The Books/Reading Thread

[Dak]

Was taking a while to finish this due to school demands, but finally put my head down and plowed through the back half of it. Reasonably thorough coverage of 20th century continental philosophers and sociologists (plus Lacan, whatever category you want to put him into. Psychiatrist is the official label but far too generous). The sections on Sartre and Gramsci were probably the most beneficial to me in shining light on some cladistics I wasn't quite aware of. Sections on Adorno and especially Lacan provided further evidence of the emptiness of their ideas and writing.

 

[Einherjar86]

 

[viewerfromnihil]

When you're looking for something a little less, eh, polemic, I think you'd enjoy giving this a read @Dak . Slobodian has tended to quite a few overdue tasks in this book, including giving a concise, genealogically consistent, and workable definition of neoliberalism, consolidated sprawling interpretations of various schools of thought which are often mistakenly conflated, including the Austrian School, the Mont Pelerin Society, the Chicago School, etc., into the 'Geneva School,' and Slobodian puts forth a historically grounded and primary-source driven argument concerning the relationship of key Geneva School thinkers, such as Mises and Hayek, regarding the State and governance.

 

[Dak]

When you're looking for something a little less, eh, polemic, I think you'd enjoy giving this a read @Dak . Slobodian has tended to quite a few overdue tasks in this book, including giving a concise, genealogically consistent, and workable definition of neoliberalism, consolidated sprawling interpretations of various schools of thought which are often mistakenly conflated, including the Austrian School, the Mont Pelerin Society, the Chicago School, etc., into the 'Geneva School,' and Slobodian puts forth a historically grounded and primary-source driven argument concerning the relationship of key Geneva School thinkers, such as Mises and Hayek, regarding the State and governance.

Sounds interesting. It's definitely false to conflate the Austrian School and the Chicago School, with the latter being more in line with "neoliberal" economics. The Scruton book is polemical, but it was much less polemical than the title suggests. Probably most dismissive of Lacan, Badiou, and Zizek, but there's some appreciation of Gramsci related to his accomplishments and practical focus, if not the particulars of his ideas. I've read some Lacan to help my wife with her coursework and would be even less kind than Scruton (on top of complete disgust with his complete lack of ethics/morals in, but not limited to, clinical practice). On the other hand, while Zizek has written some ridiculous academic texts, he has contemporary takes that are at least worth hearing, an opinion which I don't perceive in Scruton.

 

[Einherjar86]

For the sake of the middle ground, I wouldn't defend the qualities of Badiou and Lacan for a wide audience, specifically because:

a) Lacan is relevant for no one who isn't interested in the history of structuralist theory, and

b) I can't understand Badiou (I've tried).

I'm saddened that Adorno gets so much hate, especially when I find him immensely valuable despite the fact that I routinely perceive conservative elements in his writing. Nothing Adorno wrote was revolutionary or championing revolution. He wrote dour, pessimistic reflections on the intractability of modernity. Revolution wasn't the answer to anything, according to Adorno (and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenment), because it would merely result in further dehumanization at the hands of whoever comes to power. They were as critical of Hollywood and American pop culture as they were of German fascism, and saw Hollywood as the engine of populist beliefs in a liberal democratic society. What could be more relevant to our situation here in the twenty-first century?

So anyway, I won't argue about Lacan and Badiou (or even Zizek, although I do find a lot of his cultural commentary on point), but I'll always defend Adorno against what I see as perpetually unjustified attacks. His writings are the opposite of "empty."

 

[Dak]

For the sake of the middle ground, I wouldn't defend the qualities of Badiou and Lacan for a wide audience, specifically because:

a) Lacan is relevant for no one who isn't interested in the history of structuralist theory, and

Unfortunately, I keep bumping into ethics articles in psych who clearly have even less of an understanding of structuralism and it's history than I do, while citing it for support. Just read an article for a class this week on program ethics where they appeal to both structuralism and Habermas. I'm probably going to have to learn more just to deal with this misguided shoehorning in an academic manner when it comes time to do any publishing in this area.

So anyway, I won't argue about Lacan and Badiou (or even Zizek, although I do find a lot of his cultural commentary on point), but I'll always defend Adorno against what I see as perpetually unjustified attacks. His writings are the opposite of "empty."

For what it's worth, this was the opinion of Sam Freeman at NYBooks:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/enemies-of-roger-scruton/

Scruton’s book is not the dispassionate examination and measured assessment of philosophical arguments typical of analytic philosophers. It is a polemical dissection and indictment of the perceived destructive aims and tactics of the left. Earlier chapters on Sartre and Foucault, and on members of the Frankfurt School, particularly Adorno, are the most engaging. Scruton clearly respects their philosophical acumen even if he finds their political views abhorrent. But his criticisms and reproaches of the radical left since the 1970s, especially for the “logorrhea” of the “nonsense machine” of Althusser, Lacan, Deleuze, Badiou, Žižek, and others, are impatient and contemptuous, even if imaginative and persuasive (for anyone already inclined to dismiss postmodernists’ tortuous prose).

I disagree that he was impatient regarding the first three listed, although definitely contemptuous. Definitely impatient with both Badiou and Zizek, but by the time he gets to them it's just to demonstrate that the same trend in Lacan and Deleuze isn't limited to them.

 

[Einherjar86]

I realize I've spent more time with these writers, but I find Deleuze (at least with Guattari) to be wildly entertaining. Passages from Anti-Oedipus are overflowing with dirty humor and biting distrust of ego psychology (i.e. Freud). I find it such a pleasure to read:

We are all Archie Bunker at the theater, shouting out before Oedipus: there's my kind of guy, there's my kind of guy! Everything, the myth of the earth, the tragedy of the despot, is taken up again as shadows projected on a stage. The great territorialities have fallen into ruin, but the structure proceeds with all the subjective and private reterritorializations. What a perverse operation psychoanalysis is, where this neoidealism, this rehabilitated cult of castration, this ideology of lack culminates: the anthropomorphic representation of sex!

There's something to be said for those who can have so much fun in their writing. Maybe I'm in the minority of people who find the Anti-Oedipus fun, but I don't find its prose tiresome or circuitous. I think every sentence drips with purpose.

 

[Dak]

Maybe I'm in the minority of people who find the Anti-Oedipus fun, but I don't find its prose tiresome or circuitous. I think every sentence drips with purpose.

Scruton really only zeroes in on the BwO re: Deleuze, and provided more sense-making of it than D&G did. Maybe Scruton is wrong in the analysis, but it was intelligible.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure if Scruton mentions this, but the "body without organs" isn't D&G's original term; they take it from Antonin Artaud, who was an avant-garde dramatist. It's less a theoretical term for D&G than it is a poetic figure, and one that French readers at the time probably would have been familiar with. They credit Artaud in the A-O, but they don't really define the term--namely because it comes from a work of dramatic literature.

 

[TageRyche]

Here's my Mystery Scene review of Brian Panowich's Like Lions.

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure if Scruton mentions this, but the "body without organs" isn't D&G's original term; they take it from Antonin Artaud, who was an avant-garde dramatist. It's less a theoretical term for D&G than it is a poetic figure, and one that French readers at the time probably would have been familiar with. They credit Artaud in the A-O, but they don't really define the term--namely because it comes from a work of dramatic literature.

Well that/if they don't leaves room for Scruton to make of it what he wants, as well as to grant it "nonsense machine" status. You can have nonsense in poetry, not philosophy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well that/if they don't leaves room for Scruton to make of it what he wants, as well as to grant it "nonsense machine" status. You can have nonsense in poetry, not philosophy.

According to Wittgenstein, nonsense can be a powerful philosophical tool. Leo Arena and Cora Diamond have written really fascinating works about the role of nonsense in philosophy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Really interesting book on the new formalism in literary studies. Feels overdue, honestly.

(I realize that this probably interests no one else here )

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

fuck the adult and political and philosophical shit (for the moment)
i'm reading this

 

[Dak]

Elephant in the Brain is as great as I expected. On Human Nature wasn't quite what I expected; it's trying to salvage the idea of a human nature rather than providing a list of attributes. Was interesting but I'll probably need to re-read it at some point with more time to chew on it.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

hey @ArtixMcMahon
when am i going to get dreamfall back from Lynette's??

 

[ArtixMcMahon]

hey @ArtixMcMahon
when am i going to get dreamfall back from Lynette's??

1st of all It is Lanette second of all when i decide to call her to go back over

 

[no country for old wainds]

apparently erikson is writing a series centred around karsa orlong, yespls

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

http://strangeattractor.co.uk/shoppe/flowers-of-perversion/

This also applies to the movie thread. Just started this fucking doorstop, the second volume of Stephen Thrower's examination of the films of Jess Franco. Volume 1, Murderous Passions, was so exhaustively researched the production notes that preceded the reviews tended to read like mini-epic poems. This volume surpasses that within 30 pages. Absolutely essential.

 

[Einherjar86]

apparently erikson is writing a series centred around karsa orlong, yespls

Maybe now I'll actually read Malazan...

in fact, I really have no idea when I'll be able to finish that beast. I'm probably giving up on GRRM too, only fantasy author worth seeing it through with at this point (for me, at least) is Bakker.

Currently reading:

Contemporary bestseller. Not sure what to call it/think of it yet, but I'm enjoying it.