Jump to content

xmaratx

Member
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About xmaratx

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 05/20/1980
  1. I see your point and thanks..., but that´s not just one person and not only according to this situation that I would like to know opinions and views from ppl attending this forum you know...honestly, as I see it, majority of debaters in here are from U.S.A. and reading your debates around here is astonishing time to time for me because at my university (Czech republic), things are different...faculty staff is divided into: - analytic philosophy/philosophy of language (the biggest part) - ancient philosophy (three persons) - phenomenology (two) - medieval philosophy (two) and that´s it...and to be perfectly clear, it´s not different on other universities/faculties...also the system, classes etc. are completely different and it´s hard to explain (I´ve given question about literature according to themes to my final exams at this forum and got no reply suggesting that nobody has similar experience; just for example), but willing to do things that I´m interested in is one thing, but to be all the time confronted with opposite is really hard to go by...as an undergraduate on other faculty I´ve been doing Foucault and french philosophy of the 20th century, coming to graduate level on other university and faculty gave me pretty hard time...
  2. Following Leiter´s blog, reading Glock and Sokal...under pressure from my professor though who´s trying to point to me, that those things that I´m engaged in are just trash... I simply dunno what to do...I don´t know where I stand...studying philosophy at master level doing Foucault, Deleuze I feel myself to be completely lost facing such statements that: "does sentences from books/authors that you are reading have truth value? if yes, it´s philosophy, if not its arts of whatever, but not science, so not philosophy" "postmodern, structuralists and french philosophers are just blabering etc." meant Derrida and Deleuze especially just adding several links that I wish you to comment: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/12/provably-nonsense-part-i.html http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1983/oct/27/the-word-turned-upside-down/ http://writing-program.uchicago.edu/toys/randomsentence/write-sentence.htm and http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_520bd5632b7ff3cb does anyone of you have similar exp. or issues about this topic? The thing is, that I´m really desperate what does this all mean to me and to those things that I´m interested in, so I´m not doing philosophy and reading stuff that has no sense??? Facing simple fact that if it is not analytic, it´s not scientific and science only can say something to our lives?!! Don´t get me wrong, I just don´t know how to explain, does somebody understand? What is your position and opinion? Is somebody here interested primarely in analytic philosophy? I´ve read that discussion about division continental/analytic and still just I cannot tell...I´m totally lost and trying to find my way out of this... thx for any comment... just another link: http://www.bu.edu/partisanreview/archive/2001/2/bauerlein.html
  3. still no reply or comment?! any advice comes handy...
  4. I´m prepairing papers for my final exams which will take place next june; the thing is, that to pass master degree exams I need to prepaire 14 topics (and 28 sub-topics) about which I´m to talk about during that exam. Main topic is to be discussed for one hour, sub-topic (just one will be selected by the board) for about 30 minutes... I´d like to ask any of you, whether you should suggest suitable readings according to below listed topics or some texts that you do find fundamental for particular topics To give just one example, the first topic is BEING so as the main two sources I do have explanation of the conception of Being in Aristotle´s Metaphysics and in Sein und Zeit with several comments from Plato and Parmenides... for to sub-topics I will talk about Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and then mainly about Quine´s Two dogmas, Carnap and Popper of course... any suggestion will be appreciated! so the list is: Final exam topics: 1.Being a)positivism b)sceptics from antiquity till today 2.Language a)Aristotelism and its transformations from antiquity till today b)Czech philosophy in the first half of the twentieth century, T. G. Masaryk 3.Human a)genesis of analytic philosophy, structure of its problematics and the main phases of its genealogy b)natural philosophy from antiquity till modern period 4.Technics a)Platonism and its historical variations b)Foundation and genealogy of structuralism 5.Existence a)Enligthenment, its influence on philosophical thinking in IXX. And XX. Century b)Relation between reason and faith from patristics till modern period 6.Knowledge a)Creation, problems and progress of political philosophy from antiquity till present b)Ludwig Wittgenstein 7.God a)Conceptions of moral philosophy from antiquity till present b)Creation and progress of marxism 8.Philosophy a)The problematics of universals, its rise, progress and solutions from antiquity till present b)Influence of logics and mathematics on philosophical thinking of the XIX. and XX. Century 9.Society a)The concept of metaphysics and its critique from antiquity till present b)Creation and progress of hermeneutics 10.History a)Kant´s philosophy adn its importance for the progress of noetics, metaphysics and ethics b)Problems of applied ethics 11. Behaviour a)Genesis of phenomenology and its fundamental problems b)Philosophy of F. Nietzsche 12.Science a)Existentialism and the philosophy of existence b)Political philosophy in XIX. And XX. Centuries 13.Nature a)Creation and progress of pragmatism and its philosophical meaning b)Philosophy of M. Heidegger 14.Consciousness a)Postmodern philosophy b)Jan Patočka and the czech philosophy in the XX. century
  5. suppose you´re making a point....I haven´t read that book, but what´s weird about such reviews and articles criticizing radical left is that those authors don´t even admit such a simple question: what if I´m wrong...?! it reminds me of dennett talking about believers that they are also not able of such a question...and also as zizek evokes - today we are still confronted with such weltanschaung that it´s more possible that earth explodes than that capitalism fails to "work"... if anyone is about to read commonwealth could you post some remarks or comments?! thank you...
  6. have you read this?!: just adding the conclusion: "Commonwealth" is a dark, evil book, and it is troubling that it appears under the prestigious imprimatur of Harvard University Press. Countless millions were slaughtered by adherents of Karl Marx in the 20th century. God help us if the scourge returns in the 21st. has anyone read commonwealth?...just curious what are your opinions...
  7. that sounds pretty interesting, looks like we are really tied in our country with previous regime:( instead of own initiative and concentrating on those topics that we would like to study we have to go in the line and...well, it´s a crap...
  8. scu, could you please continue in this primer? I´m currently goin again through Naissance de la biopolitique and wonder, whether one could say, that Foucault stands for neo/liberalism instead of socialism just because of that, that socialists don´t have no rationality, no sort of governing strategy sufficient for capitalism - welfare state combo? Or he focuses on neo/liberalism for that reason, that it made biopolitical strategic regime of governing vitable and so succesfull that it ruled the roost? Those reasons seem to be interconnected... could we criticize Foucault for his gender blindness, or precisely for not paying so much attention for gender as also crucial part/instrument of/for capitalism with essential impacts on biopolitics? I remember, that one of his replies in Berkeley lectures, why he was not focusing on gender aspects was, that his interest lied somewhere else (but it was related to HS trilogy...) and to study this sphere would have needed other sort of methods and procedure...It seems to me, that studying gender aspects of biopolitical regime cannot be omitted not only because producing of new subjects depends on family milieux...this is the aspect that I´m missing in his lectures on biopolitics/liberalism...still it´s little bit strange because I believe that he was pretty aware of such aspects (although he never mentioned it explicitly using gender etc.) like in planning other parts of his HS opus concerning fabrication of "women´s hysteria"...
  9. are you serious? well, that´s a surprise for me because part of final papers we have to also pass the final exams... and is it the same for master degree finals? maybe I didn´t make myself clear, I meant MA finals in philosophy...is it the same with PhD.? no exam, "just" dr. thesis and several papers...If I am up to go to postgradual, I´ll have to go through three years, write thesis and then also pass sort of exam like history of philosophy, two languages and defend my thesis... thx for a reply;)
  10. here, I would like to ask anyone, how do/did you prepare for your final exams in philosophy? maybe it´s a silly question, but I don´t have any exp. or information which way it goes among other countries..., so I wonder, whether it´s like in my country where you get couple of themes with sub-sections and it´s up to you how do you prepare for your final exams. for example I do have my final exams this year and one of 14 themes from which I will draw is: TECHNICS a) Platonism and it´s variations and reception during history Foundation and constitution of structuralism For the main theme I have to make ready a speach aprox. for one hour and its all my business, how will I prepare this, what will be the main focus, whether I choose some author, his/her work or if I go through several works of various authors and pick the key ideas etc. Those two sub-sections must be prepared briefly just to name the main characteristics, works, authors, periods and so on... I´m really curious, what kind of form or style your final exams get?...
  11. could somebody give some tips just where to start with deleuze... I´ve read pourparlers and nitzsche and philosophy, would like to get into antioedipus etc., but dunno where to begin and this text is...you know;) thx for any advice:)
  12. thx for your suggestions scu! would you be so kind and suggest your order and those different books, negri caught me a lot so I´m definitely goin to get other available books, no matter how quickly I´ll be succesful in getting them, I´d like to get as much tips as possible and you seem to know Negri very well... hmmm, you are right - that translation is weird, "guide" to me seems more like "leader" or better "governor", accordin´to "guidare" which means to lead or to control....but I don´t know much about content of the book...
  13. in czech republic hardly:mad:, but thx for your tip...
  14. I´ve started to read this and delighted at this book I would like to ask you guys where do you think it´s good to continue in reading Negri... I do have access to: labor of dyonisus negri on negri the philosophy of a. negri insurgencies btw.: has anyone read those new books by negri: empire and beyond & reflections on empire ´d like to buy on of them but not sure which...any suggestions?!
  15. ok, Spark, but those things about KGB etc. are NOT in the Manifesto - that doesn´t mean nothing but that Marx and Engels didn´t think about political force/police of that kind in lately CCCP...instead "to centralize...production in the hands of the state" has consequence in "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character." & "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." So they didn´t think about any kind of mechanism that should´ve policed newly born society; and those 10 points refer first of all to the achievement of no class distinctions... I think that we need to make a distinction among what IS in Communist Manifesto and what there´s not. Personally I´m tryin to prepair for dispute with teacher of mine about Manifesto - he seems to be convinced about it´s "evil and bloodthirsty" character because of all those wicked consequences Manifesto´s thought were (imho) misused or to stress it abused - parallel with Nietzsche maybe... other thing is it´s language - fight, struggle, exploitation...still I´m not convinced that those two didn´t describe the social reality of raising capitalist economy... still in my mind: what for could we blame Marx and Engels (if so)? especially Marx as a historian/sociologist and philosopher is more than vital through his works, e.g. in the case of fem. discourses it is widely significant nevertheless I still do have problems with using democracy as a result of that revolution - how it could´ve been achieved? is it so that democracy (in Manifesto) leans in liberation from work in that sense that to live no longer means (only!) to work?
×
×
  • Create New...