[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 57 KB, 700x540, 359538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13813025 No.13813025 [Reply] [Original]

I'd like to read Simondon's work, but this guy mentions Apeiron a lot. The problem is that I don't know what this term is. I don't even know how to read Anaximandros' philosophy.

What distinguishes Apeiron from what is commonly called Chaos?

>> No.13813071

>>13813025
based Simondon thread, bump

>> No.13813079

>>13813025
You don't need to know what an apeiron is to read Simondon. Anyway, if you want to know what kind of time ontology speculation understand to get yourself into his ontology, its easier to read Deleuze. Simondon is pure process, the continental update of aristotelian onto-categorization.

>> No.13813086

>>13813071
I really want to know what substantiate argument from philosophers dealt with kaczynski's(Well, Ellul) theory.

>> No.13813088

>>13813079
Also this --> >>13813071

>> No.13813092

>>13813086
Anda a acostarte, lo estás leyendo al revés.

>> No.13813106
File: 12 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13813106

>>13813079
>its easier to read Deleuze
Am I fucked by being a STEMfag? I didn't think I'd ever hear such a sentence in my life.
I just want to know his proponent argument of technology

And also if I read Simondon without knowing that term I only assume it is something like Chaos or something, or just same as chaos. I'm pretty sure that leads to misinterpretation.

>> No.13813112

>>13813092
https://www.google.com/search?q=Anda+a+acostarte%2C+lo+est%C3%A1s+leyendo+al+rev%C3%A9s..
Do you know the reason why image suggest bush at the 9/11

>> No.13813136

>>13813106
>Am I fucked by being a STEMfag?
No, you are not. In fact, as Brassier, Simondon is one of the only philosophers that can make a serious liminal bridge betwen science and continental theory.
>if I read Simondon without knowing that term I only assume it is something like Chaos or something
Well, yes, simondonean ontology is natural chaos. But that doesn't mean that there is no preexisting organic stuff or some kind of preexisting order. As I said before, its easier to read his theory to know what he means to; but, if you really don't know what his ontology is and you want to know what he think time is, its quite easier to read Deleuze, who took a lot of Simondon's theory to write his own.
Anyway, if you don't want to read deleuze, you can read the __physical individuation chapter__ in the simondon's book about individuation, before reading his theory about techne.

>>13813112
Cause LatAm people did 9/11