tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post7155827353723315177..comments2023-10-25T01:08:33.156-07:00Comments on Being's Poem: On Wolfendale and his Critics - OOODaniel Sacilottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-19449670750323529002014-10-13T13:02:52.308-07:002014-10-13T13:02:52.308-07:00I think it bodes ill when philosophy turns sociolo... I think it bodes ill when philosophy turns sociological. What I mean is: the oft-remarked puzzler "why write 400 pages about something not worth writing about?" is a sign that the difference between two criteria is being elided. SR "as a brand" is obviously a social phenomenon; it is a chapter in the reception of SR as a <i>style of thinking</i> -- a set of specific tropes, turns of thought, problems, reiterated questions, and so on. One may respond that such a set of moves does not exist, or is insufficient to qualify as a "movement." Fine. But while attention to the "brand" -- "my God, how could this be so popular?" may be a reasonable sociological question, in asking it the subject has changed. I don't mean to imply that there is a hard-and-fast border. "Philosophy has to 'think its time'," to paraphrase Badiou, sure. But it strikes me that this responsibility is a <i>continental</i> -- in particular, a Hegelian -- inheritance. I have a hard time seeing how the Analytical -- let alone the scientisitic -- stance can avail itself of this Hegelian moment, thinking the temporal ascendancy (legitimate or not) of a philosophical style in a properly philosophical (as opposed to sociological) manner. skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-31150582685034355712014-10-11T15:04:50.306-07:002014-10-11T15:04:50.306-07:00Yeah, thanks for this and your OP. I do agree with...Yeah, thanks for this and your OP. I do agree with what you write and no worries about the name misspelling.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I am going to read Wolfendale's book and do a series of posts. I think I have a pretty good track record of charitably engaging with thinkers who I disagree with, so we'll see.<br /><br />It may be the case that I am too scarred by experiences with Brian Leiter doing what strikes me as the same thing Brassier is doing. However, from this experience people saying you don't exist is usually code for people both wishing that you didn't and using the assertion to try to bring this about. <br /><br />I think the articles in Speculations and Collapse are among the most exciting things to have happened thus far this century in philosophy. I'm fine that there are huge philosophical disagreements between various of the original four SRists and people who read their work. This seems really healthy to me. But as far as I've seen these last few years, Brassier's eliminativist (wrt SR, not wrt the stuff the Churchlands don't like) rhetoric has only served to get mainstream analytic and continental philosophers to ignore anybody who is on the margins of commonly accepted null hypotheses, including Brassier's own interesting work. The afterward to Wolfendale's book just ratchets this even further up. <br /><br />Sorry for being redundant, and thanks again for your interesting thoughts.Jon Cogburnhttp://www.drjon.typepad.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-37304040526765583082014-10-11T13:37:10.537-07:002014-10-11T13:37:10.537-07:00Jon,
Thanks for the response, and apologies for mi...Jon,<br />Thanks for the response, and apologies for misspelling your name.<br /><br />About the arguments presented by Ray in his text, I don't agree they are 'howlingly bad'. He questions whether there is anything that binds the network of phenomena associated with SR besides sociological considerations and lots of talk. He takes issue with how neither on the side of 'realism' nor on the side of 'speculative' such a wedge exists.<br /><br />Most of the thinkers associated by this trend are not 'speculative' in any meaningful sense. Meillassoux calls speculative any position that is non-metaphysical in scope to defend a kind of dialectical methodology: but neither Ray, nor Iain, nor Harman, are speculative in that sense. What would it mean to call their respective positions 'speculative' anyhow?<br /><br />On the side of realism, it is even less clear that there is a common bind that runs deep enough so as to include those who have been, and exclude those realists who haven't (like the ones Ray mentions; including analytic metaphysicians)<br /><br />As I understood it, your claims about the ill-editing of Urbanomic, at least in your post, were supported by the claim that you found Wolfendale's background exposition inadequate insofar as it colored the text too much. <br /><br />Though perhaps some of the rhetoric is indeed overly charged and better reserved for the end of the book, when definitive verdict can be made on philosophical grounds, I take it that the bulk of the text serves the timely purpose of showing that Harman himself solicited this form of exchange, and Pete rising to it in the most thorough form possible. That is virtuous to me.<br /><br />If the preface colors the text too much for your liking, I think that is fine, and it's a fair criticism. But I think the truly important thing is the philosophy, and see whether Harman's work has indeed been addressed fairly and whether its dismissal is warranted.<br /><br />Best,<br />DanDaniel Sacilottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06107600124995445921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6580039155018603814.post-83164859243858564912014-10-11T12:11:39.972-07:002014-10-11T12:11:39.972-07:00I should just say that I agree with everything you...I should just say that I agree with everything you write (except for the spelling of my name). Brassier does give howlingly bad arguments in the afterward, but his conclusion "Speculative Realism doesn't exist" is no more *philosophical* than when Brian Leiter says the same thing about other areas of continental philosophy.<br /><br />The only substantive claim I could possibly make about the book from the preface and afterward is that it wasn't properly edited by Macky and crew at Urbanomic. I don't think anyone who deals even slightly with academic publishers (I've reviewed books for Oxford, Acumen, Routledge, Rowan and Littfield, etc. and published with Routledge, Edinburgh, and Open Court) would doubt this for a second after reading the preface and afterwards.<br /><br />I have no idea if Urbanomic is a vanity press or if the anti-Harman animus led them to serve Wolfendale so badly. Anyone who has followed his blog (as I have) and who has read the preface (it's on-line) should agree.<br /><br />Urbanomic's lack of professionalism does give me some solid inductive evidence that I as a reader am going to have to do far more work than I would otherwise have to do to read Wolfendale's arguments with the charity that every author deserves. Normally the independent reviewers give you detailed advice about how to make your book maximally charitable and readable. As part of this, they correct you when you make bone headed mistakes like he does in the preface and Brassier does in the afterward.<br /><br />Nothing I'm saying about this should be the least controversial. I hate to admit this, but to the extent that it is, it shows that Brassier was on to something with his dismissal of the on-line ethos pervading Speculative Realism, Accelerationism etc. Ironically, the journal Brassier dumps on (Speculations) actually follows best practices with respect to editorial reviewing. <br /><br />In any case, I didn't take my comments to be a review of the book. I reserve the right to attack Leiteristic dismissals of whole areas of philosophy (Brassier on SR), and to stick up for younger academics like Pete when they are so badly served by people with an agenda.Jon Cogburnhttp://www.drjon.typepad.comnoreply@blogger.com