The Books/Reading Thread

[Addo_Of_Nex]

I feel like I made a mistake in tackling Badiou before reading Heidegger (though I'm taking a seminar on Being and Time with a Heidegger nut this fall, so this won't be an issue for long) because I feel like I need to understand Badiou's orientation in Heidegger's ontological scheme before I make any final judgments about his work. Nevertheless, I appreciate Badiou's "radical thesis" on the surface, but I have trouble swallowing it whole when he takes such extreme liberties with Plato and Spinoza (the latter of which he quotes partially for his own gain) and the seemingly arbitrary nature of his entire ontology. There was actually a pretty good co-authored by a mathematician and a professor of history/humanities published last summer that provides a critical refutation of Badiou's ontology. It's available on JSTOR iirc, though it's been a while since I've read it closely; and that was only once. With that being said, my stance on Badiou is always in flux.

Anyway, I'm going through my old Poe and Lovecraft favorites; straying from my normal habit of exclusively reading philosophy, science, and math. I'm going to make an effort to get around to the other preeminent weird/proto-weird fiction authors (Blackwood, Dunsany, Ashton Smith, etc.) as well as science fiction in general. I'm eternally incensed by the fact that academia seems to have a history of ignoring a genre that I consider just as fertile, if not more so, for philosophical discourse as the canonical Western "classics".

 

[Einherjar86]

I feel like I made a mistake in tackling Badiou before reading Heidegger (though I'm taking a seminar on Being and Time with a Heidegger nut this fall, so this won't be an issue for long) because I feel like I need to understand Badiou's orientation in Heidegger's ontological scheme before I make any final judgments about his work. Nevertheless, I appreciate Badiou's "radical thesis" on the surface, but I have trouble swallowing it whole when he takes such extreme liberties with Plato and Spinoza (the latter of which he quotes partially for his own gain) and the seemingly arbitrary nature of his entire ontology. There was actually a pretty good co-authored by a mathematician and a professor of history/humanities published last summer that provides a critical refutation of Badiou's ontology. It's available on JSTOR iirc, though it's been a while since I've read it closely; and that was only once. With that being said, my stance on Badiou is always in flux.

I feel that Heidegger's "Origin of the Work of Art" is just as beneficial as his magnum opus, and can actually give even greater insight into some of his philosophical concepts. That said, one can benefit greatly from Being and Time, since it basically set the precedent for ontological exploration in the twentieth century, and hasn't really been successfully challenged until Badiou, in my opinion.

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Badiou, although I find a lot of his statements very poignant, even if I don't entirely understand his exact point in making them. I also feel that, while Being and Event is certainly a challenge to Heidegger, it can't be fully understood without studying the German Idealist strain, particularly Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Hegel's Science of Logic. I've been focusing more on those works in conjunction with Badiou.

Anyway, I'm going through my old Poe and Lovecraft favorites; straying from my normal habit of exclusively reading philosophy, science, and math. I'm going to make an effort to get around to the other preeminent weird/proto-weird fiction authors (Blackwood, Dunsany, Ashton Smith, etc.) as well as science fiction in general. I'm eternally incensed by the fact that academia seems to have a history of ignoring a genre that I consider just as fertile, if not more so, for philosophical discourse as the canonical Western "classics".

I feel the same way about science fiction, although it's gradually finding its place in academia. I actually took a class entirely on Philip K. Dick at UChicago, which was fantastic. And there are some great theoretical texts/anthologies that tackle science fiction, like Fredric Jameson's Archeologies of the Future, Bould's and Mieville's Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction, and Darko Suvin's work. I also hope to contribute to the study of this genre in my academic future...

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

I've been recommended that essay by a couple of others as well; I'll have to make it a top priority. You make a very good point by noting the importance of German Idealism in studying Badiou since, like you said, his mission is to provide a massive ontological "overhaul" of sorts that few figures since Hegel have undertaken. I'll also have to take a look at those theoretical works on science fiction as well, as I'm pretty new to the whole genre. Cheers.

 

[Einherjar86]

Cheers to you as well, I'm going to search for that article co-authored by the historian and mathematician. Do you happen to recall any more about their names or its title?

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

The direct link is weird because of proxy issues, but it's called "Badiou's Number: A Critique of Mathematics as Ontology" by Ricardo and David Nirenberg (father and son, evidently). I got it via JSTOR. Like I said, I'm sure how thorough a refutation I really think this is, but they make some interesting points from what I recall. I could use a revisit of it with Badiou's text in hand since it's been a little while.

 

[Cythraul]

I've been having trouble concentrating enough to read much that's particularly serious but I have been (slowly) trying to reread Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick.

All the talk of Badiou and Heidegger in this thread reminds me that I still haven't gotten over my prejudice against Continental philosophy. I don't even know any Badiou, but when I see the name I think "that's that stuff that I'm supposed to not read."

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

I still have a slight prejudice against it that I'm trying to quell since, well, I'm in a continental department for the time being (though the professors don't have any remote prejudice against analytic philosophy; they know that my interests are heavily "analytic" in nature and I'm fairly certain I'm still a favorite student of the department). I'm really new to even the most basic tenets of the big continental thinkers, but I really do think there's some interesting stuff to be found in guys like Bergson and Husserl. I just approach such readings with a radically different methodology; almost as if I'm reading a novel, as opposed to analytic philosophy that reads more like a piece of mathematics. I do like the idea of bridging the gap between the two since there are plenty of interesting points of discussion within both traditions that could mutually benefit from each other.

 

[Einherjar86]

My approach to the continental tradition is conditioned by my education in English. Lots of literary theory is influenced by critical theory, which basically starts with people like Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, and the Frankfurt School. In order to really understand those guys, however, you need to go back and read your Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche.

 

[Zephyrus]

Officially on a French kick.

 

[Dak]

 

[Einherjar86]

I finished Peter Watts's Blindsight. Holy fuck, what a monster of a book, and I don't mean in length (it's only 370 pages or so). It's just so jammed full of ideas that are exhilarating, and the narrative is great as well. It's a first-contact story, so it deals with human interaction with an entirely new and alien species; but Watts handles it so well that it feels like you're in the room with them as they're trying to understand this new organism. It's also one of the most genuine science fiction novels I've ever read, and immediately after finishing it has climbed into probably my top five sci-fi novels of all time (I realize that's an abrupt decision, but I was just so carried away with this book).

I'll likely make a blog post about it soon. In the meantime, it's Quentin Meillassoux's After Finitude for me.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

All the talk of Badiou and Heidegger in this thread reminds me that I still haven't gotten over my prejudice against Continental philosophy. I don't even know any Badiou, but when I see the name I think "that's that stuff that I'm supposed to not read."

imho, If you are repelled by radical leftism, you can brush Badiou off as an uncompromising Maoist bully.

 

[MetalJen]

I'm reading Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell right now. So far I like it better than I thought. It's some sort of pastiche on Dickens and quite funny at times as well. It won't be everybody's cup of tea, but if I like the rest of the novel as much as what I've read so far (about half the book) I can really recommend this to anyone who likes thick books (700+ pages).

I have lots of books in my book shelves that have been unread for years so I'm trying to do something about it now. But you probably know how it is: it's far easier to collect books at times than to read those you already have

 

[Einherjar86]

imho, If you are repelled by radical leftism, you can brush Badiou off as an uncompromising Maoist bully.

This is my problem with both Badiou and Žižek. Some of their theoretical ideas are profound, but they also occasionally appear to espouse totalitarianism in their writings. Žižek was actually rather explicit about this in First as Tragedy, Then as Farce. The way I choose to interpret this isn't that these figures want totalitarianism, but that the totalitarian mentality is required of revolutionaries today in order to effectively counter Western democratic/capitalist hegemony.

Žižek writes that "representative democracy in its very notion involves a passivization of the popular Will, its transformation into non-willing - willing is transferred into an agent which re-presents the people and wills on its account." There is, in a sense, a de facto form of corruption in the liberal democratic form itself, and this requires drastic action. Merely opting for a better democratic system will not do. Žižek goes on to explain, citing Plato (Dak will love this), that "in democracy, in the sense of the representation of and negotiation between a plurality of private interests, there is no place for Virtue. This is why, in a proletarian revolution, democracy has to be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat." Badiou maintains a similar political philosophy, I believe.

 

[Cronopio]

I'm reading Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell right now. So far I like it better than I thought. It's some sort of pastiche on Dickens and quite funny at times as well. It won't be everybody's cup of tea, but if I like the rest of the novel as much as what I've read so far (about half the book) I can really recommend this to anyone who likes thick books (700+ pages).

I have lots of books in my book shelves that have been unread for years so I'm trying to do something about it now. But you probably know how it is: it's far easier to collect books at times than to read those you already have

Ain't that the truth. As for Jonathan Strange, I've had the Swedish translation sitting on the shelf for years now, but I've never got around to actually reading it. But one of these days, it's bound to rain ...

 

[DrSkye]

In terms of some more light reading, just finished the first two books in Chung Kuo, both FUCKING AMAZING.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Kuo_(novel_series)

Now onto this. 50 pages in, still not sure. Any takers?

 

[MetalJen]

Ain't that the truth. As for Jonathan Strange, I've had the Swedish translation sitting on the shelf for years now, but I've never got around to actually reading it. But one of these days, it's bound to rain ...

Don't tell me you too bought it on a "bokrea" a few years ago? Yes, I'm a Swede too. It would have been nice to compare the Swedish translation with the English original, but I would say the translation seems to be very good and the language is slightly old-fashioned to suit the story that takes place in early 19th century.

I'm on page 500 something now and still enjoy it. So far this summer seems to offer good book reading weather. If you can't get well red you can at least get well read

 

[Einherjar86]

Still working through Quentin Meillassoux's After Finitude. It's been a great read, but hard philosophy like this is slow going.

However, in the meantime, I've been sucked in by a work of "soft philosophy," but one that contains a plethora of interesting anecdotes, as well as summarizations about different philosophical perspectives. It's argument: the post-Enlightenment fascination with humanism that has informed much philsophy and popular anthropocentrism since Kant is nothing more than a secular remnant of Christianity, which posits a certain metaphysical trajectory for humanity. The author claims that most aspects of this post-Enlightenment trend are illusory and actually fabricate many notions of human worth and responsibility.

 

[Cronopio]

Don't tell me you too bought it on a "bokrea" a few years ago? Yes, I'm a Swede too. It would have been nice to compare the Swedish translation with the English original, but I would say the translation seems to be very good and the language is slightly old-fashioned to suit the story that takes place in early 19th century.

I'm on page 500 something now and still enjoy it. So far this summer seems to offer good book reading weather. If you can't get well red you can at least get well read

A fellow Swede, I do declare!

No, actually I got the book as a farewell present from a bookstore for which I used to work. Hardcover edition, black dustjacket. Quite a handsome book.

 

[MetalJen]

A fellow Swede, I do declare!

No, actually I got the book as a farewell present from a bookstore for which I used to work. Hardcover edition, black dustjacket. Quite a handsome book.

I think they actually had the same edition on the booksale as well. The book seemed interesting and then it was pretty fun with a book with black pages instead of the normal white ones.