Posts

What Wittgenstein and Derrida have in common is: 1. An antipathy to philosophy.  Not only an antipathy to (almost) the entire history of existing philosophy, but an antipathy to philosophy per se , an antipathy to the figure of the philosopher.  And especially, an antipathy to what they (perversely) call "metaphysics". 2. A delusionally over-broad generalization, a grand sweep of philosophy since Ancient Greece, shoehorning the vast diversity of different ideas and thinkers into their schematic, c account - a universalizing account that elides historical, material differences, as though all philosophy were the same, thus effectively making philosophy into a kind of personality type. 3. A ridiculously ineffective, if not non-existent, solution for a problem that doesn't exist.  A self-defeating, self-undermining responsibility, reduced to the level of language alone, that is ultimately more of a vague sense of morality - a kind of loosely implied guilt - than it is a convi...
Post a Comment
Read more

I don't believe in postmodernism.

I don't believe in postmodernism.   When I say that, I'm not saying that all of the art that is considered postmodern art is bad.  Some of it is quite good!  I just don't believe that it's postmodern.  I don't believe that postmodernism happened .  I think it's all hype and, essentially, a sales tactic, to call certain art "postmodern".  I'm skeptical. I mean, words are our servants, not our masters.  If you want to call this art "postmodern," you can.  No one is stopping you.  You can call it "bananafish" if you want.  And if it has become customary to speak of a "postmodern era" in art and culture, so be it.  I can abide by that convention.  And if so, I would say that little flickers of the postmodern age were starting in roughly somewhere around 1917, slowly building, and that it really began in earnest after the crisis, around 1945-1948, and that it lasted until roughly 1992.  And now it is totally over and done ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The "Always-Already"

The "always-already" (as Heidegger puts it, the "immer schon") is a kind of trap, or loop - the type that connoisseurs of anxiety delight in.  Althusser, for instance, insists that we are "always already" subjects - forcing one to push back interpolation to the beginning of time or earlier.  But the existence of the "always-already" would necessitate its corollary, the "never yet".  (An example might be Adam Kadmon, which is pure potential.)
Post a Comment
Read more

Arrogance

  What do I hate?  Whom do I hate?  (And I'm not saying that I'm right to hate anyone, but I do in fact hate... why?)  I hate arrogance - but only a certain kind of arrogance.  I also love some forms of arrogance, and feel benign indifference about others. I love the kind of arrogance of someone like Oscar Wilde, or Max Stirner, or Friedrich Nietzsche - or even Karl Marx.  For people like this, arrogance is a kind of affectation, a performance, a provocation, and a bit of joke.  They're being arrogant, but they know they're being arrogant.  And it's charming.  And I laugh along with it.  (John Waters is another example.) On the other hand, I don't mind the arrogance of someone like Joseph Campbell, or Carl Jung.  They're arrogant, but they're so stupid that they have no idea how arrogant they are.  They're arrogant, but they don't know they're being arrogant.  So I can forgive their arrogance. But between these is the f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Proper Dichotomies

Two sets (or ideas, or principles, or entities, or categories, etc.) are considered properly dichotomous iff: 1. They are mutually exclusive - that is, there is absolutely no overlap between them, and 2. Together, they are exhaustive - that is, there is nothing that is outside both of them. For example, within the Real numbers, "rational" and "irrational" form a proper dichotomy.  That means that every Real number is either rational or irrational, and no number is both rational and irrational. For a counterexample, within the natural numbers, "prime" and "composite" are not a proper dichotomy.  This is because the number 1 is neither prime nor composite. Notice, also, that dichotomies may be proper in one context, but not in another.  For instance, in the set of integers, "even" and "odd" form a proper dichotomy.  But in the realm of Real numbers, they don't.  (Pi, for instance, is neither odd nor even.)  Many of the old ...
Post a Comment
Read more
Knowledge is a habit that works.  Knowledge is skill, practice. Anything that can be learned is knowledge.  Is this definitive?  Or are there knowledges that one doesn't need to learn - things that one "just knows"?  
Post a Comment
Read more

Modernism

Artistic modernism can be understood as the belief that artists should be creative, and the more creative, the more original their work is, the more artistic it is; if possible, art should be radically original, radically creative.  This is in contrast, of course, to the notion that art should be traditional, somehow based or grounded on tradition. Coming up with new ideas, of course, is difficult.  One can easily fall into despair, and whine that all of the ideas have already been had.  Thus modernism necessarily implies a kind of hope - a hope that new ideas are indeed possible. Related to this is social modernism, which is the belief that one can structure social relationships without grounding these social relationships in tradition.  You can, as it were, invent your social relationships.  Love, for instance: you can invent love. Perhaps, fundamentally, modernism is an enthusiasm, a kind of energy.  All of this is, of course, questionable.  But to...
Post a Comment
Read more