March 2, 2010
"It is hard not to be intimidated by New Left Review. At times, the journal can seem like an elaborate contrivance for making us feel inadequate."

Stefan Collini on New Left Review at 50 via @aldaily

very often, i feel that large swathes of useful intellectual labor come filled to the knee with contrivance…

give me a reason, don’t give me gestures.. or names.

“What other publication would take out a full-page advertisement in a national newspaper announcing its “quinquagenary issue”? NLR has been accused of many things, but never of populist dumbing-down.”

…or just stfu. (see also pikachu & deleuze via @naxos)

(also also, see @bradfidler’s now deleted post on spivak’s emancipatory jargon. it’s good, trust me.)

March 1, 2010
"The truth comes as conqueror only because we have lost the art of receiving it as guest."

- Tagore via @hangingnoodles + @ebertchicago

“The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark;

It scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark.”

- Elvis Costello

February 14, 2010
Affect Blog » (Geo)Politic{s} and its Love Affair with [Brackets]

“There seems to be a definite propensity for academics in the field(s) of (geo)politics and critical/radical geographies to (bracket) up as many of the complex [‘general group identification words’] as possible. Is this a case of academic elitism that creates an ‘in-crowd’ by using a shared style of expression? Where the use of (brackets) allows the budding critical/poltico/social/economistic/philso/anthro/geo-graphers to to carve out and perform/create ‘their’ own {multiple} identities? Or perhaps it is to highlight the pluralities (multiple meanings) of self-reflexive and self-critical discourses that seem as resistant to self-identification as they do the labeling of others.

Or perhaps pragmatism holds the key - brackets provide a quick and possibly eloquent way of covering multiple meanings and identities all at once; one that allows academics to sidestep any real commitment to a particular label and so avoid arguments being sidetracked by endless rounds of name calling.

Either way, the written bracket {in relation to the meanings it hopes to convey in these contexts} occupies a rather ambiguous space. The mark itself is inherently divisive and yet its deployment in this manner acts as a point of convergence for multiple (possibly) disparate narratives and discourses.

Or perhaps I’m reading too much into it. Then again, there’s always the “/”.”

what about the <angle> bracket? don’t marginalize it, [(typonormative-) fascist] k? >:|

February 7, 2010
"As I see it, the whole point of pragmatism is to insist that we human beings are answerable only to one another. We are answerable only to those who answer to us – only to conversation partners. We are not responsible either to the atoms or to God, at least not until they start conversing with us."

Richard Rorty: ‘Comments on Jeffrey Stout’s Democracy and Tradition’ (via fuckyeahphilosophy)

but what if they are & we just can’t hear them?

February 6, 2010
Anonymous sent me this. Thanks Anonymous, this is a good thing.

Anonymous sent me this. Thanks Anonymous, this is a good thing.

February 3, 2010
"The question of the archive is not a question of the past. It is not the question of a concept dealing with the past that might already be at our disposal. An archivable concept of the archive. It is a question of the future, the question of the future itself, the question of a response, of a promise, and of a responsibility for tomorrow. The archive, if we want to know what that will have meant, we will only know in times to come; not tomorrow, but in times to come. Later on, or perhaps never."

— Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever, University of Chicago Press, 1996 (via butterflyhunt)

January 26, 2010
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

— Avicenna, Metaphysics (via illllllllllllli)

January 15, 2010
DELEUZE AND THE QUESTION OF DESIRE: TOWARD AN IMMANENT THEORY OF ETHICS

“The title of this paper raises two questions, each of which I would like to address in turn. The first question is: What exactly is an immanent ethics (as opposed to an ethics that appeal to transcendence)? The second question is: What is the philosophical question of desire? My ultimate question concerns the link between these two issues: What relation does an immanent ethics have to the question of desire? Historically, the first question is primarily linked with the names of Spinoza and Nietzsche (as well as, as we shall see, Leibniz), since it was Spinoza and Nietzsche who posed the question of an immanent ethics in its most rigorous form. The second question is linked to names like Freud and Lacan, and behind them, to Kant, since it was they who formulated the modern conceptualization of desire in its most acute form—that is, in terms of unconscious desire, desire as unconscious. It was in Anti-Oedipus, published in 1972, that Deleuze (along with Félix Guattari, his co-author) would attempt to formulate his own theory of desire—what he would call a purely immanent theory of desire. In his preface to Anti-Oedipus, Michel Foucault would claim, famously, that “Anti-Oedipus is a book of ethics, the first book of ethics to be written in France in quite a long time”—thereby making explicit the link between the theory of desire developed in Anti-Oedipus with the immanent theory of ethics Deleuze worked out in his monographs on Nietzsche and Spinoza”

via @troyrhoades & @hyblis

January 12, 2010
"Consider the real history of Newton’s physics, compared to what might have been the history of Cartesian dualism. Newton’s physics reigned dominant for two hundred years. It gave us false beliefs but many benefits. I don’t think anyone will say ‘It would have been better if Newton had never lived!’ Imagine that Cartesian dualism had not been so conclusively rejected by the late seventeenth century but had also reigned for two hundred years. Would we say that the false beliefs that metaphysics gave us had been but a small price to pay for the ease and intuitive appeal felt in its explanation of the human condition?"

Bas van Fraassen: The Empirical Stance

via fuckyeahphilosophy

January 4, 2010
"A self does not amount to much, but no self is an island […] [E]ven before he is born, if only by virtue of the name he is given, the human child is already positioned as the referent of a story recounted by those around him, in relation to which he will inevitably chart his course."

Jean-François Lyotard: The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi)

via fuckyeahphilosophy + guerrillamamamedicine

December 20, 2009
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted."

Aldous Huxley

via nihilnoetia & wildcat2030

December 15, 2009
"Definitions of the intellectual are many and diverse. They have, however, one trait in common, which makes them also different from all other definitions: they are all self-definitions. Indeed, their authors are the members of the same rare species they attempt to define… . The specifically intellectual form of the operation—self-definition—masks its universal content which is the reproduction and reinforcement of a given social configuration, and—with it—a given (or claimed) status for the group."

— Zygmunt Bauman, Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Post-Modernity and Intellectuals (via fuckyeahtheorists)

December 10, 2009
Ernst Bloch, photographed by Ernst Bloch.

via fuckyeahphilosophy

MySpace style.

Ernst Bloch, photographed by Ernst Bloch.

via fuckyeahphilosophy

MySpace style.

December 4, 2009
"The investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed."

Aristotle: Metaphysics (translated by W. D. Ross)

via fuckyeahphilosophy

December 4, 2009
"We are like sailors who on the open sea must reconstruct their ship but are never able to start afresh from the bottom. Where a beam is taken away a new one must at once be put there, and for this the rest of the ship is used as support. In this way, by using the old beams and driftwood the ship can be shaped entirely anew, but only by gradual reconstruction."

Otto Neurath

via wildcat2030