/lit/ - Literature

Alain is in the middle, so this should be appropriate here, as well.

How would you consider Badiou? What is to be said of reconstructing ontology by means of mathematical, logical axioms? Is Badiou successful?

Why consider idealism and not postivism? To me both seem requisite for a complete understanding of the universe.

what is love?

Why is Baudrillard wrong?

>>1295652

I'm not a religious person in the slightest, but I'd have a hard time finding anything that puts it better than this: "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

>>1295654

>How would you consider Badiou? What is to be said of reconstructing ontology by means of mathematical, logical axioms? Is Badiou successful?

I've yet to have a chance to give Being and Event a serious reading. I've looked at it a few times, only briefly, and to be honest, I don't have a very good idea of what he's trying to do exactly. I understand the distinction between being and event, at least as he utilizes that distinction in terms of politics (and its attendant truth-procedures). But I don't understand it as a general distinction; so perhaps I don't understand it at all.

I have, however, read his book on St. Paul and the more recent one on communism, and found them both to be very good (particularly the former).

>Why consider idealism and not postivism?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "idealism" in this context. Or, rather, let's say I don't really accept the classification. As for positivism, I wrote my thesis as an analytic, so I don't reject it out of hand or anything. It's more that I think a robust positivism has been out of the question, broadly speaking, since Quine, Kuhn, and Sellars.

>>1295664

Which Baudrillard (early or late)? And to which part do you refer?

>>1295664
Baudrillard was right about the Gulf and is his theory is still relevant today.

What is truth?

Why didn't you respond to my response?

Do you go to Fordham? I'm fairly sure it's not NYU, and if it's CUNY, I feel sorry for you.

>>1295666
I see more truth in this than what B.R. said:
>In a less inspiring sense, limerence (potentially >faded) + commitment. Limerence is the feeling >of a crush; exhilaration is his presence, intrusive >fantasies about him, etc.
WTF, LMFAO!

>>1295688

>What is truth?

What an interesting question. The simplest answer in the simplest vocabulary is that truth is a semantic relationship that inheres between a sentence in an object language and a sentence in a metalanguage. I'm sure you know the formulation already. Tarski's definition of truth is the only satisfactory definition of truth (in the simplest sense of the word, abstracting away from concrete historical, ideological, and political circumstances, where the word can be used very differently); and Davidson's one of the only philosophers to do anything interesting with it. Even then, it's not that interesting.

Now, you tell me, as an analytic: What is truth?

>Why didn't you respond to my response?

What are you talking about?

>Do you go to Fordham? I'm fairly sure it's not NYU, and if it's CUNY

Nope, nope, and nope.

>>1295706
>nope

I'm fairly sure that you don't matter, then. I mean, all of those, and not the New School... what the fuck is left, in New York?

>What are you talking about?

I responded to your ugly female reaction image.

>What is truth?

A predicate.

>tripfag circlejerk

>>1295718

>I'm fairly sure that you don't matter, then

Always so pleasant to talk to you, dear. Go do some (more) amateur sleuthing at The Philosophical Gourmet, and I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

>I responded to your ugly female reaction image.

Oh! That. Simple, really. I didn't respond because I didn't care.

>A predicate.

I love how some of you analytics turn to these quaint little definitions when you don't know how to define the terms you bandy about so freely. I swear, sometimes it's like you're not even familiar with debates over subjects internal to your own field.

What is the sound of the one-handed clap?

'Sup Isabelle, how much do you stand by the lit-wiki philosophy images? Down to editions pictured? To my understanding you compiled them.

>>1295737

The priest Ryo came to Magaku and told him the story of Daikaku’s one word sutra. He said: "I do not ask about the six or seven syllables recited by other sects, but what is the one word of Zen?"

Magaku said: "Our school does not set up any word; its dharma is a special transmission outside scriptures, a truth transmitted from heart to heart. If you can penetrate through to that, your whole life will be a dharanı (i.e., a Buddhist mantra), and your death will be a dharanı, as well. What would you be wanting with a word or half a word?

The old master Daikaku went deep into the forest and put one word down there, and now the whole Zen world is tearing itself to pieces on the thorns, trying to find it. If the reverend Ryo before me wishes to grasp that one word, then without opening the mouth, do you recite the sutra of no-word? If you fail in your awareness of the no-word, you will at once lose the one word. Displayed, the one word is set above the thirty-three heavens; buried, it is at the bottom of the eighth great hell. Yet in all four directions and above and below, where could it ever be hidden? At this instant before Your Reverence! Is there a word, or is there not?”

The golden needle did not penetrate the embroidered cloth of the priest Ryo’s mind, and he silently took his leave.

>>1295736

So.... Buffalo? I didn't even know that that existed.

>>1295718

>what the fuck is left, in New York?

columbia, barnard, pace, pratt, cooper union,

>>1295741

About 60%. You could do worse, but it was only a pretty clunky first go - and an incomplete one at that. If I can find somebody willing to do the image work again, I'd like to give it another go.

>>1295746
>columbia

Oof, I would be sad if. Tell us a story, Izzy.

>>1295752

as a columbia student myself, i would be just fine with it

>>1295749
I would be willing to give the image a shot.

>>1295753

Hmm. Okay, well, how often are you around here? Though to be honest, I'd rather not post a million lists all over /lit/ like last time. Do you have an e-mail I could just shoot a final draft to when I'd finished?

>>1295763

Truly, they trust you? Guess I'll just keep posting tier lists.

>>1295763
Here's my email.

>>1295773

Alright. Don't expect anything too soon. Sometime in a few weeks.

I hate these threads.

I love both analytic and continental.

I really don't see the divide. I like reading Foucault and Deleuze as much as I like reading Kripke and Russell.

I seriously don't get the tribal-esque, camp-dividing rage that the more extreme proponents from either movement have against each other.

>>1295781

>I like reading Foucault and Deleuze as much as I like reading Kripke and Russell.

That's actually the most encouraging thing I've read all day. Keep at it.

>I really don't see the divide

It largely comes from departmental politics, which have been entrenched for quite awhile now.

>>1295781

Yeah, OP is a jerk. Why can't we all just get along?

how huppert hasn't learned from a thing she knows is amazing

you are all failing to recognize that the continental/analytic divide is meaningless. I'm asserting in the strongest possible terms that the divide between these two schools of thought is meaningless, because the category of modern philosophy is itself void. It's a convenient venue to artfully state what everyone already knows, or doesn't need articulated in order to continue operating well. Similar criticisms can be applied to psychology.

>>1295811

>It's a convenient venue to artfully state what everyone already knows

I sort of wish that were true. Sometimes I get tired of arguing all the fucking time.

>>1295815

Yes, but then you'd only be qualified to work in a gas station. Best if we make everyone think this stuff matters.

>>I put the ways of childhood behind me.
:1

>>1295819

>Best if we make everyone think this stuff matters

Oh, I think it matters. I was really referring more to the part where he asserted that "everyone already knows" what I argue for, teach, and write about.

>>1295794
isabelle

i'm an undergrad phil. major who's mostly interested in continental (esp. heidey)

what should i do/combine it with?
- economics/finance: be a sort of phenomenological business consultant? (like dreyfus talks about)
- law: lawyer? be cool and could --- > introduce phenomenology to US gov or politics (i'm tall, WASP, handsome, etc)
- just stick purely to philosophy ph.d and become a teacher? (i don't really want to teach)

what would you do? what would you recommend? best for me? best for money? most fun? most influential?

>>1295824

My heavens, you teach what you write about? Why are you sober right now?

>>1295836
>phenomenological business consultant

:3

What do you thin of Robert Pippin?

>>1295836

>a sort of phenomenological business consultant

I hate to sound like a wet blanket, but I have no idea what this might mean. In either case, I sincerely doubt you'd be able to find any such profession, at least in this country. Be forewarned: If you choose to pursue economics at the graduate-level at a majority of universities in the U.S., you're going to find yourself doing mostly calculus and having very little to do with history or philosophy. Economics and finance departments just don't do that sort of thing, as far as I can tell. My boyfriend got his doctoral degree in finance in the mid-1990s and found the experience very discouraging.

>law: lawyer?

Lots of people who major in philosophy go on to law school and make it work. As for
>introduce phenomenology to US gov or politics
If you can make it go, then make it go.

(1/2)

>just stick purely to philosophy ph.d

Only do this if you love it, and you're willing to go bust trying to do it. Don't think that just getting a degree will necessarily advance you professionally. You need to keep in mind that you need a competitive degree and that it's a competitive field. However, if you're convicted, go anyway. You only get one life, and it's better to do something you love than something you hate. But if possible, it's better to be convicted and well-positioned than simply convicted. Luck and social contacts help. Make friends with your professors earlier rather than later.

>and become a teacher? (i don't really want to teach)

Well, if you don't want to teach, perhaps you shouldn't become a teacher.

>what would you do?

I got my B.A./B.S. at an okay school, went to a better one for my M.A., then to a better one for postgrad. There's nothing wrong with stairstepping, but if you can get directly into a good doctoral program, then do so. Aim higher than you think you can achieve, but have backups as well.

>best for me?

Only you can say.

>best for money?

Probably law, if you do well on the LSAT and get into a good law school.

>most fun?

Well, I actually LIKE to teach...

>most influential?

That all depends on you.

(2/2)

is there any reason for someone with only a recreational interest in philosophy to read Kant? Or should I just go right for the fun stuff like Nietzsche? Or where the hell should I start?

>>1295876
Kant is not fun. In fact, Kant is the antithesis of fun. If your interest is only recreational, reading an overview of him should be sufficient.

>>1295846

Oh, you know. He's a fine philosopher. I disagree with him on quite a few points, but largely it's a matter of broad orientations. I don't really like the whole Leiter/Pippin school of (what seems to me) Nietzsche revisionism. It seems to me to miss the point of Nietzsche entirely. When I read either of them on the topic, I always feel like we've read totally different Nietzsches. As for Pippin's Hegel, it's better than, I don't know, let's say Kojève's, but I prefer Donald Verene and Susan Buck-Morss. Pippin's got that fixation on spying hidden Kants all over the damn place, and sometimes I think he misses the point of Hegel as much as he misses the point of Nietzsche.

>>1295866
danke isabelle

>>1295876

Depends on what you mean by recreational and what you mean by fun. If you mean by recreational something like "I read philosophers I find entertaining or readable," then give Kant a try and decide for yourself. If you want at least a moderate grasp of his thought, read the Groundwork and the Prolegomena. Otherwise, skim Guyer's book, or read Schneedwind's The Invention of Autonomy. If it really bores you to tears, then read something else. Generally, I'd recommend Hegel over Kant any day of the week, but I doubt most recreational readers would find either one much fun.

>>1295878
Yeah that's what I figured.

>>1295880
yeah none of those other names are famous enough for me. I'm just gonna start with old Nietzsche'y boy. Although I have a feeling my time would be better spent reading about physics and biology - but everyone needs philosophy.

>>1295883
oops I misread your other post as a reply to me "where to start question". This answer is much more suitable and helpful, thanks.

>>1295885

Shrug. Depends on what you do, what you want to do, and what kind of life you want to lead.

To be honest, Nietzsche is one of the few philosophers I think everybody should read, regardless of the answers they might provide to the questions above.

Try reading him in conjunction with Whitman. It's immensely rewarding.

Nietzsche is one of the worst philosophers to start with. You can't really understand him without understanding what he is reacting against; you'll confuse strength of rhetoric (required to overturn what were, in his time, dogmas) with extremity of viewpoint and misunderstand the whole thing.

>>1295781

Agree 100%. Currently dividing my reading time between Williamson and Hegel. I wish my colleagues were similarly inclined, but alas.

>>1295898
This is also reading Nietzsche at a much more advanced level than probably what the requester would be willing to engage in at the moment. They are looking for a pleasurable read, and thus Nietzsche will come across much different in his/her reading.

>>1295898

I disagree, but then I don't think there's an ideal starting point for entry into the study or appreciation of philosophy. I don't buy the whole "start at the beginning and work your way forward" approach as a general prescription for practical reasons, namely, I've seen lots of people decide to do that rather than starting with something they found genuinely interesting and then lose interest while trying to machete through Aristotle or whatever. So the only general prescription I'm comfortable with is - Start where your interests lie. That being said, yes, there's plenty in Nietzsche that might be incomprehensible to someone without any contextual or historical knowledge. To which I say, okay, fine, so what? This is true of every starting place. So what? Nietzsche is something you read and reread. What makes him a good place to start is his humor, passion, subtlety, and wit. Those things fuel the curiosity and passion of a student pretty damn effectively, in my opinion.

>>1295891
THIS.

but...i'd like to add, when you are done with the bad trip you're gonna have with FN, go see my buddy soren. he's got the good stuff that'll wash away the stink of void.

>>1295902

Glad to see the enmity isn't as entrenched as it used to be.

>>1295909

>Nietzsche
>the stink of void

What the fuck Nietzsche have YOU been reading?

>>1295906
I was poster: >>1295905

Thank you for expanding. Good post.

>>1295898
The degree to which everyone misunderstands Nietzsche, or at least understands him differently, is what makes him most interesting.

>>1295909
Yes, indeed. And when you're done with Kierkegaard, you can move on to Cioran and come back down to earth.

>>1295898
If I'm at the point of reading something written by Nietszche I think it's safe to assume I have a basic understanding of the context. He's only one of the most well known and controversial philosophers, and his speaking out against religious dogma is precisely what makes him so interesting to me. More modern day philosophers should speak out against worthless religious thought that clutters debate, then we can start making some real progress.

>>1295911

I do think the enmity is fading, but an unfortunate sort of blindness is taking its place (at least on the analytic side of things, which I'm more familiar with). What I mean is that many analytic philosophers I know hardly seem to realize that there are other forms of philosophy out there or, if they do, don't even have enough interest in it to disparage it. Maybe that's progress in some sense (less negativity, anyway), but it's depressing in a different way.

>>1295906

That's reasonable enough, I guess. I think you're right that it's probably impossible to avoid misunderstandings in philosophy regardless of where you begin. I do still think it's strange, though, that so many people start with Nietzsche (besides the quality of his writing, but then why not start with Hume?) Maybe the whole anti-religion thing makes it appear accessible, but I think that's a mistake unless you understand the extent to which Nietzsche's understanding of Plato colors his understanding of religion, something you'll miss if you start with Nietzsche.

>>1295929

It's unfortunate, but it's going to take time for the influence of people like David Lewis to fade.

On the continental side of things, I think the enmity, much of which is still a bit sharp, stems from injured egos. That sounds kind of condescending, but you have to keep in mind that continentals have been and continue to be in the distinct minority. Furthermore, given that they're a minority, I think aggression (be it explicit, e.g., Searle, et. al., or less so, e.g., Leiter & Co.) from analytics has made them notably more defensive. It also hasn't really helped that analytics bring scientists into the mix, who almost always seem to enjoy taking shots at the humanities. To a great extent, I think a lot of it is actually sort of personal. I don't know a continental who hasn't had negative experiences with analytics, even though I know plenty of perfectly pleasant analytics. Everyone has a war story about that guy who starts off a conversation, square one, with, "Why are you even in the philosophy department and not in genderqueer complit, huh/So you really take all that French gobbledegook seriously, LOL/etc."

>>1295921

if the critique of religion is what interests you, then you'll probably enjoy yourself with nietzsche. just don't confuse his anti-religious stance with a pro-science (especially contemporary science) stance and you'll be ok.

>>1295931

>unless you understand the extent to which Nietzsche's understanding of Plato colors his understanding of religion, something you'll miss if you start with Nietzsche

That's probably true. A lot of people misunderstand his enmity for religion, much less other observations of his, and end up with an image of Nietzsche that's very skewed. That being said, I think a perceptive reader might pick up more than you'd think, even just reading Nietzsche. As for why more people start with Nietzsche than Hume, I think it's simply to do with cultural reputation (more Nietzschean phrases have entered the popular sphere than Hume's, I think), the comparative flamboyancy (that's not really the right word, but you know what I mean) of their biographies (e.g., Hume having tea with Smith doesn't really compare with embracing a horse and going crazy...), and so on. So I don't think it's just the anti-religious sentiments. There's also the fact that Nietzsche is extraordinarily caustic and often very funny. I mean, Hume can be droll, I suppose, and he writes well, but there's a disparity, I think, in terms of the respective passions on display. Don't get me wrong - I like Hume rather a lot.

Anyway, I'm to bed. Nice chatting.

>mfw I missed this thread

>>1296478
same.

i also feel sad that you missed it.

>>1296478
I bet. You would've loved to derail it with your faggotry.

>>1296490
yo, bro, you make a fair point, and imma let you finish, but I just wanted to say, that isabelle huppert vs d&e threads are the funniest /lit/ posts OF ALL TIME

>but I just wanted to say, that
way to fail

>>1296508
>doesnt get the joke

>>1296490
Don't really like to shit on solid threads bro. Might have quoted a few deflationary remarks on scholars and thinkers by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and left that to play itself out.

>philosophy

Fucking sage for pretentious, meaningless bullshit. Get a real job OP.

I really hate to ask this, but, do you really believe

>>1295666
That whole argument?

It says love has no capacity to do evil, it cannot fail, etc.

It's poetic as all hell, but the truth of it is rather dubious. Are you one of those philosophers that base all of their reasoning on how poetic or beautiful an idea seems?

(Oh, wait, that's all of them)

>>1295649

Do you think critical theory is a branch of philosophy?

Hey Isabelle you're a smart guy what do you make of the Kyoto School? Was Nishida a war enabler like Heidegger? What do u think of the concept of Emptiness in terms of Nishitani Keiji's philosophy?

>>1296531
Nigger, stop misinterpreting us. Your juvenile bullshit's getting old now.

>>1296478
>>1296486
>>1296503
>>1296510
>>1296531
>>1296924
Samefuckingfag. And yes, it does deserve the infix.

>>1297023
>hurr de whole world iz against me

What is the Literary world equivalent of Hypebeast/HighSnobiety/Selectism (for Fashion), or Fecal Face (for Art)?