Gadamer helped me understand hermeneutics (the alchemy or order of knowledge that should be challenged today.) With a hint of brevity and depth of hisGadamer helped me understand hermeneutics (the alchemy or order of knowledge that should be challenged today.) With a hint of brevity and depth of his prospects, both on science and the towardness of history can we reveal a more prescient future... one that we find today in dire need of new orders of knowledge perhaps rather than strictly positivist notions of scientific knowledge. (positivism being an old idealist arbitrage) and not concerning two things: how subjectivism plays a role in objectivism (interior knowledge, where we can create precepts of thought that new theory can be born) and pre-knowledge - which has been hastily ignored by post 20th century science (I.e logical positivism, verifiable empiricism) as a kind of philosophical underpinning that is ultimately unexplored and inaccessible because subject/object has been muted as a mere philosophical device. I have no problem noting this book like Heidegger's essay(s) on science which show us the realism (as opposed to german or otherwise idealism) of thought that circumscribes subject smaller and smaller whilst the object in sciences becomes overrepresented. How interior -> exterior knowledge should stay in tact and accomplish a more fruitful relationship is key for a better realism. He also notes that most of our prejudices are active forces that should not be denigrated as a lousy approach - more so, he indicates prejudice goes back to ancient greeks and the pre-socrates, specifically in rhetoric. Our prejudices tell us more of knowledge then a faulty premonition of solving or believing it's a passive force to be shunned... Gadamer also notes of historians implicitly subscribing to protecting Nationalism because of their refusal to insert hermeneutic methods, the ability to see history as past convictions of their own subject-matter rather than understanding the temporal relations of historicity.. without which, history becomes an enterprise of lived, non potential futurity that bears a common ennui of knowledge. History perhaps has not begun yet!
What is our third ethical choice after Copernican inversion and Ptolemaicism have been exhausted? This book makes me question it....more
The written introduction was excellent for understanding Meillassoux's philosophy, especially for novice readers of any of his material but in particuThe written introduction was excellent for understanding Meillassoux's philosophy, especially for novice readers of any of his material but in particular, After Finitude. The appendix is expounded thoroughly similarly to an appendix so you get all the nitty-gritty details of his nomenclature. You will probably want to read this soon if you're already reading this!...more
important note: you don't have to be a philosopher to appreciate this book.
Quite simply, this one of the better books I've read this year (and I don'timportant note: you don't have to be a philosopher to appreciate this book.
Quite simply, this one of the better books I've read this year (and I don't read all that often right now.) It is fortunate we have access to such a brilliant translation! to think it was published in 1940 originally, and now in 2015 it is appropriately translated and published in English, well, it's just great because this is the philosophy I wish to see more of.
Vladimir Jankelevitch's writing is clear, lucid, happy, non-condescending.. in effect, practical. even if you disagree with Bergson's "irreducible" philosophy, you'll probably find a few chapters worth investing time into.. his theological interpretations, his interpretation of Creative Evolution, and perhaps most important: Bergson's idea of biology and his predictions hitherto that I'm sure would surprise even the most advanced neuroscientists working in the field today.
it is both biographical and philosophical, however, I find the majority of the text to be an extension of thought rather than a simple exposition of Bergson. ...more
basically this is a post-modern essay book... very cultivated knowledge that is blended together with some interesting notes.
What did I think??! it wabasically this is a post-modern essay book... very cultivated knowledge that is blended together with some interesting notes.
What did I think??! it was a decent read, I think the footnotes were more precedent than the actual text.. perhaps a big gripe for me when I read McLuhan is how thought and subsequently his writing is seemingly jarred when you analyze how his writing is supposed to speak volumes of a particular topic... this book is certainly post-modern and an academic exercise. if a book is sequenced in such a way that it spends far too less time on it's form and content.. than I am weary of its execution.
for instance, his analogies on left/right brain hemispheres have been proven to be scientifically false.. because it turns out, we do not have a dominate side to our brains.. the brain works more like a lattice, certain spots are brighter than others, and ultimately, i believe, biological determinism of the left/right hemisphere is false... of course, this doesn't rule out a dominate hemisphere, but it seems likely that our brain is wired for inactivity, which makes the whole debacle between whether we have a dominate side more moot. ...more
an ordeal made of joy: (random anecedote about this book):
there seems to exist in individuals an impenetrable and invisible germination that wholly dian ordeal made of joy: (random anecedote about this book):
there seems to exist in individuals an impenetrable and invisible germination that wholly divides and keep us from getting ["in each others way." (zizek)]
racism: whether it's the color of one's skin; the language one uses; or even the remotest desires that exist in all of us shows we are unequal at an existential level.
we should not negate each other's existence but celebrate its glory - albeit so when a person "attempts" to penetrate our germs. a metallic orgy of germs is what makes us clash and eventually choose our limits... and I believe it's this limit of crisis that can bring much peace, love, creativity. affirm and forget, like Proust taught us, but don't believe racism suffices to simply destroy us.
i read this book in jail, although I didn't get to finish it, I found it dense and haunting.. not a particularly winning combination for a place like jail, but I fell in love with this book....more
How does one arrive at a decoded sign that neither lives in our human desires, or tells us our dreams? "SeduDo we really live in an age of illusions??
How does one arrive at a decoded sign that neither lives in our human desires, or tells us our dreams? "Seduction", in one of Baudrillard's most celebrated text, pastiches all the current "postmodern" thought of today in a simple-to-read semiological driven book. A "tableau de bord" of ideas, it reminds me of Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium is the Message" (without all the fancy typography and illustrations) or "RD Laing's Knots", all of which derive cultural theory from an anterior position (rather than coming from behind of it's message, we try to see it from its forward-present position.. i.e "I already know what I'm doing") The importance of this style is significant, telling us how we interact with said systems: closed circuits, arbitrary simulations, the finality of chance within a simulacra.
The book demands that we invert feminine desire to that of a seductress of males. It's in these "inversion of signs" that seduction continues to evolve, Baudrillard believes, because we can no longer afford the very price of desire itself without succumbing to traditonal values. (if we wish to live in our simulacram, we must *assign* ourselves these higher orders of signs, i.e "I am no longer identifying to a referrant that belongs to a concrete origin but hyperreality has *already* duplicated the origin.)
He discusses Babylonians' lottery, concorts they actually were living in a "second-order" simulacra, and today's lottery is made of "third order" simulacra.. The key difference of these different orders: games of pure chance are no longer subjected to interference from a lower order... What does this mean? It's true the contents, the very innards of a sign may or may not be identical; their true meaning obfuscated by illusion... however they contain self-same content. It's their form that significantly leaves us bewildered. If we wish to continue these other higher orders of sustaining simulacras, we reject the content and simply see the sign for it is: form and content-less. A good example of this are fractals: we never question the representation of a fractal, what we do question is its complex evolution, the outer details and forms contained thereof.
The third order simulacra lives in a self-contained "bubble", what is inside this simulcra does not leave, it cannot leave because it is a self-same simulation where signs that are duplicated are ultimately indistinguishable... It's when we decode these signs that death, the real of what's already-become, refuses to seduce, but only entails our long incredulous death. Want to live? Reject the illusions and face hyperreality. ...more
A great read indeed - anecedotal-art at times, musings of the color blue that neither propels or distrays from our desire, but rather compels us to enA great read indeed - anecedotal-art at times, musings of the color blue that neither propels or distrays from our desire, but rather compels us to enjoy nearly every facet of blue. ...more