six months ago) Permalink

that seems weird

j., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 18:33 (six months ago) Permalink

I mean people read assorted m&e crap but no American but Cavell gets "hero" status

droit au butt (Euler), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 18:35 (six months ago) Permalink

do you have any sense for how much of it is due to his translator, s. laugier, who studied under him and has been plonking away at the francophone cavell industry?

j., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 18:37 (six months ago) Permalink

We may have read something else in Claim of Reason, but I know that part 3 was emphasized. We read it along with Rawls's "Two Concepts of Rules", which is taken up in that section. It's hard to recall exactly what was assigned versus what I read on my own. Maybe that section was the easiest one to teach.

jmm, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 18:56 (six months ago) Permalink

I heard a discussion with Laugier on France Culture where the premise was like: "Everyone knows that American philosophy is boring as fuck, but have you heard of Stanley Cavell?"

jmm, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:00 (six months ago) Permalink

hah she's my colleague and yes is a big reason for Cavell's reach. she & her hubby have good American connections too (he's been visiting prof at the U of C)

droit au butt (Euler), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:15 (six months ago) Permalink

how many greeks teach in "euro"pean "philosophy" departments? 'aristo'tle and his macedonian phillipian alexandrian 'aristo'cracy prevail or at least 'aristo'phanes clouds and satirizes still :)

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:26 (six months ago) Permalink

Thanks for the heads-up j. Maybe I'll try at some of the essays before committing to Claim.

I do have to admit that part of the reason I'm curious is for Laugier/France Culture's reasons jmm cites above... :( (w/ the obvious qualification that "American Philosophy" itself is a pretty unhelpful generalization. I haven't read enough from the "American" philosophical tradition as its implied in the remark, though I will say I don't find Rorty or Dewey boring AF (disagree with them as I do...) and I'd like to read more.

Federico Boswarlos, Friday, 12 May 2017 16:02 (six months ago) Permalink

six months pass...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOtd_f0X0AEtQVT.jpg

happy world philosophy day

j., Thursday, 16 November 2017 19:29 (one week ago) Permalink

I just finished Timothy Morton, Humankind, which was a trip and a half. I keep struggling to summarize it to people, I probably can't succeed.

.oO (silby), Thursday, 16 November 2017 19:34 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.