[ 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: 33 KB, 800x500, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6467280 No.6467280 [Reply] [Original]

Based lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK-5XOwraQo

>> No.6467288

>>6467280
No one is going to click your gay ass link unless you tell us what is so interesting about it.

>> No.6467313

"The “speculative realist movement” exists only in the imaginations of a group of bloggers promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever: actor-network theory spiced with pan-psychist metaphysics and morsels of process philosophy. I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with Deleuze’s remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity."

>> No.6467383

>>6467288
Its a lecture about Speculative realism.
It talks about the divide between continental and analytic philosophy. It goes through a certain vision of the natural sciences and the humanities and finally addresses "matter".
The realist position that Harman is trying to express is that there is something real outside our minds.
Not the version of realism that states that it can be known in some way but the version that says that it cant be known but it can and has already been articulated.

>>6467313
Except that Graham Harman is not some blogger but a respected professional philosopher.

>> No.6467388

>>6467383
>respected
By whom? His brainwashed students? Architecture undergrads? lmao please

>> No.6467397

>>6467383
>is that there is something real outside our minds
This is actually the opposite of what he says, he's a epistemological pessimist obscurantist, a negative theologian and a monist idealist instead of a pluralist realist:
Someone else said it best reviewing his Bells and Whistles:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/778120162?book_show_action=true&page=1

>> No.6467478

>>6467397
Well, I presented him as he presents himself. Who you choose to believe or agree with is your business.

>> No.6467490

>>6467388
heh ok..Why are you so angry? You have something personal against him or did you escape some other board?
Everyone gets criticized. I rememebr when Zizek was uploading videos of himself in his bed, half naked talking about films.
You can make fun of everyone but why? Why not just listen to what they have to say and consider it?

>> No.6467494

>>6467280
this is unrelated to op's post, but are a lot of college philosophy professors hacks? does anyone have first hand experiences they'd care to share?

>> No.6467526

>>6467494
Hacks as in they release tons of work that is meaningless?
I dont think that revolutionizing philosophy is the only thing a philosopher can do in the sense of proposing some grand new perspective and write 20 books about it.
I am sure most of what philosophers do to get a professorship is release small critiques or different interpretations of this and that.

>> No.6467570

>>6467490
Chomsky stated that Zizek is a hack and has nothing to say.

>> No.6467588

>>6467526
nah what i meant by if they are or not hacks is that do they actually know what they're talking/teaching about most of the time?