Monthly Archives: November 2016

Contradiction in Action of Denial: philosophical redundancy. 

I read this little excerpt posted in Philosophy News blog. By the way I love the philosophy news blog, there always putting up nifty little tidbits from the various philosophical encyclopedias and just news in general that has anything to do with philosophy. This one is a review or an announcement of a book that someone wrote about Plato, three of his works. Someone has found something in those three works and he wants to tell us about it, which is fine and great from a simple perspective, but I couldn’t help but laugh out loud in reading the first paragraph description of what this guy is doing in the book.

Here is the Excerpt that I actually did laugh out loud when I read it:

This book provides a clear and careful account of Plato’s method of inquiry in the Meno, Phaedo, and Republic. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Plato’s methodology. Although I have serious disagreements with many of Hugh H. Benson’s central claims, I think the book has important insights in every chapter. Moreover, its clarity makes it rewarding to engage with, since even if you disagree with Benson, you can track down why and learn from this process. The central idea of the book is that in the Meno, Phaedo, and Republic Socrates develops and applies a single method of inquiry, the method of hypothesis, which explains how we can acquire knowledge de novo, that is, how we can inquire without relying on someone else with knowledge. The book is devoted to understanding this method and its applications.

Now; can anyone tell me something odd about this excerpt?

Read it again if it isn’t apparent to you. Think about the topic of the book and what the author is said to be doing. …
Ok, i’ll tell you what is so funny to me.
The author is said to be taking three of Plato’s works in which Socrates is applying supposedly a particular method throughout those three dialogs. The author is going to tell us about this method that Socrates uses particularly evidenced in those three works.

This method he says is ‘de novo’, which means that we can inquire without relying on someone else with knowledge. 

Now I’m not into all the logical formalisms an academic structures of knowledge in the traditional classifications of how we might think or how thought is structured or how we might go about particular ways of thinking. I’m a rebel without even saying it; it is hardly my identity, and is actually just a term for really how my mind automatically works. 

I think that this paragraph actually evidence is a certain kind of the Nile that goes in to what we typically referred to as authoritative academic discourse. He is saying that there is a method that he is going to describe to you where by a person can ask questions without referring to someone else’s idea of what to question or how to question. 

The way I read it and the reason why it is so funny to me It’s because basically, he’s going to offer us some knowledge that we can refer to when going about the activity of coming up with questions or coming up with things to question or how to question without referring to someone else’s knowledge.

Now to me is the perfect example of what I’m calling philosophical redundancy. 

OOO And Zizek through Blake 

But i wont say ooo is dead yet.   The spirit may be destitute but Is God really dead?  As a route, it may be less a dead end than an acknowledgment of real estimates. 

HARMAN/SWEDENBORG: Zizek is rightIn Graham Harman’s OOO real objects are invisible, inaudible, intangible, unimaginable, unknowable and indescribable. There is no method of access to them or way of studying them, no sensible intuition, so Harman relies on his own intellectual intuition. OOO is a dead-end, and Zizek is right to compare it to Swedenborgian metaphysics. Zizek’s critique of […]

Were All Going to Hell.

And by the time we would have remembered, we will of forgotten. Over and over. The contradiction lay exactly in my want versus my needs. 

Sad days up there. Everywhere. 

But also: What does tradition and progress mean? 


Feudalistic Corporate Empire vs. First Americans?

Little has been represented in the Feudalistic Corporate Media of late on the dark encroachment of Oil upon the Sacred Burial Grounds on the Sioux Nation. Last night a tipping point was breached by the armed enforcers of that Corporate Empire that hovers over North Dakota like the forked tongued lies of a feudal empire. […]

Badiou on the current situation. 

A return to the terrible contradiction is another way of saying a reinstatement of true transcendental essence, over an unquestioned basis for true reality. 

Presently I’m considering the possibilities that surround nationalism, that nationalism in our current state tends to assess the situation in terms of stagnancy, of a return to some sort of fundamental or traditional norm, some past glory. This is always placing the transcendent in a type of God fixture that is not taking place in the moment, but is rather attempting to solidify the object of the effect of God anachronistically into a sort of false reality, as if we can make this a reality more true by repeat installing a past fixture. And this is really what he’s talking about so far is Weimar. 

But of course we should understand what I’m saying here, so far is God, as a mythological affect more than some religious cosmological truth. A crisis of the subject is really a crisis of its fantasy, which is really a symptom of mythological dissolution.

REPOST, Here’s what Badiou got to say:
Alain Badiou on Our Recent Elections

We can do some­thing. And we must do, because if we do noth­ing at all, we are only in the fas­cin­a­tion, the stu­pid­ity of fas­cin­a­tion… —Alain Badiou Badiou’s view of the Left’s Bankruptcy and where we might go from here. After reading his speech I ask myself if we are enacting pre-Weimer Germany but on […]

alain badiou