Philosophy

computer_rock

computer_rock

Well-known member
vimothy said:
Added to Amazon wish list.

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

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
 
Last edited:
Chuu

Chuu

Well La Di Bloody Da
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
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
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.
 
P

pajbre

Well-known member
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

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
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

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

craner

Beast of Burden
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.
 
P

pajbre

Well-known member
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
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
vimothy said:
Can you summarise? Is it like the object orientated stuff?
Click to expand...

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

swears

preppy-kei
I haven't read any philosophy for months, and I'm much happier for it. I just like to look at pictures now.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
“Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-Network Theorist”


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

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
You know you're spending too much time on Dissensus when...

...you see a sign outside a cafe that says "Continental Breakfast" and your first thought is: "What, as opposed to analytic breakfast?". :eek:
 
computer_rock

computer_rock

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
...you see a sign outside a cafe that says "Continental Breakfast" and your first thought is: "What, as opposed to analytic breakfast?". :eek:
Click to expand...

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
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
computer_rock said:
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
Click to expand...

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

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
vimothy said:
“Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-Network Theorist”


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top