What is Deleuze?

[nomadthethird]

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.

"Misreadings" are as productive as anything in philosophy, and it is littered with examples of this.

Philosophy is an oeuvre and a body of texts. As such, it can be surveyed and certain methodological commonalities can be observed.

Anyyyyway, enough responding to the 8th grade level commentary.

 

[nomadthethird]

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.

That's ultimately the big gaping whole in the middle of Badiou. For all his talk of Lacan, his work completely lacks an explicitly thematized libidinal register--i.e. there is Love, there is Art, there is Science, there is Politics, but there's no more nuanced account of "eros" or, for that matter, "thanatos". That's a big deal, because those are two of the more important Modern achievements in thought to my mind.

 

[massrock]

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.

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.

Josef, maybe we are talking at cross purposes, or at different levels of abstraction. I appreciate what you say, and all that may be so but...

What I mean is that in positions of power are many people who have no such qualms or hesitations. In some fields a certain level of ignorance is apparently an advantage.

So these people make 'stupid' decisions that affect many others while you are paralysed by an inability to decide on what is best or assert your 'values' as a thoughtful aware person. Perhaps specifically because you are a thoughtful aware person.

 

[massrock]

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.

To me ignorance means a lack of awareness.

It's not the opposite of tolerance but it is sort of related in that awareness tends to lead to consideration, unless you are a psychopath.

 

[Mr. Tea]

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.

Middle-class ignoramuses are often the worst kind.

That's not to say plenty of working-class people aren't genuinely ignorant too...Jade Goody, anyone?

To say nothing of ignorant toffs! Numbskulls come from all walks of life.

 

[nomadthethird]

To me ignorance means a lack of awareness.

It's not the opposite of tolerance but it is sort of related in that awareness tends to lead to consideration, unless you are a psychopath.

Awareness of what? You're making it sound as if levels of "awareness" are naturalized phenomena, so that some people just decide one day that they won't be "aware", or that they're born that way...

Consideration of what? Bourgeois social mores? Contemporary core values? The temerity of others? Message board etiquette? Sociopaths/psychopaths don't lack these sorts of consideration, they have an overabundance of them--that is why/how they continue through life undetected by us folks who have a 'conscience'...

This is what you're glossing over. Philosophy can't operate according to those sorts of parameters, i.e., the ones that guide "normal", nice social interactions--not ultimately, anyway. If 'philosophers' allowed those sorts of considerations to take over (and many "professionals" do, because they have to), then the "dialectic" elements of philosophy would surely stagnate until philosophy itself became a puddle of status quo mud.

 

[nomadthethird]

Really, if the role of philosophy is to be a formal discourse where thought is meant to roam free in purest abstraction, then I want to hear all sorts of voices, all sorts of reactions, and all sorts of arguments--not just the exclusively "rigorous" professional-scholastic ones. If philosophy really matters, and if our political ambitions can be furthered through the study of philosophy, then we're going to have to expect philosophy (like religion) to be an area where ideational and/or ideological conflict plays a major role in progress.

 

[Mr. Tea]

You can be a fundamentally 'nice' person, accepting of others, tolerant and all that, without knowing a huge amount of facts about the world beyond your own life. My late grandmother springs to mind actually, having just typed that.

By the same token, it's certainly possible to be an extremely erudite fascist or psychopath.

 

[nomadthethird]

You can be a fundamentally 'nice' person, accepting of others, tolerant and all that, without knowing a huge amount of facts about the world beyond your own life. My late grandmother springs to mind actually, having just typed that.

By the same token, it's certainly possible to be an extremely erudite fascist or psychopath.

You can also be hugely considerate, nice, conflict-shy, deferential, and still be very unaware of the world around you.

I'm not buying this normative regulatory shit about how it's a Big Meany if teh internets theeree kidz donnt plah niys.

I think it's best if any interaction is kept from falling into a merely reactionary sequence, but some of the best philosophical concepts were reactions to other concepts, or cultural norms, etc.

 

[massrock]

IGNORANCE & STUPIDITY

Let's say I want to get from A to B.

Now I can just get in my tank and drive directly there, going through buildings and whatever else is in the way.

This would on the face of it be a good plan because it would allow me to get to where I want to go quickly and with the minimum of fuss.

In this case being ignorant of the wishes of others, i.e. not wanting to be squashed, would apparently be an advantage to me.

However we could say that overall this act would probably cause more disadvantage than advantage. Is this a dangerously judgemental moral stance?

It would also be fairly stupid because I may well have destroyed useful buildings and infrastructure on my way to my destination. And I may have inspired a degree of unnecessary animosity and resentment towards myself which would not be advantageous in the future.

Not that it matters that much because I have a tank!

 

[massrock]

Awareness of what? You're making it sound as if levels of "awareness" are naturalized phenomena, so that some people just decide one day that they won't be "aware", or that they're born that way...

Consideration of what? Bourgeois social mores? Contemporary core values? The temerity of others? Message board etiquette? Sociopaths/psychopaths don't lack these sorts of consideration, they have an overabundance of them--that is why/how they continue through life undetected by us folks who have a 'conscience'...

Ignorance is a lack of awareness. Awareness is less ignorance. And they happen in real time, it's not much to do with knowledge. People may be born more or less aware and this may change.

Awareness of what's going on around you.

And consideration means, if you are aware of other people and their needs you are more likely to take them into account in your decisions.

 

[nomadthethird]

IGNORANCE & STUPIDITY

Let's say I want to get from A to B.

Now I can just get in my tank and drive directly there, going through buildings and whatever else is in the way.

This would on the face of it be a good plan because it would allow me to get to where I want to go quickly and with the minimum of fuss.

In this case being ignorant of the wishes of others, i.e. not wanting to be squashed, would apparently be an advantage to me.

However we could say that overall this act would probably cause more disadvantage than advantage. Is this a dangerously judgemental moral stance?

It would also be fairly stupid because I may well have destroyed useful buildings and infrastructure on my way to my destination. And I may have inspired a degree of unnecessary animosity and resentment towards myself which would not be advantageous in the future.

Not that it matters that much because I have a tank!

How is this kind of example relevant to philosophical discourse?

Philosophical "conflict" doesn't map directly onto "warfare" or driving tanks over other people. Even if it did--so what's your point? That people should just give up their stance or give up on a dialectical stance just to appease or be "considerate" of others feewings?

I think you're just making unnecessary humanistical demands of a discourse that has no obligation to humans and humanity as such.

 

[nomadthethird]

Ignorance is a lack of awareness. Awareness is less ignorance. And they happen in real time, it's not much to do with knowledge. People may be born more or less aware and this may change.

Awareness of what's going on around you.

And consideration means, if you are aware of other people and their needs you are more likely to take them into account in your decisions.

Oh for fuck's sake-- duh.

I don't really subscribe to terms like "ignorance" "awareness" and "knowledge" the way you seem to be using them.

Is this not what everybody learned in kindergarten? Be nice to others?

How old are you?

 

[nomadthethird]

This thread is so beyond dead ...

 

[vimothy]

And we must have fun!

And not criticise the fun-havers!

For it is the highest of values.

No, you're quite right -- we have bona fides to establish, a register to communicate in, allies to placate. Fun is bourgeoisie. Unless its being had by the working classes, in which case, fuck off you bourgeois puritanical life-hating sicko!

 

[massrock]

Nothing wrong with having fun. But I might have fun bouncing peanuts off your head and you might not be having as much fun as me. I mean it's not simple, you can't just say it's fun so it's OK.

 

[massrock]

How is this kind of example relevant to philosophical discourse?

Philosophical "conflict" doesn't map directly onto "warfare" or driving tanks over other people. Even if it did--so what's your point? That people should just give up their stance or give up on a dialectical stance just to appease or be "considerate" of others feewings?

I think you're just making unnecessary humanistical demands of a discourse that has no obligation to humans and humanity as such.

Yeah, except I didn't think I was talking about philosophical discourse.

 

[vimothy]

Nothing wrong with having fun. But I might have fun bouncing peanuts off your head and you might not be having as much fun as me. I mean it's not simple, you can't just say it's fun so it's OK.

Virtual peanuts? Anyway, I thought Fun was bad... You're not being very militant here, Massrock. You can only chuck peanuts if you don't enjoy it.

 

[massrock]

Don't you start tilting at windmills too vimothy.

You said pointless arguments were fun, that's all.

 

[vimothy]

I like tilting at windmills -- I'm that way inclined.

Badum-tish