Rolling Philosophy

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

anyone UK-based should take advantage of an Amazon error and pre-order the collection 'Laruelle and Non-philosophy' for just £4.99: currently at #83 in the sales ranks, we can get it to #1!

Merdeyeux, Saturday, 19 May 2012 18:53 (five years ago) Permalink


Serov devochka s persikami (nakhchivan), Saturday, 19 May 2012 18:55 (five years ago) Permalink

pretty sure there are legal get outs maybe amazon will be a mensch and 'low it

Serov devochka s persikami (nakhchivan), Saturday, 19 May 2012 18:56 (five years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

I am sorry if anyone is annoyed if i continue to bring up stuff that isn't strictly "philosophy" but has anyone read any Anthony Wilden? I've just started "System and Structure" (1980 edition) and find it pretty amazing in its interweaving of Bateson, Lacan, and Marx.

here's his wikipedia:

ryan, Saturday, 30 June 2012 23:48 (five years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

hmmm this is why ethics isn't very interesting to me

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 19 July 2012 07:07 (five years ago) Permalink

Studies show professors of ethics don't behave any more ethically than other people.

ledge, Thursday, 19 July 2012 08:18 (five years ago) Permalink

I think it would be great if philosophy were more practical, but aside from kicking aside any religious figure ever trying to talk about ethics on current affairs shows or ethics committees (whatever they are) i don't know how it would be possible.

ledge, Thursday, 19 July 2012 08:48 (five years ago) Permalink

Haha, who would think that profs of ethics *would* behave any more ethically? I mean, maybe I'm tainted from being taught ethics by an amoralist, but man, the point is to question ethics, not to suddenly turn into a good Samaritan. Or maybe I'm just far too interested in meta-ethics.

emil.y, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:20 (five years ago) Permalink

Also, I'm not sure that that study can possibly be sound. I mean, how do you measure the morality of charitable donation? There are very compelling reasons to believe that (at least a large proportion of) charity is morally reprehensible in itself.

emil.y, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:22 (five years ago) Permalink

Real amoralists are probably few and far between though, I think the mainstream position even among moral skeptics or error theorists (including me) is that we still can & should treat each other decently.

xp reprehensible's a pretty strong word! study's just a bit of fun let's be cool, anyway.

ledge, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:25 (five years ago) Permalink

I think the mainstream position even among moral skeptics or error theorists (including me) is that we still can & should treat each other decently

i think even being vague&superficial to the point of meaninglessness like this is more likely to spark debate than build consensus

ogmor, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:36 (five years ago) Permalink

i think you mistook my casual remark for a detailed moral argument.

ledge, Thursday, 19 July 2012 14:40 (five years ago) Permalink

it was a class on analytic ethics that comprehensively turned me to the dark side of continental mentalism. Dire debate after dire debate on consequentialism vs deontology wrt particular situations felt like a huge exercise in skirting the actual question of ethics, so in my dissatisfaction with the entire field I instead turned to the super concrete world of um thinking about the excessive infinite ethical relation to the other and such.

Merdeyeux, Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:06 (five years ago) Permalink

the point is to question ethics

yeah, this i think and from that link imo the most interesting questions are

How should we act under empirical uncertainty – in particular should we follow expected utility even when it comes to tiny probabilities of huge amounts of value? (Relevant to extinction risk)

All other things being equal, should we prioritise the prevention of wrongs over the alleviation of naturally caused suffering? (Relevant to abortion, animal suffering)

Given that we aren’t ever going to be certain in answers to the above questions, how should we take into account uncertainty about these moral issues in our decision-making? (Relevant to: global poverty, abortion, animal suffering, extinction risk)

Mordy, Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:07 (five years ago) Permalink

first we must start with the face to face encounter

max, Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:20 (five years ago) Permalink

There are very compelling reasons to believe that (at least a large proportion of) charity is morally reprehensible in itself.

reasons such as

goole, Thursday, 19 July 2012 15:54 (five years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

well, that sounds compelling to me

Mordy, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 03:33 (five years ago) Permalink

If I have to accept something, I accept the repugnant conclusion.

How about accepting that all theories are inadequate? I recently discovered Bernard Williams who "believes that ethical thinking cannot be systematised without intolerable distortions and losses, because to systematise is, inevitably, to streamline our ethical thinking in a reductionist style"

Suppose for example that I, an officer of a wrecked ship, take the hard decision to actively prevent further castaways from climbing onto my already dangerously overcrowded lifeboat. Afterwards, I am tormented when I remember how I smashed the spare oar repeatedly over the heads and hands of desperate, drowning people. Yet what I did certainly brought it about that as many people as possible were saved from the shipwreck, so that a utilitarian would say that I brought about the best consequences, and anyone might agree that I found the only practicable way of avoiding a dramatically worse outcome. Moreover, as a Kantian might point out, there was nothing unfair or malicious about what I did in using the minimum force necessary to repel further boarders: my aim, since I could not save every life, was to save those who by no choice of mine just happened to be in the lifeboat already; this was an aim that I properly had, given my role as a ship's officer; and it was absolutely not my intention to kill or (perhaps) even to injure anyone.

So what will typical advocates of the morality system have to say to me afterwards about my dreadful sense of regret? If they are—as perhaps they had better not be—totally consistent and totally honest with me, what they will have to say is simply “Don't give it a second thought; you did what morality required, so your deep anguish about it is irrational.” And that, surely, cannot be the right thing for anyone to say. My anguish is not irrational but entirely justified. Moreover, it is justified simply as an ex post facto response to what I did: it does not for instance depend for its propriety upon the suggestion—a characteristic one, for many modern moral theorists—that there is prospective value for the future in my being the kind of person who will have such reactions.

kmfdotm (ledge), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 08:43 (five years ago) Permalink

lol utilitarians

emil.y, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 11:24 (five years ago) Permalink

BUZZZZZZZ snark penalty, deducted 0.5 utils.

(500) Days of Sodom (Merdeyeux), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 12:28 (five years ago) Permalink

i'm going to allow it

Shrimpface Killah (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 16:55 (five years ago) Permalink


turtwig greenturty (Matt P), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 17:07 (five years ago) Permalink

I like the snappy way I put it, in an argument with a utilitarianbro some time ago: "the ethical field does not permit of closure"

fire-rated aeroplane components I have melted (bernard snowy), Thursday, 9 August 2012 11:49 (five years ago) Permalink

god, utilitarian bros

j., Thursday, 9 August 2012 23:37 (five years ago) Permalink

four weeks pass...

1) does anyone know if there's a "preferred" version of Hegel's Phenomenology? the top results on amazon all seem pretty old. im surprised there's not some new-ish edition with a sexy cover that will make me look cool when i read it.

2) i have been craving a big and ambitious intellectual history, confined mostly to western philosophy. any favorites? the bigger and more general the better. wacky overreaching thesis = still better.

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 20:47 (five years ago) Permalink

Uh, so, what you're looking for... is a history of Western Philosophy?

emil.y, Friday, 7 September 2012 20:47 (five years ago) Permalink

if it's something a little more than a "survey" then sure!

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 20:49 (five years ago) Permalink

(don't want to be too specific, just curious what people might suggest...)

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 20:53 (five years ago) Permalink

j., Friday, 7 September 2012 21:05 (five years ago) Permalink

Blumenberg! yes, perfect.

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:07 (five years ago) Permalink

So, um, something like this?

emil.y, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:09 (five years ago) Permalink

i wish I could find Blumenberg's "Legitimacy of the Modern World" for a decent price. been looking forever.

and yes emil.y i think Russell's book definitely fits (though unfortunately I've read it--maybe wouldn't hurt to read it again...).

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:12 (five years ago) Permalink

not read this but it was a big deal when it came out

goole, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:13 (five years ago) Permalink

Ha, sorry ryan, that's why I was umming and ahhing in my posts, I kind of thought it was a bit obvious, but I couldn't gauge if you'd overlooked it.

emil.y, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:15 (five years ago) Permalink

this is p cool but it's not 'philosophy' really

goole, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:19 (five years ago) Permalink

Maybe this fits the bill: All or Nothing, by Paul Franks. I read some of it years ago - it's a study of the development of German Idealism.

jim, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:19 (five years ago) Permalink

ah both of those look really cool.

one of my favorites is John Deely's "Four Ages of Understanding." it's probably pretty obscure, and definitely idiosyncratic, but i loved it's ambition and depth and it's great fun to read. it's the size of a dictionary though.

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:27 (five years ago) Permalink

A. W. Moore's new book sounds like it could have wide appeal too:

Not that I'll ever read it.

jim, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:28 (five years ago) Permalink

that looks awesome but jeez that cover. not sexy at all :-/

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:29 (five years ago) Permalink

Coffa's To the Vienna Station is a fab survey of the origins of analytic philosophy.

Euler, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:46 (five years ago) Permalink

on Hegel, isn't it just better to read Charles Taylor's book?

Euler, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:46 (five years ago) Permalink

i'm pretty sure this is the "preferred" phenomenology, or at least the version that was assigned to me in grad school:

Mordy, Friday, 7 September 2012 21:47 (five years ago) Permalink

that's the preferred phenomenology, yes, but there's going to be a new translation, by terry pinkard, released in the near future, and it's currently available online - (or is it? that's not loading for me at the moment.) it's likely to become the new standard version, and is definitely a much easier read than the current translation, but unfortunately i think that ease of comprehension is sacrificing some of the actual detail of the argumentation. and beyond that there were some pretty glaring mistakes too, we'll see what becomes of them in the published version.

tubular, mondo, gnabry (Merdeyeux), Friday, 7 September 2012 22:33 (five years ago) Permalink

curious to see if a new translation will finally help me understand the anatomy stuff

Mordy, Friday, 7 September 2012 22:34 (five years ago) Permalink

since we're here, i'll note that over the last few days i was at a major uk european philosophy conference (let's call it s3p f3p). my paper went p well, the overall standard of papers was ~alright~ i guess (i don't think they're hugely discriminating when it comes to accepting people), but the talk of the town was the absolutely mental paper given by alph0nso l1ngis (probably best known for his levinas and merleau-ponty translations, now rather old) - clad in a hawaiian shirt he, in near darkness, his paper lit with a handheld headlamp, delivered, in a rapid and rhythmic vincent price voice, a talk on subjectivity via lingerie, parrots, mirrors, babies... all over a soundtrack of chill koto vibes.

tubular, mondo, gnabry (Merdeyeux), Friday, 7 September 2012 22:42 (five years ago) Permalink

on the topic of the big overarching all-encompassing history of ideas thing, that'd be really interesting if someone could do it properly and well but i can't imagine doing it properly and well in under ten volumes. speaking of hegel, i think his lectures on the history of philosophy, up to and including his contemporaries, are really interesting and some of his most readable stuff. illuminating re his own project for those reasons too, especially when read alongside something like the phenomenology, which is really a huge engagement with the entirety of western thought without ever naming anyone he's talking about.

tubular, mondo, gnabry (Merdeyeux), Friday, 7 September 2012 22:47 (five years ago) Permalink

what was your paper on? (if you don't mind me asking)

ryan, Friday, 7 September 2012 22:57 (five years ago) Permalink

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