Byron wrote:Study's kind of nonexistent at the moment- I graduated last year, and since then I've just been floating around and trying to figure out what to do next. [...]
Byron wrote:A lot... The compulsory capstone subject was entirely metaphilosophical- philosophy of philosophy- so I'm not sure which aspects of it would be particularly engaging or worthy of discussion. It was interesting to learn about philosophy's traditional rejection of the 'feminine', and how it's unfortunately still the most male-dominated area of the humanities today; and that many of its interests have been somewhat subsumed by modern science, while postmodern deconstructionism has seen a shift towards subjectivity and temporality in certain strands of thought; and the continued relevance of areas like political philosophy, philosophy of language and applied ethics for societies today.
Have you heard of Noam Chomsky? He's my favourite philosopher at the moment- an amazing contemporary academic who's done some really good work in political activism and raising awareness of media agendas and corporate influence. Peter Singer is great as well; I'm going to see him speak next month.
How about you, did you study? Has your interest in critical analysis led to any rewarding insights?
r-enter-ested wrote:... You should infer that measuring the "maleness" of any of this does not take one very far ...
Jordan~ wrote:Have you read Foucault? ...
If you've read in the philosophy of science, how about Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, which is basically the founding text of postmodernism in the humanities? Or Bruno Latour's Laboratory Life - an anthropology of the production of scientific knowledge.
Jordan~ wrote:Latour's worth checking out too, if you can get past his infuriating writing style. He's a big name in contemporary history and philosophy of science, as one of the foremost founding figures of the Science and Technology Studies school, from which position he developed Actor-Network Theory, which is now something of a craze in the social sciences.
Jordan~ wrote:Translations from French are usually fine. Translations from German are another matter, because a less talented translator will render the book incredibly dull.
r-enter-ested wrote:Jordan~ wrote:Translations from French are usually fine. Translations from German are another matter, because a less talented translator will render the book incredibly dull.
No, no, no, no.
It's the meaning of the concepts that is of concern. If you ever want to blow your mind, then read a second translation of a book. I did this with a few of Nietzsche's works.
Jordan~ wrote:r-enter-ested wrote:Jordan~ wrote:Translations from French are usually fine. Translations from German are another matter, because a less talented translator will render the book incredibly dull.
... the concepts that is of concern. If you ever want to blow your mind, then read a second translation of a book. I did this with a few of Nietzsche's works.
That too. I have done that - I've read two different translations of Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious Life; in both cases, they were mostly (forgiveable)[sic] nonsense, but the more recent translation was much more readable.
r-enter-ested wrote:...
I have requested a copy of Lyotard's book from a public library ...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests