ahaha, funny stuff. The most meaningful post in wordpress history.
gaming informatic blur to turn pixels arranged reply-wise into honest to goodness real replies
Insofar as “analytic philosophy” is synonymous with “academic philosophy”, especially in the Anglo-American world, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Unger.
It’s intentionalism more generally he’s taking aim at, it seems, though he decided to aim his pox at just one house.
Finally a post the layman can understand.
Celebration of Forest Gump Day
Great opportunity to ask Scott about the next book release date.
An impersonation of President Obama when the teleprompter breaks.
What neglect looks like, minus any information to cue the information missing.
A tick carrying line disease.
Focal point of an invisible pornographic illustration.
Proof that it really ain’t all that hard to press the button.
I’m not going to ask for an update on Scott’s novel, but instead post a link to an interesting Vanity Fair article I recently came across, “Why Are Literary Critics Dismayed by Donna Tartt’s The Goldfinch” with the hope that maybe it would inspire a literature related blog post.🙂
Which just goes to show that every faction has its Tea Party. I’m actually starting to feel pity for these guys. The seem so isolate and anachronistic anymore. I remember Corey Doctorow telling me several years back that literature was already dead, that I was whipping a dead horse. In terms of trends, I agreed, but I thought it would take longer than this!
I was curious what you meant by “Tea Party” in this context until I read the article. The metaphor is eerily spot-on. Loved the King quote they cited. “What do you think? You get social academic Brownie points for deliberately staying out of touch with your own culture?”
Yeah, pretty much seems that way. Of course then he goes and does the same thing to Patterson. There always has to be an “other”.
Novelists are figuring it out sooner than critics, not surprisingly.
It always works this way. Outsiders clamour and clamour, then finally an insider wakes up… They’ll be taking credit for their capacity for ‘auto-critique’ soon enough, you wait and see!
They’ll be taking credit for their capacity for ‘auto-critique’ soon enough
Because parralel development can be dismissed as even a struck by lightning chance of possibililty.
A great ‘prose stylist’ is like a guitar player with great chops. If you have great chops but can’t write a song that moves people and have no charisma on stage the most you can hope to be is Steve Vai but you’ll probably just be Bumblefoot or Buckethead. Just as songwriting and performance skills are more valuable than instrumental chops the ability to construct compelling characters and a compelling plot is worth more than the ability to craft a lovely sentence. If you don’t believe me check out Aristotle’s Poetics.
The voice of certainty and more friendly support for my decision to drop out of academic philosophy. A relationship turned sour, you give and give and what, they don’t even help you with the dishes.
At least now I can start reading the philosophy books I’ve been wanting to. This week (more like month probably) the dialectic of enlightenment. Something no professor I can think of would have had me read for any class, although it seems like Horkheimer and Adorno already knew that.
It ain’t easy, and I really don’t think I truly understood the damn thing until I had wrestled Negative Dialectics to the mat. Minima Moralia is my runnaway fave…
I find myself wanting to give you advice, but the fact is things are changing so quickly. It depends what you want: to slowly steep yourself in the tradition, or to arm yourself to understand the craziness to come. I’m presently reading Eric Steinhart’s book on digitalism, and it strikes me as perhaps an ideal way to climb into the latter.
I vote for arming. Coursera is running an open source course on neuroeconomics as we type.
Arming myself for comprehending the practically viral progress of the present is the obvious choice, which is why I hesitate with older stuff. The struggle that is reading this book makes me hope it is having some other unknowable yet positive effect, and basically I just really like the coherence and clarity of vision i found in Minima moralia, a world of dark nothings lit solely by the sad light of redemption, so I figured I should read dialectic of enlightenment. It was an emotional read.
So I’m not sure that tradition and arming myself for the coming crazy are mutually exclusive, but I’ll check out that Steinhart book this summer too.
Damn interesting tidbit. You working for the NSA again, Jorge?
I see you switched teams to continental🙂
Yes… and no…
Thunder, lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes, stars, planets… whenever a natural and a supernatural explanation for an observed phenomenon have gone head to head the natural explanation has won. It’s actually rather surprising that nobody ever tried to construct a completely natural theory of mind before. Given how successful natural theories have been everywhere else the fact that philosophers of mind have never tried to offer a natural theory of mind before BBT might be seen as dereliction of intellectual duty. I think that might be at the root of why so many scientists and former philosophers are disappointed in philosophy.
Have you seen Julian Jaynes book? It’s similar to Sellars idea but he argues more strongly with textual sources from religion.
The idea is that reflexive self consciousness is a development not an intrinsic given. He shows that subjectivity as understood as having agency orienting thoughts around the transcendental ego just didn’t occur thousands of years ago. He posits that people understood thought prior to the development of the “analog I” as simple hallucinatory commands or injunctions which were ascribed to divine agencies. In this reading the fall of man is the splitting of and being cut off from divine command. Unlike Sellars he seems to think that a neurobiological factor might have changed to precipitate rational subjectivity.
Jaynes is fascinating, for me especially, because of the way he explains discursive features of humanity via natural processes. They just knew so little back in the day of OCBBM.
And yes this has generated food for intentionalists who argue about whether rational agency is a precondition to “true” “concept use”. Which is all very imperialist sounding because it ends up arguing that basically only westerners and maybe a couple other civilizations have produced thinking.
It’s as old as philosophy itself, in a sense. I actually see BBT as potentially vindicating Pyrrhonian skepticism in some form. One the things I try to explore in the fantasy series is the way philosophy, in prescientific contexts, actually still counts for a form of cognition. What makes this time unique is simply that the complexity of the brain rendered the human a kind of ‘prescientific speculation wildlife reserve,’ allowing philosophers to opine with fear of definitive contradiction. Now, the bastion of the human is coming crashing down, and they are loathe to recognize their imminent extinction!
Although in fairness it’s only been in the last twenty years or so that the sorts of data that would warrant a new theory have come to light. Thomas Kuhn had a point. Apparently the new neuroscience is forcing a paradigm shift because it’s incompatible with the old theories of mind. The way that problems that seem intractable under the old theory seem trivial under the new is about what Kuhn said to expect.
Except for his normativism, I agree!
starting to repeat yourself?
— R. Scott Bakker (@TheDevilsChirp) May 7, 2014
— R. Scott Bakker (@TheDevilsChirp) May 7, 2014
Well chirping is cHaracterized by certain periodicities: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirplet_transform
Jesus Christ, a fucking chirplet. I had no idea such a thing or such a word for a thing existed. #learningnewwordsbeforethesemanticapocalypse
Chirp – A bioeffluent that, although issuing from an asshole, leaves skid-marks only on the tighty-whities of the mind.
just to let you know, @Bakker_Fanatics is now @bakkerfans
Evolution – A pedagogic device
Evolution – A pedagogic device that burps and asks for a wetnap after final exams.
Scott, I saw your twitter update where you use the phrase ‘the system’. ‘The system’ relates to some of recent arguments that we see in recent continental philosophy that systems are not ‘totalizable’—e.g. Gabriel (he has an interesting TED talk about this: ‘the world does not exist’), Meillassoux (no totality of cases), Negarestani (‘the totality of the system is an illusion’). How do you feel about these arguments? It appears that these arguements are to hold crucial weight in these authors’ attempts to secure some kind of metaphysical autonomy.
Is this just an instance of the metaphysical game gaming informatic neglect. Ie. we dont possess all the information concerning systems, we we can claim that they are ‘incomplete’, ‘untotalizable’, ‘nonexistent’, etc
But in some sense I think these are an expression of what you used to work on before you quit your PhD, namely that one can only have a view on a state of affairs from somewhere. In Negarestani he would perhaps say ‘from the stance of a specified integration of functions can we speak of a system’.
in Meillassoux as well.. probably shows up in Zizek, Badiou, Johnston, and virtually everywhere
I just think arguing totality is as fruitless/futile as arguing non-totality: do people really think reasons can settle issues like that? Historically, it seems pretty clear that the cognitive legitimacy of certain theoretical claim-making discourses in the wake of the naturalization of human is what’s really at issue here. Everyone cedes the domain of the natural to science, which means cognitive legitimacy hinges on securing some apposite, scientifically intractable domain. On the one hand, you have the ‘ontological rip’ crowd, and on the other you have the ‘normative whip’ crowd. The one is dogmatic (as far as I can tell ‘correlationism’ amounts to little more than a call to pretend that Hume and Wittgenstein never happened), and the other is critical, but both are clearly practicing a kind of metaphysics – theory-mongering in the absence of any way to arbitrate their claims. Which is okay, so long as you qualify accordingly, which no one wants to do since it amounts to ceding cognitive legitimacy.
It seems pretty clear that cognition requires some kind of causal contact (think of WIMPs), that the stochastic machinery of nature can only be solved from within the stochastic machinery of nature (and all my theory amounts to is a mapping of the challenges posed by being so embodied and embedded). Is nature EVERYTHING? Who the hell knows? This is a far different question from whether intentionality is something. You find quite a few ‘god of the gaps’ type arguments in these circles.
If I can nudge the big ship continental a few more degree toward land, I’ll be happy!
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Blog at WordPress.com.