What is Deleuze?

[massrock]

It isn't clear what any of those terms means by themselves, and it also isn't clear what "value" means...

Is it clear what anything means by itself?

It's a question though, that's partly why I ask it, or rather ask whether it should be asked, and whether those things can be defined.

Obviously you can equivocate all day over whether it is better to be better and what does better mean and does it matter anyway.

 

[josef k.]

What I mean is: I don't think that question can be answered. There are no criteria for answering it, other than moral (parish) criteria that we might attempt to rule on, but then what we would have done is to set ourselves up as authorities over values and this would be quite a consequent move. I think stutters and inarticulate noises are as important as "elegant" prose and I think stupidity is as constructed as intelligence... maybe we should be talking about blindspots here? It also seems clear to me that intelligence is never really valued in-itself, and stupidity is often celebrated by apparently intelligent people, so long as it is presented in the appropriate codes.

 

[empty mirror]

intentional stupidity describes the early punk rock ethos
and it seemed to be a crucial part of dada

 

[massrock]

but then what we would have done is to set ourselves up as authorities over values and this would be quite a consequent move.

Unlike say, just threatening people with weapons and stuff.

 

[nomadthethird]

doesn't this also apply to like 90% of "philosophers"?

Yes, it does, but the contextual differences matter here.

"Finding common ground" is really not high on philosopher's priority list. Unless you think philosophy is some sort of a perversion of a moral discourse, which apparently some people do. I'd question how much of it you've actually read, however, if you think this way.

 

[nomadthethird]

What I mean is: I don't think that question can be answered. There are no criteria for answering it, other than moral (parish) criteria that we might attempt to rule on, but then what we would have done is to set ourselves up as authorities over values and this would be quite a consequent move. I think stutters and inarticulate noises are as important as "elegant" prose and I think stupidity is as constructed as intelligence... maybe we should be talking about blindspots here? It also seems clear to me that intelligence is never really valued in-itself, and stupidity is often celebrated by apparently intelligent people, so long as it is presented in the appropriate codes.

Socrates was called "the gadfly" for a reason, he was a troll before Jesus invented trolls.

 

[Tentative Andy]

Socratic irony and the dialogue structure are def the things I find most worthwhile in Plato. (Though then of course you're straight into the 'did he invent it or did he just record it?' debate).

 

[nomadthethird]

Is it better to be happily ignorant pighead, or to be an unhappy Socrates? -- Regarding trolls, the sophists were vital for Socrates, and as Joseph K. has demonstrated in the course of this thread, still as crucial...

The sophists weren't "trolls" by any stretch of the imagination, they were simply the established "professional" philosophers (sort of like modern-day academics) of their time.

Plato, of course, charged anyone who didn't believe philosophy was about eternal "truths" and "forms" with Sophism. And Badiou tries to do this too, as if "sophist" is still an insult thousands of years later. He might want to turn his critique on professional academics such as himself, who were the real target of Plato's antipathy.

That said, I don't mind the emphasis on the matheme, but it doesn't follow that Badiou's "math IS ontology" claim and its further formal expression lays the groundwork some kind of truly vital political discourse.

 

[Tentative Andy]

Ok, probably yet another question that I shouldn't really be asking (and might make me look like a troll) - But is Badiou genuinely, literally a Platonist, in the sense of believing in the theory of Forms? Because if he is then surely that discredits a lot of his work, makes it hard to take seriously even. Someone plese tell me I've got this totally wrong?

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, when people talk about people being "ignorant" online, it reminds me of when people on reality shows fall into cliches like "she's so FAKE" or "I'm not here to make friends", for some reason...

What is usually called "ignorance" is often just a lack of proper middle class socialization, which is usually the result of poverty and other difficult circumstances.

And then there's the "tolerant"/"ignorant" binary, which is just so incredibly dull, falling as it does dead center in the middle of the status quo.

 

[nomadthethird]

Ok, probably yet another question that I shouldn't really be asking (and might make me look like a troll) - But is Badiou genuinely, literally a Platonist, in the sense of believing in the theory of Forms? Because if he is then surely that discredits a lot of his work, makes it hard to take seriously even. Someone plese tell me I've got this totally wrong?

He is literally a Platonist and believes in Forms.

 

[josef k.]

Socrates also had an internalized troll - his "daemon" who had no coherent point of view, but who used to attack him whenever he was about to do/say something wrong...

All the great figures in history have been trolls in some way... Socrates, Jesus, HMLT...

Unlike say, just threatening people with weapons and stuff.

There's a distinction between power and force... power being me attempting to influence your behaviour in various discursive ways, force being the direct application of physical threats. Say we established some organon of values (or some standardized language)... we would then be a collective, which is to say, a faction, which is to say, a power-block... In other words, it would be a power-move, and its more pertinent relevance would be in that register: i.e. the values that we actually decided on would be secondary to the fact that we had decided them, and established them, as our principle of organization.

And then we would require some enemies...

 

[Tentative Andy]

He is literally a Platonist and believes in Forms.

Thank you/Oh dear....

 

[scottdisco]

careful Josef, massrock said they were going to lamp you earlier

 

[nomadthethird]

Socrates also had an internalized troll - his "daemon" who had no coherent point of view, but who used to attack him whenever he was about to do/say something wrong...

All the great figures in history have been trolls in some way... Socrates, Jesus, HMLT...

HMLT should never have been banned.

 

[josef k.]

I agree... I think nobody should be banned.

 

[massrock]

And fun!

And we must have fun!

And not criticise the fun-havers!

For it is the highest of values.

 

[nomadthethird]

Thank you/Oh dear....

Yup. Neo-neo-neo-neo classicism. Very outre. Nobody in the West has ever thunk of it.

 

[josef k.]

And we must have fun!

And not criticise the fun-havers!

For it is the highest of values.

You can do what you want... just don't pretend that there isn't a libidinal investment in it, i.e., that it is itself fun, and not being conducted in the name of Truth and Revolution.

 

[massrock]

"Finding common ground" is really not high on philosopher's priority list. Unless you think philosophy is some sort of a perversion of a moral discourse, which apparently some people do. I'd question how much of it you've actually read, however, if you think this way.

It means knowing what you are arguing with and why. It also means bridging gaps in understanding for the sake of mutual enlightenment. It also means it's OK to agree sometimes, at least temporarily.

Who are these philosophers who all have exactly the same 'priority list' anyway?

Anyway sod philosophy. Philosophy is what I say it is or it is nothing.