Friday, May 30, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
My interest in logic and its application to metaphysical theology stems from my early readings of Hegel, actually. As time went on I discovered Hartshorne and learning modal logic became invaluable. I think what cinched things for me - that one had to have a good grasp of logic in order to do good metaphysics (let alone theology) - was when I took two back to back seminars in Medieval philosophy during graduate school.
Since then I've reflected on logic and its application to metaphysics and religion frequently (for example, see THIS post).
Here is one of my favorite Hartshorne quotes:
- Charles Hartshorne, Creative Synthesis & Philosophic Method
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Monday, May 19, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
In the case of French philosophers, their interest in phenomenology was encouraged by the interpretation of phenomenology as a continuation of the Cartesian tradition, that is, as an attempt to secure the foundations of science and logic through reflection upon consciousness. The interest of French religious thinkers, on the other hand, was incited largely by the desire to break from the strict rationalism that Cartesianism represented among French academic philosophers.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
"[However], left to itself, 'nature' is always mute, even unknowable in itself; it comes into existence as a relevant reality only when translated into the signs and symbols that culture attaches to it."
Laruelle expresses “disappointment in the philosophies of difference” (as conceived in the 19th and 20th centuries, so Nietzsche, Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger) and is instead enchanted by the Absolute “as such.” From reading Laruelle, it is interesting to consider the way in which his Absolute admits difference “deeply” as an "in-One." It seems that for Laurelle, as he points out, that ontological difference is not relative but is continuous among and between multiplicities such that multiplicities are not “static” but are always immanently “in relation” in-One. From these comments I am inspired to read more about Laurelle’s criticisms of Deleuze especially (see here: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/44829-franois-laruelles-philosophies-of-difference-a-critical-introduction-and-guide/)
For more thoughts on Laruelle's non-relativist plural monism see Agent Swarm on "The Renunciation of the Mentors" HERE and "Non-Philosophy, Disappointment, and Enchantment" (HERE).
In a post from last year I've posted some introductory materials about Laruelle HERE.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
I also like how Jeff ties this into his blog, stating that it is in some sense a continuation of it. He's been blogging for six years and this is his first podcast.
This is certainly inspiring. I've said before that After Nature should do a podcast. I've reached out to two folks in hopes of securing a partner in crime, but despite wanting to help, busy schedules are preventing me finding a co-host at the moment. Maybe one day.
Links HERE and HERE.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Two NDPR reviews: The Idea of Hegel's Science of Logic and Hegel and the Metaphysics of Absolute Negativity
Also very good is Brady Bowman's Hegel and the Metaphysics of Absolute Negativity, review HERE.
In the end however both books still can't compare (in my judgment at least) to the absolutely masterful Hegelian Metaphysics by Robert Stern (Oxford University Press). That book is just amazing and superb. A "must read" for anyone with an interest in Hegel's relevance for metaphysics today.
Stern has a flair for Continental thought (Deleuze) as well as American thought (Peirce) that comes up in this book - despite him often being associated with the more "analytic" camp of Hegelian studies. Really, any interest in Hegel, do pick up Stern's book!
Monday, May 12, 2014
While it is well known that Meillassoux reinstalls correlationism from within a Hegelian rationalist materialist viewpoint (although this only after having dismantled the history of correlationism), it is not well known to what extent Meillassoux actually draws upon a dismantled and then reinstalled deep seated form of naturalism in his appeal to the concerns that drive both naturalism and science: namely mathematics and rationality, or how "nature" is organized and could be described to be organized in any meaningful way despite there being radical contingency.
Meillassoux does eschew "scientific" naturalism, yet his (in Watkin's words) appeal to "speculative primo-absolutizing properties" is the sort of appeal that honors a "robust" sense of both science and nature - a move that any metaphysician in the traditions of German idealism or American philosophical naturalism would indeed champion. What I find interesting here is that there are eschatological quasi-theological reasons for this, as much as there are reasons to honor a realist metaphysics that seeks an "outside" without modal necessity, independent of reasons involving a coming-to-be divinity etc. etc.. (see Watkin's paper HERE.)
Blake draws in Kacem's critique (from Kacem's forthcoming book The Meillassoux Effect) where Meillassoux's appeal to mathematics and materialist-rationalist ontology (pace Badiou) is in tension with his challenge to metaphysical necessity. (see Blake's paper HERE.)
The issue becomes this: what kind of naturalism will Meillassoux create or invoke?
For me this is exciting because I've enjoyed watching what roads of naturalism the likes of Brassier, Grant, and Johnston have all traveled. Now it is Meillassoux's turn in the sense that his ontology demands a clear statement of how exactly he sees nature, if only to address the tensions found in his simultaneous appeal to contingency and mathematical rationalist materialism in addition to explaining the "naturalness" (i.e. non-transcendental nature) of a possibly appearing future God.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
CALL FOR PAPERS
Philosophy After Nature
3-5 September 2014
The Joint Annual Conference of The Society for European Philosophy and Forum for European Philosophy in 2014 will be hosted by the Centre for the Humanities, the Faculty of Humanities and the Descartes Institute, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Information and Thinking/l'information et la pensée
Respondent: Professor Françoise Balibar, Université Paris-Diderot
Professor Rahel Jaeggi, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Critique of Forms of Life
The SEP/FEP conference is the largest annual event in Europe that aims to bring together researchers, teachers and others, from different disciplines, interested in all areas of contemporary European philosophy. Submissions are therefore invited for individual papers and panel sessions in all areas of contemporary European philosophy. For 2014, submissions that address the conference's plenary theme – Philosophy After Nature – are particularly encouraged. This would include papers and panels that are after nature in the sense of being in pursuit of nature's consequences. We invite perspectives on critique, science, ecology, technology and subjectivity as bound up with conceptions of nature and experiment with various positions in contemporary thought.
Enquiries: Rick Dolphijn (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thursday, May 8, 2014
More info HERE in the last section "Conferences, appearances, talks."
I just finished listening to the raw recording of the interview and it sounds great. Stephanie and I promote our forthcoming Animal Experience book through OHP, and there's alot of discussion about Latour, James, Whitehead, Hartshorne, and Peirce and how those philosophers can be used to think about non-human animals, agency, and the emotions.
There's even a name drop of "correlationism" and how a speculative naturalists' phenomenology can tackle it. Hint: it involves the universal nature of suffering, empathy, and allowing other agents (in this case non-human animals) to speak for themselves; to develop a truly ecological metaphysics and wider culture of empathy.
[UPDATE: As it turns out, I think for obvious reasons given SR's "reputation," it was a wise choice for me to turn down the offer.]
(For more about my publication schedule, see HERE.)