/lit/ - Literature

>>18098149
There’s no chart but fuck me do I love the guy. He started a ton of foundations here in France and really made a big difference, his daughter is also a philosopher. I doubt there’s a chart. Technics and Time is his most important work.

>>18098167
>Technics and Time is his most important work.
yep i got that. part 1 is on the way. From the short book i read I have a good oversight on most of the influences on his thinking, but would you still know on perhaps more contemporary relevant reading that would be complementary to his works? perhaps people he worked together with? Cause so far he seems like a unique isolate butterfly to me when I read of him.

>most of the works arent translated into german sadly. I will unironically have to properly learn french to read most of his works unless i want to read them in english.

>>18098149
>Bernard Stiegler
qrd?

>>18098771
"philosophy of technology done right"

read portions of negentropy, decent. technics and time is his iconic one all his others stem from. i just might buy his latest requiem book which is probably an 80 probability of purchase at this point..

>>18099085
how does it compare with ellul?

>>18099370
totally different.
in the book I read he even quickly mentions how he dislikes Ellul's superficial and (i think he said) destructive definition of technique.
Stiegler it seems is heavily focused on Platonic elements such as his elaboration on techne as in the myth of epimetheus and prometheus in Protagoras, the notion of anamnesis, hypermnesis and this interplay between a memory consciousness where a distinciton between an inate vs artificial becomes apparent. He greatly relies on Kant, Heidegger and Derrida and in general seems a lot more metaphyisically oriented compared to the anti-humanist view Ellul casts on technique. Jünger, Marx, Hegel get mentioned a lot obviously as well.
The translation I read used a lot of Deleuzian terminology but didnt ever make a refrence to Deleuze, so I dont know if it is jsut assumed deleuze is a foundation or if the translator saw this apt..

>>18098188
>perhaps more contemporary relevant reading that would be complementary to his works?
Dude he died in August, you can’t get more contemporary than that

>>18099567
>deleuze
Sounds cringe.

>>18099567
>heavily focused on Platonic elements
The guys works is an anti-platonism. He’s more of a post-humanist that’s anything.
> The translation I read used a lot of Deleuzian terminology but didnt ever make a refrence to Deleuze, so I dont know if it is jsut assumed deleuze is a foundation or if the translator saw this apt..
Did it use Deleuze’s terminology or terms that Deleuze made use of? Stiegler is very much not a Deleuzean, he talks about his thoughts on Deleuze in a few different interviews.

>>18098149
>Anybody read this guy?
yes
>extensively?
no

He's good and underrated, like Simondon. Also RIP mister Stiegler

>>18099370
>how does it compare with ellul?
he do it well

>>18098149
he shows that intellectuals are just producing entertainment

>>18099085
>"philosophy of technology done right"

>>18099835
ok. yes. i remember he stated he opposed the form theory of plato, but otherwise he said he returns to plato consistently and uses a lot of his concepts as starting blocks.
>de-reterritorialization, fluxes, decoding, supercoding
all used in the same paragraph. it seemed straight out of 1000plateaus to me.
but baudrillard does the same where he uses this terminology and doesnt reference deleuze but with baudrillard i know deleuze was an influence

I only read a short book of him being interviewed about work, employment, leisure. He kept obvious things, adding "this is what I call the xxx", like, look, I'm building up words. He sounds insufferable.

>>18098149
One of my lecturers is big Stirglerite (Stieglerian? Stieglerist? soz for the cringe) She recommended reading the introduction to 'Neganthropocene' to get a decent primer to his work on technics:

http://openhumanitiespress.org/books/download/Stiegler_2018_The-Neganthropocene.pdf

>>18100329
how do I find a uni that will have philosophy of technology profs?
All i find is the technical universities with such degrees and they are NPC to the max (I live with one such student).

>>18098149
Where should one start with Stiegler? I can read French but struggle a lot at the technical philosophical level - what's his style like compared to say, Ellul, who is rather straightforward? Worth sticking with the English translation?

>>18100393
His style is relatively straight forward and not too abstruse.
However, if you're not familiar with people people like Husserl, Heidegger, Simondon etc. then it will be very difficult.
He begins engaging with them in the first pages of Technics and Time and I didn't understand any of it.

>>18100372
Hmmm... I think my uni is pretty unique in it's course structure. Lot's of interdisciplinary study. Find one that specialises in the continental tradition. Really depends on what country you're looking at.

>>18099926
Based

>>18100329
>Neganthropocene
Cringe

>>18100329
>The second phase of ‘the Anthropocene,’ takes hold as tipping points speculated over in ‘Anthropocene 1.0’ click into place to retire the speculative bubble of “Anthropocene Talk”. Temporalities are dispersed, the memes of ‘globalization’ revoked. A broad drift into a de facto era of managed extinction events dawns. With this acceleration from the speculative into the material orders, a factor without a means of expression emerges: climate panic
Into the trash it goes.

>>18100528
>>18100549
Hey look I didn't say it was any good itself, just that it's a decent primer to Stiegler lol

Start here https://arsindustrialis.org/bernard-stiegler-english-languages-ressources

>>18098188
Yuk Hui

>>18100595
This. Stiegler also wrote the introduction to 'On the Existence of Digital Objects'.

>>18098149
I don't like him. He looks like, talk like, and feel like a jew rat. Most of the time i can abstain from judging the physique and body language, but with Stieglitz, i can't. Isn't he pro-besancenot or melanchon? Doesn't he work for the government? He is a lackey of the system. No more Stiegler and Stiegler like.

>>18100595
Cringe

>>18100299
None of those terms unique to Deleuze or Baudrillard, interestingly enough. Deleuze definitely comes to mind when you see them all together! Do you have the title of where he talks about his Plato? I’d love to read it.

>>18098149
It's ok.

>>18099926
I'm glad to see Friedrich Georg getting memed as well. Criminally underrated even in Germany.

>>18099926
This is the correct answer. The best book on technology by far.
Stiegler's reading of the myth is bad, and he uses a technical method to look at technology. This misunderstands technique in the very form of communication.

>>18103789
>he uses a technical method to look at technology. This misunderstands technique in the very form of communication.
I agree with this. Stiegler’s engineer background often shines through too prominently.
Where do I start with the Jünger brother though?
From the Jünger threads I get told that his ideas are very much spread randomly amidst his works.

>>18099926
>>18103789
>>18103843
kek, i love how liberals literally hate stem can't even understand a single line written by scientists

>>18103865
most philosophers ignore the field of technique. Its what makes the rare philosopher who truly tackles the subject so interesting. No one hates the STEM oriented philosopher of technique, it is just they become very myopic.
Stop showing your insecurities STEMcel and let actual STEMchads carry you bugmen subhuman automata.

>>18098149
>Anybody read this guy extensively?

/lit/ doesn't read much

>>18103843
That's Ernst who discusses technology more generally, or spread throughout his works. Friedrich Georg has a book dedicated to technology. Die Perfektion der Technik, or The Failure of Technology in English. He also wrote the best book available on Greek myth, so you get a much more subtle and nuanced look at technology as it relates to myth.

>>18103865
No one understands science less than Stem labourers.
And no idea why you're talking about liberals or science to begin with. Technology is not science, and Stiegler is thoroughly liberal in his thinking (or at least liberalised).

"As technology progresses, the relation between science and technology undergoes a change. Science becomes the servant of technology. It is a symptom of this shift of power that the scientist becomes increasingly an employee in the institutes and laboratories of industry, where his knowledge is exploited for technical uses. The disciplines of science become auxiliary disciplines of technology, and they fare the better the more willingly they submit to this role. “Pure science" declines because the important thing is no longer an understanding of the laws of nature, but, first of all, the application, the uses, the exploitation, of those laws. Discovery and invention are today the handmaids of this exploitation. Therefore, if today inventors are called upon and exhorted to give new proofs of their genius, to forge ahead, to deliver more quickly, the purpose is to increase the pillage of the earth through a rationalization of the methods of plunder.
A science now making rapid progress is biology, for biology has identified itself completely with technical progress. The present methods of biology would have no sense otherwise, nor would its results be of this high practical use and value; for the yardstick is precisely the immediate technical and industrial usefulness of every biological research, usefulness to some corporation manufacturing pills, or to some other technical organization.
Obviously, the discovery of ferments, hormones, and vitamins is not only a scientific but also a technical advance. The effects which we ascribe to these substances are of a mechanical and functional nature. The uses to which we put them betray that concept: either they are introduced into the body in the form of technical preparations, supposed to produce specific mechanical effects, as are all drugs manufactured by the technicians; or else they are consumed in vitamin-enriched food. This whole pharmaceutical arsenal is the product of technical specialists who think of the human body as a machine. However, those are the methods of our day."

>>18104288
technology is unironically a subset of science, every technological innovation is just an experiment that shows that x causes y. You make a steam engine and you have shown that arranging matter in x formation produces y effect.

>>18104234
>Die Perfektion der Technik, or The Failure of Technology in Englis
this seems like a bad translation
> so you get a much more subtle and nuanced look at technology as it relates to myth.
are you specifically refrencing here prometheus and epimetheus?

>>18104306
you have so absolutely no idea what you are talkign about that it has honestly gone from cringe to hilarious.

>>18103865
And modern scientists can never understand the metaphysical and mythical world. Their ideas lack the beauty which can only be found in an Archimedean point.
A beautiful science must return to the incalculable. This is why Archimedes dedicated his work to the Muses, and why his formulations often returned to the hidden. In this way they act as a sacred vision, they harmonise with a higher order.

"the question of free will or determination, and this question is inextricably tied to the religious doctrines of predestination. The same holds true of the problem of pre-established forms, and of the entire theory of heredity. Connections of this sort can be traced right into the foundations of mechanics. And those who believe that the law of energy in physics, or that wave or quantum mechanics, or the kinetic theory of heat has been "cleansed" of these philosophical connections, simply fail to understand that these connections are integral and are formative to perception itself. To neutralize them does not mean to liquidate them. The exact scientist merely shuts his eyes to them. Moreover, he likes to believe that only mechanics possesses exactitude. The mathematician, too, assumes that mathematics is the sole source of exactitude. What he overlooks is that the concept of exactitude, like that of purpose, is a relative concept that receives meaning only if the premises are granted. For example, we cannot achieve absolute exactitude of measurement, but we can make our measurement as exact as possible under certain conditions. There is no absolute, universal concept of perfection, only a specific one resulting from the fulfillment of specific conditions. Likewise, there is only a specific concept of exactitude, and only this concept and nothing more is expressed in mathematical and causal exactitude.
Kant believed that there was a science only in so far as there was mathematics. The same error can be encountered among many mathematicians and physicists who believe that they alone possess exactness. However, they possess it only within their field. There is exactness also in the movements of animals and in the emotions and passions of man. Homeric hexameter or a Pindaric ode has as much exactness as any causal relation or mathematical formula. But this rhythmic, metrical exactness is of another, higher order. That it cannot be calculated is no reason to call it less exact than the results of this or that quantitative measurement."

>>18104342
Try to refute what I said, you will be completely incapable of doing so.

>>18104330
It's translated that way because Perfektion does not have the same meaning in English.
Perhaps it could have been explained in relation to Goethe's theories. Unfortunate, but it is otherwise an excellent translation.

>>18104306
Technology existed before science and thus cannot be its subset. You are confusing an intellectual means to perfection with causality.
Paradoxically the overanalysis and creation of a bureaucratic system of effects weakens technology. An example would be the assault rifle. The Americans wanted to design a perfect rifle, one which required little maintenance and understanding from the user and would be as accurate as possible. And the Soviets looked to a rifle that could be used and repaired by the average worker, all of its parts were interchangeable and could be thrown into a muddy ditch for weeks and still be functional.
This is not what we normally think of but there is a freedom in the latter form of technology. The M16 was notorious for its failures, and subjected the soldier to the will of a technician who never even thought of the soldier's experience.

This is what Jünger points to, that a pure science is self-destructive, bringing an end to the very thinking which made it so powerful to begin with. Causality and effect are a strong means of sight, but must remain tied to some higher law if technology is to have an essence. There is no doubt a decline in scientific and technological thinking, this can be seen just by looking at the works of Leonardo or Goethe. Science must retain an artistry if it is to have any value.

I told you people to shut the fuck up about Stieglitz. Last warning.

>>18098149
disgusting.
I hope you're not French, you will not even have an excuse.

>>18100528
>>18100549
>Cringe
>Into the trash it goes.

>>18104630
Suck my left nut you nigger.

Here he is being deboonked by two Derrideans. It's a good read http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/issue.905/16.1roberts.html

>>18104707
Circumcision sucker. I told you to stop taling about this jew.
All posters ITT seem to be jewish anyway. It's stinks Bar Mitzvah.

>>18104729
Stiegler is not Jewish you idiot

>>18104817
Sure does look like one.

I will fuck your thread up. You don't talk about Stiegler. End of discussion.

>>18104717
>debunked by Derrida
Dude he wrote a book with Derrida
Get it together

>>18104924
Addressed in the article, faggot. Give it a squiz why don't you.

>>18105023
This is the problem with Derrideans, they always think they’re the only ones that did the reading. Why don’t you track the trace of the supplement to the play of that signifier you nut?

>>18105111
I'm not a Derridean, I just thought it was a good read. Why does Derrida make midwits seethe so much?

>>18105332
Derrida’s great imo. His whole style is irreducible in every way, he’s so good at making people seethe. Specters of Marx is a great way to piss of Twitter marxists. Jokes aside Derrida is one of the more important thinkers of recent days. He’s a great one.

>>18099567
>The translation I read used a lot of Deleuzian terminology but didnt ever make a refrence to Deleuze, so I dont know if it is jsut assumed deleuze is a foundation or if the translator saw this apt..
That’s probably from Gilbert Simondon (who also wrote about technology), not Deleuze himself

>>18104288
Very based.

>>18104824
no that's just what French people look like

>>18104701
This makes no sense.

b

>>18105344>>18105111

>some atheist is great

lol

b for EU hours

>>18106491
>Derrida is an atheist

>>18104406
Where did you lift this quote from?

>>18104535
Are you really using boomer tier "m16 is a jamomatic" memes to try and tell another anon they don't know what they're talking about? Vietnam was 50 years ago. Any new technology will have teething problems.

>>18107152
The Failure of Technology

>>18107635
>keep your example up to date with the completely bureaucratized tech
Stop being retarded.

>>18098149
Bump

>>18108052
that passage reads like Ellul

b

>>18103843
Stiegler doesnt have an engineering background, he has a background in bank robbery

>>18111595
Should have kept his day job

>>18103843
Anyone watch this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCkWIdwSvAg

>>18112611
Go back to twitter you dumb faggot.

>>18112644
It's an interview with an author.

>>18112651
refer to >>18112644

>>18112651
is that anon just being retarded or is there something cringe about the channel you linked the video of?

>>18112693
Retarded

>>18104288
what work is this from?

>>18104306
>technology is unironically a subset of science

leave the thread

>>18112819
Same as the other, The Failure of Technology.
>>18109956
Ellul was very much influenced by Jünger, or at least he was responding to him in parts of his work.

>>18112611
He makes the same point I did about the weakness of Stiegler's methodology. And interesting that he notes Heidegger being a poor intellectual friend, this may be a bit of Heidegger's autism though as I'm pretty sure he mentioned the significance of Ernst's work on his own, and even studying Friedrich Georg's book for years. A reserved yet strong compliment when seen next to his insistence on studying Aristotle.
May be able to discuss the rest tomorrow if there's anything of note.

>>18113835
What he says of evolution in technological types is important too. This is why the example above of the machineguns is more important than some may realise, it is only one example of an essence in the metamorphosis of technology. The same general principles are seen in the airfields where Russian jets were designed to be able to take off from runways under attack or partly destroyed. By comparison we see the American planes which could crash because of a few pebbles on the runway. The F-35 catastrophe is a genesis of these design principles.
It is a matter of perfection in essence and relation to metaphysical laws or the components alone, pure functioning. The other side is that this greater philosophical relation to technology can add weight to decisions, and so loss is heightened in its force, impoverishment increases with any sense of failure. It is no mistake that the Russians were some twenty years ahead of the development of cybernetic thought, and at a much more philosophical level - this while also being pre-industrial for the most part.
This also meant the great loss of the people as a nation. The Germans sacrificed the peasantry, and the Russians their women. Jünger's image of the elemental formation of a new species is thus much better than any methodology or empirical understanding, just as Platonov's images of technology through folk tales are perhaps an even higher form. The formation of a new soul rather than species.

>>18113901
Metamorphosis in the sense of Goethe's perfection, which provides an alternative to evolution. And if not a beautiful image of technology then a harmonisation, no matter how destructive - which leaves the question of being and enframing behind.
Here the jamming machinegun appears as a necessary step along the path to powderless warfare.

>>18111595
>he has a background in bank robbery
what this is actually true! wtf.

>>18114239
> âgé de vingt-deux ans, Bernard Stiegler part avec sa famille, sa première épouse et leur fille Barbara, à la campagne et s'installe dans une ferme de la famille de sa femme, près de Monflanquin, où il élève des chèvres8. Mais la sécheresse de 1976 est une catastrophe qui l'oblige à vendre sa ferme9. Il monte ensuite un petit restaurant à Toulouse, puis rachète un bar à prostituées qu'il transforme en bar à concerts, nommé « L'Écume des jours »10, où il invite des musiciens de jazz. C'est là qu'il rencontre le philosophe Gérard Granel, passionné de jazz, qui devient son ami9. Mais les finances sont très tendues, et quand son banquier supprime son autorisation de découvert, il décide, pour subvenir à ses besoins, de braquer sa propre agence bancaire10. Suivront trois autres attaques à main armée, dont la dernière, en juin 1978, se conclut par son arrestation10 en flagrant délit par une patrouille de police. Il est condamné à huit ans de réclusion criminelle et sera libéré au bout de cinq ans. Il avouera : « J'aurais pu en prendre pour quinze ans mais j'avais un très bon avocat7. » Entre 1978 et 198310, il est incarcéré à la prison Saint-Michel de Toulouse, puis au centre de détention de Muret.

>Bernard Stiegler met à profit ses années de prison pour étudier la linguistique et la philosophie11. Il suit par correspondance des études de philosophie à l'université Toulouse II-Le Mirail et reçoit le soutien de Jacques Derrida

unfathomably based

>>18113901
Interesting.

>>18112644
Cringe

>>18113224
No

>>18115270
>Cringe

>>18100312
Same

I know I want to bang his wife that's for sure.

>>18117341
that's his daughter

>>18099567
>Derrida
Based. Derrida had a lot of great insights into the role of techne in the tradition of metaphysics and a friendlier idea of things that are prosthetic

>>18112611
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCkWIdwSvAg
Have you read his book?

>>18104288
>>18104406
>>18104535
High quality posts.

>>18108055
>Just ignore that the example I'm basing my sweeping generalisation on is factually untrue bro
Stop being retarded, vatnik.

If you are going to philosophy technology with Heidegger as your starting point, you won't get anywhere.

I am not saying this to discourage readers from studying Heidegger, but his isnights on tekhne are not only very broad and sweeping generillizations, they are not usefull to to understand technology. His definition is also entirely artificial. Many later philosophers have pointed this out even besides Stiegler, like Graham Harman.

>>18120901
How is he wrong?

A toast against technology.

>>18117341
>>18117341
>french literary bourgeois whore
>is a titlet

everytime, i hate that all french sluts are flat