What is Deleuze?

[Mr. Tea]

But it is delusional.

But is it Deleusional?

 

[josef k.]

That is the question.

 

[nomadthethird]

I get where Kpunk is coming from, and I agree with a couple of the end points, but one major sticking point for me is that Alex is accused of (or praised for?) "bravura" simply by upping a blog post questioning the value of Badiousian political economy.

Maybe it's a difference between the American and British educational systems, but over here, it's not "bravura" when you question or think critically about a philosopher's work, it's mandatory or you'll get a failing grade.

 

[nomadthethird]

or maybe it's a cultural difference

 

[josef k.]

Maybe it's a difference between the American and British educational systems...

I think it's more to do with the codes of this particular blog milieu...

 

[nomadthethird]

B's popularity has probably peaked, as his uselessness becomes apparent. Except to see more disaffiliations in the future...

Levi from Larval Subjects, whom I really like and whose opinion is very informed on any philosophical topic, just accused Badiou of the epistemic fallacy in the LoW!

Ouch.

 

[josef k.]

I get where Kpunk is coming from...

I always get the impression that the underlying (political) message is: "If we all stop believing in it, it will go away."

 

[josef k.]

The other thing is: a lot of the (philosophical) critiques which Splinter raised against Badiou seem fair enough... but, if the problem is organization, relation, why not look for resources which will help to think this problem directly, rather than identifying its absence in various places? Because there is, after all, a spontaneous theory of organization to be found in the works of Badiou.

Similar with the Larvalion (and Harmaniacal) point about objects... if the aim is to think about objects (or "things") as such, beyond issues of epistemology, doesn't the very word "object" (an epistemological abstraction) at a certain point start operating as a barrier towards that end? You can't to get beyond the problems of "knowing" if what you are trying to do is "know" about objects...

 

[nomadthethird]

I always get the impression that the underlying (political) message is: "If we all stop believing in it, it will go away."

I don't know, I think k-punk is really good on this weird meta-level of kulture where he's reading and picking up little blips in the radar in the same way people think of artists as being more receptive to what's "out there" on some level. Except k-punk's medium is theory. I like how very NOT philosophical k-punk is about theory (which Planomenology blogger talked about recently, too, non-philosophy). That is refreshing.

At least it is to a philosophy major who watched Important People literally drooling they were so fast asleep at Habermas lectures and shit.

 

[nomadthethird]

Similar with the Larvalion (and Harmaniacal) point about objects... if the aim is to think about objects (or "things") as such, beyond issues of epistemology, doesn't the very word "object" (an epistemological abstraction) at a certain point start operating as a barrier towards that end? You can't to get beyond the problems of "knowing" if what you are trying to do is "know" about objects...

Well there are very serious objections to the epistemology of "object-oriented" philosophy, but they're pretty dry for the purposes of mssg brd tlk. I don't really believe in the subject-object division in a "metaphysical" way so you're talking to the wrong negative epistemologist.

If you have questions Larval Subject blogger will direct you to good reading and he can explain just about any really difficult philosophical problem in 2000 words or less.

 

[josef k.]

I don't know, I think k-punk is really good on this weird meta-level of kulture where he's reading and picking up little blips in the radar in the same way people think of artists as being more receptive to what's "out there" on some level. Except k-punk's medium is theory. I like how very NOT philosophical k-punk is about theory (which Planomenology blogger talked about recently, too, non-philosophy). That is refreshing.

At least it is to a philosophy major who watched Important People literally drooling they were so fast asleep at Habermas lectures and shit.

Granted... But I think his radar is haywire, deranged by his totalizing obsessions, not to say, paranoia, and his use of theory (note the way that he hatches "ontologies") is cartoonishly megalomaniacal. That said, as long as you don't take him too seriously, it is quite entertaining to watch ("Year Zero") in a hair metal type way...

If you have questions Larval Subject blogger will direct you to good reading and he can explain just about any really difficult philosophical problem in 2000 words or less.

But I don't want them explained!

EDIT: There are no explanations!

EDIT 2: "There is no meta-language"!

 

[nomadthethird]

Yeah, but having someone else explicate a 500 page book that you'd rather eat paint than read is always a time-saving strategy.

 

[vimothy]

"If we all stop believing in it, it will go away."

On the other hand...

 

[josef k.]

Edit: Sorry, I had to delete this post. It was too crap...

I'll just say: "I don't know if there are really entities called "philosophical problems" - what kind of things would they be?"

**

Ray Kinsella: It's okay, honey. I... I was just talking to the cornfield.

 

[nomadthethird]

I'll just say: "I don't know if there are really entities called "philosophical problems" - what kind of things would they be?"

textual confabulations

 

[nomadthethird]

the number of the priest

Wow.

Reading Infinite Thought (the book not the blog) is like going to a psychic and being told that good things come in fours. Over, and over, and over, and over.

 

[josef k.]

Interesting how the fashion cycle works itself out in philosophy... I wonder who is next.

 

[four_five_one]

People are quitting their jobs over this stuff:

"In other news, I have decided that Continental Philosophy in Britain, both in its turgid, nepotistic, insanely conservative academic form and its concomitant fan-boy-looking-for-a-new-master-oh-boo-hoo-now-it's-too-popular-I-don't-like-this-band-any-more forms are to be derided, dismissed and disregarded. Henceforth, whilst I will keep my job for however long I can, if anyone wants to offer me part-time work in a theory capacity in any department whatsoever I will seriously consider it (ha! I mean, I'll keep an eye out for ads).

I am (or was) deeply committed to philosophy for lots of reasons - I think complex ideas can and should be clearly explained both to students and to whoever is interested beyond the walls of academia; I think there should be more women in philosophy which is a cock-fest of hideous, socially maladjusted proportions; finally, I'm really, really good at teaching Hegel, Kant and any other European philosopher you could care to mention. Nevertheless: Enough is enough. I am tired of conservatism masquerading as 'serious' intellectual research, I am tired of sexism, especially the ironic kind, and I am sick of hanging around boys and men who think that philosophy is some sort of ego-supplement. You lack wit! All of you!"

-- Infinite Thought

 

[josef k.]

I can't figure out which parts of that are sarcastic... Even if it is sarcastic...

 

[four_five_one]

Isn't the purpose of you as a philosopher to give your support to a particular philosopher, or text, and then spend the rest of the time responding to criticisms of him/her? In which case if the philosopher you support isn't popular, you'd have difficulty achieving anything in philosophy, as no one would take your philosopher's work seriously and thus wouldn't be interested in your defense of them, or in offering criticism...

So popularity seems to be vital. There might be a few philosophers that are interesting to the general reader, that could actually help people in some way, when they're taken alone, disconnected from the rest of philosophy. Like Spinoza, possibly...

Incidentally, I just started reading through the K-Punk archive, from the beginning. There are quite a few things regards his love for Spinoza, whereas the past six months or so that I've been reading K-P, I haven't seen Spinoza called upon. Maybe he renounces Spinoza at some point, and puts his weight behind Zizek and Badiou? I can't really see them as reconcilable, especially ethically... I'll keep reading. It's exciting.