PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy



vimothy
11-03-2010, 01:25 PM
Been reading and enjoying philosophy again. In particular, the following:

Graham Harman
Manuel DeLanda
Delueze & Guattari
Brian Massumi
Bruno Latour
Pierre Bourdieu

Okay, the last two are questionable, but Graham Harman thinks that Latour is a philosopher, so by reflection/inversion Bourdieu gets included as well.

Who else should I be reading?

craner
11-03-2010, 01:39 PM
Karl Popper.

craner
11-03-2010, 01:42 PM
Maybe not. Paul Virilio? He's a bit of a hoot.

vimothy
11-03-2010, 01:51 PM
Latour is very funny. DeLanda has his moments too.

There's an episode of celeb come dine with me in here somewhere.

craner
11-03-2010, 02:54 PM
What do you make of De Landa? I remember reading that Non-linear history book in my early twenties, and it blew my mind. I couldn't read it now. Some pin-stripe spiv on a train took the piss out of me reading it on public transport. It hurt my fucking feelings man!

craner
11-03-2010, 02:56 PM
But now I can see his point. I remember Reynolds saying that weening yourself of this shit is like becoming ex-Catholic.

Well, Catholicism, Marxism...it's all there in Bataille, Barthes, Deleuze...perpetual ex-communication

craner
11-03-2010, 02:57 PM
What the fuck am I talking about?

craner
11-03-2010, 02:58 PM
I've spent all day watching episodes of Frasier, documentaries about the Cuban Missile Crisis and reading Gerald Manley Hopkins sonnets. Ignore the crap out of me.

vimothy
11-03-2010, 03:02 PM
Too late!

A thousand yrs of non linear history is a great romp. He's like a Deleuzean Zizek--total rock star.

After finishing my Eng Lit degree, I went through a period (quite a long period) where I wasn't interested in any of this stuff at all. Feeling a bit more reconcilled with the whole thing now. This is all sounding very Catholic though, you're right.

craner
11-03-2010, 03:17 PM
Too right. I remember trying to write like Baudrillard, it was remarkably easy. All my MA submissions were confused, jargon-filled Deleuzan romps...sadly, my tutors were impressed!

It's far harder trying to write and think like Popper.

Mr. Tea
11-03-2010, 03:24 PM
remember reading that Non-linear history book in my early twenties, and it blew my mind. I couldn't read it now. Some pin-stripe spiv on a train took the piss out of me reading it on public transport.

I hope there's no implication in this - I'm often to be found in pinstripe on a train! But I'm also quite likely to be reading a magic-realist novel or a book on Middle Eastern mythology or something. I'd love to read some current philosophy but I really wouldn't have a clue where to start...

craner
11-03-2010, 03:29 PM
Nah, he just happend to be wearing pinstripe and we were heading towards Kent....

grizzleb
11-03-2010, 03:52 PM
I've not been able to read any recently because of other study commitments, but when I was reading a lot I was enjoying Barthes and Zizek, usual suspects relly. Looking forward to being able to read more widely at uni next year, especially some of the more interesting sounding people I've heard of from here.

Baudrillard is fun to read but not very rigorous. I'd akin much of that sort of stuff nearer to poetry or something maybe....

vimothy
11-03-2010, 04:10 PM
I'd love to read some current philosophy but I really wouldn't have a clue where to start...

Start in the middle. Harman's stuff on Heidegger's tool-analysis is interesting.

mixed_biscuits
11-03-2010, 04:14 PM
I remember geographers being keen on Latour during my flirtation with post-grad geog.

Shouldn't Mr Tea start with Kant if he wants to get into modern continental philos?

grizzleb
11-03-2010, 05:44 PM
I remember geographers being keen on Latour during my flirtation with post-grad geog.

Shouldn't Mr Tea start with Kant if he wants to get into modern continental philos?
I'd recommend getting some 'readers' if you're wanting to get into it also. Makes reading the actual texts so much easier/less pointless.

pajbre
11-03-2010, 10:28 PM
Glad to see Massumi getting some love; Parables for the Virtual is a totally fun & ferocious book, kind of surprised that he is not discussed more, even amongst people who discuss other writers of his milieu...

nomadthethird
12-03-2010, 02:29 AM
The philosophy of consciousness and philosophy of mind analytic guys are worth reading...

Ryle and such

nomos
12-03-2010, 03:55 AM
Glad to see Massumi getting some love; Parables for the Virtual is a totally fun & ferocious book, kind of surprised that he is not discussed more, even amongst people who discuss other writers of his milieu...
Very true. I think it's slowly making its mark though.

vimothy
12-03-2010, 11:09 AM
Parables for the Virtual is a totally fun & ferocious book

Added to Amazon wish list.

If anyone fancies recommending papers--I still have institutional access for the next couple of months...

computer_rock
12-03-2010, 11:25 AM
Added to Amazon wish list.

If anyone fancies recommending papers--I still have institutional access for the next couple of months...

Kendal Walton - Categories of art. Not exactly 'cutting edge' (it's 1970) but I had to read it for a paper the other week and found it to be a really great exposition of the relation between aesthetic appreciation and class/genre etc.. Aligned with a lot of vague, semi-conscious, pre-theoretical intuitions I had about about that kind of thing.

edit- reference
Categories of Art
Kendall L. Walton
The Philosophical Review, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Jul., 1970), pp. 334-367

Chuu
12-03-2010, 11:38 AM
I just got back into wasting my time too! ;-)

Reading "Real Materialism" by Galen Strawson, he's got quite a refreshing style and seems pretty clued up. Also he used the phrase "radical eyebrow raising" to refer to the way a certain theory was received by the philosophical community which I liked.

Trying get to grips with current theories of cognition/evolutionary psychology and how they affect the mind body problem, looking at Chomsky/Pinker, computational theories of Mind etc

mistersloane
12-03-2010, 03:22 PM
I've been reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Meillassoux

who's quite good if you don't got a life. Decided I kinda like the Speculative Realists I think. Taken me a while.

nomos
12-03-2010, 03:47 PM
The introduction to Parables is available as a PDF from Massumi's site... http://www.brianmassumi.com/english/books.html

Erin Manning's Relationscapes: Movement, Art, Philosophy (http://www.amazon.com/Relationscapes-Movement-Philosophy-Technologies-Abstraction/dp/026213490X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268408951&sr=8-3) is on my list for the summer.

vimothy
12-03-2010, 03:49 PM
Decided I kinda like the Speculative Realists I think

Can you summarise? Is it like the object orientated stuff?

Mr. Tea
12-03-2010, 05:55 PM
Can you summarise? Is it like the object orientated stuff?

Ha, is philosophy borrowing terms from programming paradigms now? Is there a "procedural philosophy" as well?

Unlikely I guess, but if it is, it'd be a great case of sci/tech developments influencing theoretical humanities (http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?5419-Sciences-and-humanities-ne-er-the-twain-shall-meet), wouldn't it?

vimothy
12-03-2010, 06:12 PM
Object orientated refers to this Husserl vs. Heidegger vs. Latour vs. Harman attempt to deal with objects.

Process orientated might be Bergson or Deleuze.

The sciences are a big influence on Latour. All of the science war stuff ("Sokal Affair", e.g.) was one big misreading of his work and that of his colleagues both by scientists and by others in the humanities and social sciences. Too jokes.

pajbre
12-03-2010, 08:56 PM
As far as papers/essays go, Achille Mbembe's Necropolitics is a monster.

Finally got around to reading Badiou for the first time (Ethics) after being quite reluctant and found a lot that was useful there.

nomadthethird
12-03-2010, 09:52 PM
This isn't a philosophy text, but if you're into OOP, this is an easy-to-understand book that's been appropriated by the OO philosophers:

Botany of Desire (http://books.google.com/books?id=Woywyw8LlcgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=botany+of+desire&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

It's full of concrete examples of how object-oriented thinking intersects with geopolitical philosophies like D&G's or speculative realism.

craner
12-03-2010, 10:17 PM
I never cared for Massumi much, but his one man translation of Mille Plateaux was an astonishing feat. It took three of the buggers to do Anti-Oedipus.

pajbre
12-03-2010, 11:56 PM
Fair enough; have you read any of his more overtly 'political' writing, especially his work on pre-emption? Actually find that more engaging than the pure affectual analysis

mistersloane
13-03-2010, 02:20 AM
Can you summarise? Is it like the object orientated stuff?

I'm just going through the new Collapse and 'After Finitude', Meillassoux just seems to be saying that Kant was a wanker and dah what about the bunnies and the trees, they've got feelings too, aside from that I think, in kindof a really boring 5th-pint-in-the-pub-and-haven't-been-laid-for-a-while way.

I'm not sure I really know what Object Orientated stuff is though, I think OOP is a subset of SR, or is it the other way round? It all sounds nicely ketamine, everything being inside everything else. I worry that it's just people becoming quantum hippies though. I guess I should read the Kpunk thing next.

Just from reading Meillassoux, I like the way it seems to be everything you think when you read philosophy, but he's actually been bothered to sit down and work out an argument against it, rather than just putting the book down and going 'stupid cunt'.

swears
13-03-2010, 02:37 AM
I haven't read any philosophy for months, and I'm much happier for it. I just like to look at pictures now.

vimothy
15-03-2010, 01:01 PM
“Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-Network Theorist”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=Bj7EDMRJrbU

My understanding of OOP is that you have Husserl (things are phenomena in consciousness), and then you have Heidegger (things experienced as tools and rarely enter consciousness except when they don't work properly, a thing never reveals itself fully, things are all equivalent). So Heidegger gives you a philosophy of the object but not the individual object, which is where Harman introduces Latour. I'm not sure how SR relates to this.

Mr. Tea
15-03-2010, 01:56 PM
...you see a sign outside a cafe that says "Continental Breakfast" and your first thought is: "What, as opposed to analytic breakfast?". :o

computer_rock
15-03-2010, 03:47 PM
...you see a sign outside a cafe that says "Continental Breakfast" and your first thought is: "What, as opposed to analytic breakfast?". :o

Now you mention it if you accept that 'analytic' (in the current context) is, very roughly speaking, a synonym for 'English' then you could perhaps maintain that the same fault lines which divide contemporary philosophical discourse do, in fact, also divide our early morning eating habits. Perhaps there is a case for the latter being the more fundemental division, and that the two philosophical traditions are never to be reconciled while Alain Badiou is sitting in a Parisian cafe munching on croissants.

err anyway

mistersloane
16-03-2010, 02:24 AM
Now you mention it if you accept that 'analytic' (in the current context) is, very roughly speaking, a synonym for 'English' then you could perhaps maintain that the same fault lines which divide contemporary philosophical discourse do, in fact, also divide our early morning eating habits. Perhaps there is a case for the latter being the more fundemental division, and that the two philosophical traditions are never to be reconciled while Alain Badiou is sitting in a Parisian cafe munching on croissants.

err anyway

Yup, needs a fucking good fry-up, that man.

mistersloane
16-03-2010, 02:34 AM
“Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-Network Theorist”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=Bj7EDMRJrbU

My understanding of OOP is that you have Husserl (things are phenomena in consciousness), and then you have Heidegger (things experienced as tools and rarely enter consciousness except when they don't work properly, a thing never reveals itself fully, things are all equivalent). So Heidegger gives you a philosophy of the object but not the individual object, which is where Harman introduces Latour. I'm not sure how SR relates to this.

Thanks Vim, am checking out that Latour now. On two asides :

i) The guy that introduces that thing is top intellectual totty

ii) Do you know how much you get paid to film that shit? I filmed a CBT week once, and the money was ridiculous, and I had a proper microphone, and I know how to take an audio line out of the desk and then either connect it to the audio input of the camera or do a fucking overdub. They expect us to watch this shit. Amateurs.

synapticat
27-04-2010, 07:39 PM
http://anotherheideggerblog.blogspot.com/

http://criticalanimal.blogspot.com/

http://speculativeheresy.wordpress.com/

http://accursedshare.blogspot.com/

http://deontologistics.wordpress.com/

http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/

http://aivakhiv.blog.uvm.edu/

http://wehaveneverbeenblogging.blogspot.com/

http://networkologies.wordpress.com/

http://planomenology.wordpress.com/

tartablanca
02-06-2010, 05:19 PM
Robert Wolff discusses game theory:

http://robert-wolff.blogspot.com/

vimothy
02-06-2010, 06:15 PM
Nice!

swears
04-12-2010, 02:12 AM
I haven't read any philosophy for months, and I'm much happier for it. I just like to look at pictures now.

Yeah... 'til I read this, pure fiy-ah:

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues

Honestly, if the left had guys like this then "we" wouldn't be pissing and moaning about the aftermath of 30 years of neo-liberalism. Surrender to the void!

Sick Boy
08-04-2011, 02:07 AM
Poor neglected philosophy thread.

Dr Awesome
08-04-2011, 04:00 AM
Poor neglected philosophy thread.

People probably realised that their philosophy degrees were useless. Or maybe they didn't. It's one of the most contentious issues in the ivory tower right now.

Sick Boy
08-04-2011, 03:58 PM
People probably realised that their philosophy degrees were useless.

This is only a view held by the embittered and the jaded. I don't think anyone gets very far by assuming that everything that has worth does so in direct relation to its usefulness. I'm quite happy with education for its own sake really. Anyway, I wouldn't say that philosophy is entirely useless anyway, at least not in the way that, say, art is. It at least purports to be useful, and I find that its use is really what you make of it anyway.

Beyond that, anyone who went to university for philosophy with the idea it would lead them to a lucrative job or something was sorely mistaken from the get-go anyway, or at the very least, misguided in their intentions. It was their fault for not taking law, or economics, or immunology, or computer science, or whatever. One of my professors (for Ancient Philosophy) stopped in the middle of a particularly difficult lecture on Aristotle's metaphysics once and mentioned that there are probably a few people in the class who are asking themselves what the point of studying any of this is, and how could it possibly ever be useful or relevant to them. He urged that if this is a significant issue, to drop the course immediately and take something else, because they'd probably end up being right.

Sick Boy
08-04-2011, 04:03 PM
I mean, that's obviously a pretty extreme piece of advice, but I think the point he was making was that anyone who saw the suggestion as being a bit ridiculous would already be the kind of person who tends to see disagreeing with the arguments or aims of a particular theory as a reason to study more, not less.