So I've been busier than ever before, but in a good way.
I'll be starting work this month on a yearbook for Object Oriented Philosophy...name as yet unknown. The plan is to draw submissions for the main OOP thinkers and perhaps some reactions. I'm hoping for 3-4 substantial statement position style arguments. My hope is that it acts as a centre for object oriented thought.
Secondly I can announce that the blog interviews will be coming together as Post-Continental Voices: Selected Interviews. All the interviews have been re-edited and streamlined. I'll be writing a short introduction. I hope to submit the proofs by the end of the month. The publisher is zero books.
Thirdly I am putting together an unrelated conference on Martin Heidegger for my department. It'll be broadly themed to address the lack of Heidegger conferences in recent years. I'll keep you all updated and hope that it will attract some OOP and SR especially the former for whom Heidegger is a source of sorts.
A second short book might also be in the works but more news when I've submitted Post-Continental Voices on that front.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Things to do and people to see
I can only apologize for the lack of posts lately. I am without my own internet access and waiting for the notoriously difficult cable company to come around. The net access at the University is fine but feels all wrong for writing what with the clicky keyboards and stuffy atmosphere.
On the plus side the lack of internet access has spurred me on to writing some of the things I need to complete: a book review, two articles (and potential thesis chapters), setting up a couple of secret projects (of definite interest to OOP/SR), a book introduction and some editing and an unrelated departmental project. So October looks to be a massively interesting month for me but not so much for the blog. I'll try to stick to quality posts and due to a lack of time they may not relate so much to the blogs in our orbit as I've been finding little time for any of them.
As a tidbit at least one article will attempt to develop a new approach to object oriented philosophy drawing on Graham and Levi but attempting something a little bit different and perhaps a little bit more traditional than either of these guys. This means an engagement with Berkeley, Hume, Leibniz and Kant. This list of names alone might hint at where I stand but there is an important detour into early Husserl and Heidegger. I owe Graham for reminding me how important Leibniz and Husserl are as thinkers. People say Graham is close to Aristotle but I think OOP is closest, historically to Leibniz (but not rationalism per se).
I managed to finish Nihil Unbound and can safely say that as amazing a book it is I don't neccessarily feel an affinity with the direction. On the other hand I've been re-reading the opening chapter of After Finitude and finding increasingly that something massively important in contained there.
On the plus side the lack of internet access has spurred me on to writing some of the things I need to complete: a book review, two articles (and potential thesis chapters), setting up a couple of secret projects (of definite interest to OOP/SR), a book introduction and some editing and an unrelated departmental project. So October looks to be a massively interesting month for me but not so much for the blog. I'll try to stick to quality posts and due to a lack of time they may not relate so much to the blogs in our orbit as I've been finding little time for any of them.
As a tidbit at least one article will attempt to develop a new approach to object oriented philosophy drawing on Graham and Levi but attempting something a little bit different and perhaps a little bit more traditional than either of these guys. This means an engagement with Berkeley, Hume, Leibniz and Kant. This list of names alone might hint at where I stand but there is an important detour into early Husserl and Heidegger. I owe Graham for reminding me how important Leibniz and Husserl are as thinkers. People say Graham is close to Aristotle but I think OOP is closest, historically to Leibniz (but not rationalism per se).
I managed to finish Nihil Unbound and can safely say that as amazing a book it is I don't neccessarily feel an affinity with the direction. On the other hand I've been re-reading the opening chapter of After Finitude and finding increasingly that something massively important in contained there.
Monday, September 14, 2009
No Internet Access
Looks like I'll be without internet access for a few days or perhaps even longer. So I might take a couple of days to respond to e-mails etc. Hope to be back up soon.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Why Speculative Realism and Why Now?
My last post raised a number of interesting issues although unsurprisingly they all came in the comments and mostly from other people. Paul Reid-Bowen is a new addition to the speculative realist/object oriented crew. He and Fabio raised some issues regarding why speculative realism has come about now and why its demographic tends to be young. I'd also add that our demographic is overwhelmingly male but this seems to be a philosophy wide issue (see here). The issue of women also came up in the interviews. All my interviews are with male philosophers. In fact I completely overlooked this fact until someone else mentioned it to me. Is it simply rooted in my own unconscious misogyny? I'd like to think so because then it would mean its just my ignorant ass ignoring women. Of course the issue is much wider. Its also worth mentioning that when one lists philosophers we almost always get a list of male names...even the contemporary names: Badiou, Zizek, Lacan, Laurelle, etc. You can see it in your own classes everyday staring you in the face. I don't know what that all means but it exists.
Why the turn against correlationism (casting the net wide)? I don't have an answer for this either but I can relay why I choose to get into speculative realism.
In his post on religion and SR Paul Reid-Bowen attempts to discover in what way SR/OOP might appeal to theology. It is a good question. Certainly Heidegger is a thinker who owes a lot of his reputation to the interest theologians took in his work (is not the 1962 translation a theologically inflected one...remind me to make a post on that point. I've found it tends to generate a lot of discussion).
About 8 months ago I'd fallen into a rut. I didn't know where to go with Heidegger. I'd investigated a lot of stuff on place and although I felt I'd written something interesting on space in Heidegger I didn't really feel it added anything positive to the world. I mean that in Levi's sense of gleaning an insight from a thinker that aids you in your daily life. Just another analysis of Heidegger destined to appear as a footnote somewhere if I ever got lucky.
So I tutored a course on scholastic philosophy and got a pretty deep handle on ye olde metaphysics and discovered negative theology and from here how negative theology was sneaking into continental philosophy. I wallowed around in this for a bit but slowly realised I was attracted to it not because this was the answer but that negative theology was the problem: the total dead end when you start drifting down the river on the way to intellectual Hades.
Now PRB is clearly aware that SR/OOP is something of an atheistic philosophy. It is after all a speculative realism...whatever you make of realism you know it rarely leads toward God. It could but if you are a realist there is probably that suspicion there against theology, Absolutes, and so on. Negative theology tries to slip around this issue by focusing on the sheer unknowability and unthinkability of God thereby being the theological position of correlationism par excellence. One simply makes God the limit. You can play around with wonderful obtuse language here: nothingness, void, boundary, and you might even think you sound like a quantum physicist. This is the nothingness of the later Heidegger elevated God knows where. I prefer his mundane nothingness encountered in boredom and anxiety. I can get a feel for that.
So where are the affinities? If we head down the animistic route we may end up again with the fetish for givenness i.e. the objects manifest in a weird manner and I come up against them. It is almost a miracle etc. So what might the religious standpoint be? As an atheist I don't really know although perhaps the 'allure' of Harman is something we can admire in objects. Or if allure is not something you subscribe to then we can focus on things plain being fascinating. As a proponent of the deflation thesis I firmly believe that what is already here is wonderful in and of itself. Whether that fits the bill I don't know, but I look forward to how pagan metaphysics explores this area and so we can look forward to a new direction in SR/OOP opening up before us.
Why the turn against correlationism (casting the net wide)? I don't have an answer for this either but I can relay why I choose to get into speculative realism.
In his post on religion and SR Paul Reid-Bowen attempts to discover in what way SR/OOP might appeal to theology. It is a good question. Certainly Heidegger is a thinker who owes a lot of his reputation to the interest theologians took in his work (is not the 1962 translation a theologically inflected one...remind me to make a post on that point. I've found it tends to generate a lot of discussion).
About 8 months ago I'd fallen into a rut. I didn't know where to go with Heidegger. I'd investigated a lot of stuff on place and although I felt I'd written something interesting on space in Heidegger I didn't really feel it added anything positive to the world. I mean that in Levi's sense of gleaning an insight from a thinker that aids you in your daily life. Just another analysis of Heidegger destined to appear as a footnote somewhere if I ever got lucky.
So I tutored a course on scholastic philosophy and got a pretty deep handle on ye olde metaphysics and discovered negative theology and from here how negative theology was sneaking into continental philosophy. I wallowed around in this for a bit but slowly realised I was attracted to it not because this was the answer but that negative theology was the problem: the total dead end when you start drifting down the river on the way to intellectual Hades.
Now PRB is clearly aware that SR/OOP is something of an atheistic philosophy. It is after all a speculative realism...whatever you make of realism you know it rarely leads toward God. It could but if you are a realist there is probably that suspicion there against theology, Absolutes, and so on. Negative theology tries to slip around this issue by focusing on the sheer unknowability and unthinkability of God thereby being the theological position of correlationism par excellence. One simply makes God the limit. You can play around with wonderful obtuse language here: nothingness, void, boundary, and you might even think you sound like a quantum physicist. This is the nothingness of the later Heidegger elevated God knows where. I prefer his mundane nothingness encountered in boredom and anxiety. I can get a feel for that.
So where are the affinities? If we head down the animistic route we may end up again with the fetish for givenness i.e. the objects manifest in a weird manner and I come up against them. It is almost a miracle etc. So what might the religious standpoint be? As an atheist I don't really know although perhaps the 'allure' of Harman is something we can admire in objects. Or if allure is not something you subscribe to then we can focus on things plain being fascinating. As a proponent of the deflation thesis I firmly believe that what is already here is wonderful in and of itself. Whether that fits the bill I don't know, but I look forward to how pagan metaphysics explores this area and so we can look forward to a new direction in SR/OOP opening up before us.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Philosophers are serious people
No really!
OK so I've been steering clear of the battle for hearts and minds over at Larval Subjects.
I guess the debate is over who is best at escaping the chain tied to the ankles of continental philosophy: OOP or non-philosophy? Seems more like a sibling rivalry than anything else to me.
I've noticed a lot of talk in that post's comments about jargon, big-name thinkers (and bypassing them), and positive-negative philosophy (or how to escape the self-reflexive stance of contemporary philosophy).
To outsiders it might seem as if OOP and non-philosophy are totally opposed enemies firing on all cylinders; crushing the idiots who dare to strike out on their own. Yet the fact that the debate is mostly functioning on a rhetorical level suggests that these two groups are too similar to pick each other part philosophically. Both Levi and Anthony are quick to admit that they cannot move the debate forward...that an impasse has been reached.
Despite the obvious factionalism that exists at the heart of speculative realism (Laruelle it is worth noting generally appears alongside the four speculative realist names without much comment) the aforementioned three issues are worth focusing on.
The issue of jargon is key. It is clear that deconstruction(ism) & other post-Heideggerian (oh so many layers of jargon) both suffer from jargon-overload. Jargon is basically complexity. The language employed by continental philosophy is too complex and therefore difficult to translate to layman. Further the sheer weight of complexity require that students dedicate years to dissecting a thinker in order to simply comment on a thinker before they, if they even do so, decide to contribute to the development of philosophy. Hence the problem of regression. Am I, by writing about Heidegger, progressing philosophy by becoming an expert and passing on this knowledge or regressing for precisely the same reasons? It is a worthwhile question.
If you have ever had to teach a class someone like Heidegger (or Hegel or Kant) you will know how jargon is the barrier. I remember standing in front of a class a couple of semesters ago. One particularly bright student prodded me to explain what Heidegger meant by Being. The problem here is not so much that I don't know how to do this in an accessible manner but how do I do it so they also get a grip on some of the necessary jargon they will need when dealing with Heidegger...I must use Da-Sein, ontological difference and authenticity. If I don't I have not prepared them properly. Therefore the cycle is repeated. They go on to immerse themselves and perhaps give into Heidegger's jargon...and become Heideggerians (transmitters of Heideggerian jargon).
This is also the big-name issue. This issue is different and is more or less the question of time management. Do I have the time to read Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger to become adapt at German philosophy? Maybe I need to add Husserl or Schelling? OK so I want to update my portfolio to include speculative realism. I read Brassier, Hamilton, Harman etc. Then I hear new names: Latour, Serres, DeLanda. But wait there are some classics I have missed: Bergson, Whitehead. The other guys are reading Derrida, Deleuze, Zizek and Badiou. Better add those. A whole lifetime can go missing in what we do. I like reading but philosophy should come with a free voucher for reading glasses for life.
I've often wished that before a conference paper I could list all the people I have not read and put them up outside the door. Those who had attended my paper in order to see how it synced with their pet thinker could check the list and if their thinker was missing they could skip the lecture thereby avoiding the awkward moment where I tell them I have not read Badiou because I'm currently trying to play catch up with Derrida. In fact I'm often surprised how philosophers, so called champions of truth, will beg, steal and borrow to pretend they have read somebody so as not to lose face. You haven't read everything by Derrida? That's OK. I haven't either. I won't think any less of your paper for it. I'm sure you've read other people. Mind I admit I'd be less polite with someone as fundamental as Kant but you get the picture.
Then again philosophers are serious people doing serious things and talking serious stuff. Or that is the feeling I find when I walk the hallowed halls of the Ivory Tower (complete with mundane view, smell of coffee, and Windows XP screensavers whizzing past).
OK so I've been steering clear of the battle for hearts and minds over at Larval Subjects.
I guess the debate is over who is best at escaping the chain tied to the ankles of continental philosophy: OOP or non-philosophy? Seems more like a sibling rivalry than anything else to me.
I've noticed a lot of talk in that post's comments about jargon, big-name thinkers (and bypassing them), and positive-negative philosophy (or how to escape the self-reflexive stance of contemporary philosophy).
To outsiders it might seem as if OOP and non-philosophy are totally opposed enemies firing on all cylinders; crushing the idiots who dare to strike out on their own. Yet the fact that the debate is mostly functioning on a rhetorical level suggests that these two groups are too similar to pick each other part philosophically. Both Levi and Anthony are quick to admit that they cannot move the debate forward...that an impasse has been reached.
Despite the obvious factionalism that exists at the heart of speculative realism (Laruelle it is worth noting generally appears alongside the four speculative realist names without much comment) the aforementioned three issues are worth focusing on.
The issue of jargon is key. It is clear that deconstruction(ism) & other post-Heideggerian (oh so many layers of jargon) both suffer from jargon-overload. Jargon is basically complexity. The language employed by continental philosophy is too complex and therefore difficult to translate to layman. Further the sheer weight of complexity require that students dedicate years to dissecting a thinker in order to simply comment on a thinker before they, if they even do so, decide to contribute to the development of philosophy. Hence the problem of regression. Am I, by writing about Heidegger, progressing philosophy by becoming an expert and passing on this knowledge or regressing for precisely the same reasons? It is a worthwhile question.
If you have ever had to teach a class someone like Heidegger (or Hegel or Kant) you will know how jargon is the barrier. I remember standing in front of a class a couple of semesters ago. One particularly bright student prodded me to explain what Heidegger meant by Being. The problem here is not so much that I don't know how to do this in an accessible manner but how do I do it so they also get a grip on some of the necessary jargon they will need when dealing with Heidegger...I must use Da-Sein, ontological difference and authenticity. If I don't I have not prepared them properly. Therefore the cycle is repeated. They go on to immerse themselves and perhaps give into Heidegger's jargon...and become Heideggerians (transmitters of Heideggerian jargon).
This is also the big-name issue. This issue is different and is more or less the question of time management. Do I have the time to read Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger to become adapt at German philosophy? Maybe I need to add Husserl or Schelling? OK so I want to update my portfolio to include speculative realism. I read Brassier, Hamilton, Harman etc. Then I hear new names: Latour, Serres, DeLanda. But wait there are some classics I have missed: Bergson, Whitehead. The other guys are reading Derrida, Deleuze, Zizek and Badiou. Better add those. A whole lifetime can go missing in what we do. I like reading but philosophy should come with a free voucher for reading glasses for life.
I've often wished that before a conference paper I could list all the people I have not read and put them up outside the door. Those who had attended my paper in order to see how it synced with their pet thinker could check the list and if their thinker was missing they could skip the lecture thereby avoiding the awkward moment where I tell them I have not read Badiou because I'm currently trying to play catch up with Derrida. In fact I'm often surprised how philosophers, so called champions of truth, will beg, steal and borrow to pretend they have read somebody so as not to lose face. You haven't read everything by Derrida? That's OK. I haven't either. I won't think any less of your paper for it. I'm sure you've read other people. Mind I admit I'd be less polite with someone as fundamental as Kant but you get the picture.
Then again philosophers are serious people doing serious things and talking serious stuff. Or that is the feeling I find when I walk the hallowed halls of the Ivory Tower (complete with mundane view, smell of coffee, and Windows XP screensavers whizzing past).
Thursday, September 3, 2009
thaumazein
Can you recall when you first attended lectures in philosophy? What did you think philosophy was?
I remember first hearing that 'God is Dead'. Existentialism. That whole affair. I also remember names: Locke, Hume, Descartes. Other names.
The words that come to mind are causality, dialectic, and freedom.
If you asked me today to say a word on, for example, freedom it is probable that I will repeat something drawn from a hazy recollection of Sartre (the philosopher I dislike the most ever).
If you asked me what is causality I suppose I enter into different terrain. I think of objects (no object in particular) and usually two objects with a line representing the chain of causation. The object to the left of my mental image is causing some effect on the object to the right.
What surprises me about this image and how I was trained to think in philosophy is just how strange this image is. I don't know whether other people have vastly more impressive images with multiple objects or even real things like a T-Rex battling Gozilla. T-Rex bites Gozilla causing bite marks to appear on Gozilla. I'll keep this one for the Powerpoint slides. I don't really use Powerpoint slides anymore. People just spend the lecture wondering why you suck at visualling your ideas.
What is nice about this image is that it assumes for the objects a level of automony that is soon to be crushed by the introduction of Kant a couple of semesters later. No longer the free-roaming objects of your philosophical childhood.
Object oriented philosophy reclaims the thaumazein of our philosophical childhoods.
I remember first hearing that 'God is Dead'. Existentialism. That whole affair. I also remember names: Locke, Hume, Descartes. Other names.
The words that come to mind are causality, dialectic, and freedom.
If you asked me today to say a word on, for example, freedom it is probable that I will repeat something drawn from a hazy recollection of Sartre (the philosopher I dislike the most ever).
If you asked me what is causality I suppose I enter into different terrain. I think of objects (no object in particular) and usually two objects with a line representing the chain of causation. The object to the left of my mental image is causing some effect on the object to the right.
What surprises me about this image and how I was trained to think in philosophy is just how strange this image is. I don't know whether other people have vastly more impressive images with multiple objects or even real things like a T-Rex battling Gozilla. T-Rex bites Gozilla causing bite marks to appear on Gozilla. I'll keep this one for the Powerpoint slides. I don't really use Powerpoint slides anymore. People just spend the lecture wondering why you suck at visualling your ideas.
What is nice about this image is that it assumes for the objects a level of automony that is soon to be crushed by the introduction of Kant a couple of semesters later. No longer the free-roaming objects of your philosophical childhood.
Object oriented philosophy reclaims the thaumazein of our philosophical childhoods.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Speculative Realism Wiki Update
Micheal from Complete Lies has substantially improved the Speculative Realism wiki entry. Link.
The Speculative Heretics have also posted an update on current trends.
The Speculative Heretics have also posted an update on current trends.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
3 Quarks Daily Prize voting begins
There are a number of object oriented/SR blogs up for nomination including my own. (Listed as: Another Heidegger Blog: Interview with Jeffery Malpas).
Vote now!
Vote now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)