version

Well-known member
That explanation of Bergsonian time I posted in the Deleuze thread made Bergson sound really cool.
 

luka

Well-known member
Rhythmanalysis sounds cool but i have it and it dont live up to the brilliant promise of the title
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
I feel if Baudrillard is considered a philosopher then guys like Mark Fisher can aswell, though Ive only read Baudrillards Spirit of Terrorism essay. I'm a little over halfway through Discipline and Punish and I think the same can be said with regards to Foucault.
I give a little leeway to the complex language for newer guys, but have trouble being patient with the older guys because they all have the god problem- looming behind all their thought is that belief in God that makes it harder to trust why they feel the need to be so obtuse
I agree, regarding Fisher and Foucault. As far as I can tell. Cool point about god, I hadn't considered that before.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Rhythmanalysis sounds cool but i have it and it dont live up to the brilliant promise of the title
Thats a bummer. I wonder if the premise can just be extracted and grafted into a larger framework, assuming he doesn't already have a framework for it.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
Wittgenstein is the most meme-able for sure.
That story of him getting so upset at the philosophical implications of the phrase 'there is not an elephant in this room right now' he stormed out of the lecture reads like satire
 

version

Well-known member
That explanation of Bergsonian time I posted in the Deleuze thread made Bergson sound really cool.
The conventional, linear depiction of time — at least as old as Newton, with philosophical roots reaching as far back as Aristotle — presents it as a straight line in which each passing moment recedes behind the present, just as each approaching moment arrives from a future stretched out in front of us along the time-line we are travelling. It is surprising how pervasive and apparently convincing this depiction is at first blush — given that it is simply not true to our experience of time at all. For the past exists for us as a whole, not strung out along a line: to retrieve a past moment from six weeks ago, we don’t have to rewind the entire chain of events to get there: we jump immediately to the last days of summer. And we can jump from there to any other past moments, without having to trace out or locate those moments on any linear time-lines. The past is, if you will, omni-present to itself. At least that’s the way it seems to us. But then the question becomes: is this true only of our experience of the past? — or is it true of the past itself

[…]

In other words, how do you get from phenomenology (or how things appear) to ontology and how things actually are? To be sure, past events co-exist in memory — we can scan the past and access this event or jump to that event, without having to replay the entire succession of moments between them. But how do we get from this psychological experience/recollection of the past to the notion that past events themselves co-exist ontologically? This is where Deleuze draws on Henri Bergson. The past for Bergson is not the repository of a linear series of passing presents, but an a-temporal bloc where each and every past event co-exists with all the others. For Bergson, it is not just in memory that one event can be connected with any other, irrespective of their respective places on a time-line: in the Bergsonian past, past events themselves co-exist, inhabiting a realm that Bergson calls the virtual: the past as a virtual whole […] (or as a bloc) is the condition for actual events to take place in the present, just as — for example — the language-system as a virtual whole (or what the structuralists call a structure, langue) is the condition for actual speech acts to take place in the present. This view of the past as a condition for the actualization of the present connects with the privileging of becoming over being that Deleuze adopts from Friedrich Nietzsche. Being is merely a momentary, subsidiary, and largely illusory suspension (or “contraction”) of becoming, according to this view; becoming is always primary and fundamental. This means not merely that each and every thing has a history — rather, each and every thing simply is its history: apparent being is always the temporary but actual culmination or expression of real becoming; it is the present actualization of antecedent conditions contained in the virtual past. In the terminology of A Thousand Plateaus, the process of actualization is called “stratification.”

-- Excerpt From: Eugene W. Holland. “Deleuze and Guattaris: A Thousand Plateaus.” iBooks.
 
Brassier/Harmon/etc crowd (around speculative realism and object oriented ontology) is a domain I have yet to gain access to.

I was reading harman’s OOO last year and remember feeling a really glaring error in the logic of it all and thinking “This is fucking stupid!” and stopped. Cant remember what it was now but it was fundamental to me. Cool story I know
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
Russell and the cambridge/vienna co is another whole crowd I haven't really touched yet. Do you have any takeaways?
Ive only read 'unpopular essays' and it was a little dull. But as a piece of history its interesting. Bertrand Russell takes it as a given that the world is doomed to implode within the next 10-20 years by nuclear war (written in 1950), not even speculation, but that its an agreed upon fact, and to counter that he says our only hope is that the world cedes all power to the U.S. I wanna say he even goes one step further and states that we should preemptively strike Russia its such a threat
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
I was reading harman’s OOO last year and remember feeling a really glaring error in the logic of it all and thinking “This is fucking stupid!” and stopped. Cant remember what it was now but it was fundamental to me. Cool story I know
I saw a lecture of his where he says that being pretentious is an occupational hazard for philosophers. Good way of putting it, and it may help the medicine go down. But yeah, I couldn't elaborate at all about SR/OOO.
 

version

Well-known member
Joyce makes me want to read Vico and Aristotle, but he probably makes them seem more exciting than they are.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
Wittgenstein is the most meme-able for sure.
That story of him getting so upset at the philosophical implications of the phrase 'there is not an elephant in this room right now' he stormed out of the lecture reads like satire
Wittgenstein also once invited a bunch of academics over for a round table discussion, but when they arrived he was sitting in front of fire place reading poetry out loud and refused to stop or even turn around to face them
 

luka

Well-known member
Joyce makes me want to read Vico and Aristotle, but he probably makes them seem more exciting than they are.

im sure he does, yes. same way prynne makes all sorts of things sound exciting which are very unexciting outside the perimeter of the poem
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Ive only read 'unpopular essays' and it was a little dull. But as a piece of history its interesting. Bertrand Russell takes it as a given that the world is doomed to implode within the next 10-20 years by nuclear war (written in 1950), not even speculation, but that its an agreed upon fact, and to counter that he says our only hope is that the world cedes all power to the U.S. I wanna say he even goes one step further and states that we should preemptively strike Russia its such a threat
Cool to hear though, and, as you say, learn from it as a historical document.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
he also once attacked a dude with a fireplace poker mid philosophic debate.
keep in mind this is a guy he was so convinced he solved all philosophical questions he quit to go be a kindergarten teacher in some obscure mountain town. Imagine those poor children
 
Top