Filozofski fragmenti

Podkast mi je nedavno otkriće pa sam iznenađen da pokriva najheterogenije linije: ima i Lavkrafta i Pinčona, i Jingera i Strinera, i Kačinskog i Gurđijeva, i Kanta i Bergsona, i Ramba i Hajdegera, zasad je to iznenađenje prijatno.

Ђорђо Агамбен: Језик и смрт

У циклусу Студије и огледи од 12. до 15. априла можете слушати делове књиге „Језик и смрт” италијанског филозофа Ђорђа Агамбена.

Упркос очигледности да је смрт непосредност која потпуно раскида однос са светом живота, управо језик је посредник између света живота и нашег односа према смрти. Сам језик, с друге стране, крије у себи слојеве и нијансе који, додатно, усложњавају перспективу која гледа на смрт. Ђорђо Агамбен се од својих младалачких дана, када је био под снажним утицајем Мартина Хајдегера, а потом и као плод пријатељства са Жаком Деридом, усредсредио на проучавање језика, те у књизи Језик и смрт: семинар о месту негативности из 1982. године показује на који се начин језик носи с оним негативним. Смрт је, утолико, повлашћена тема као чиста негативност, као врхунски израз небића, онога што није.

Каo изванредан познавалац грчке филозофије и схоластичких текстова, у првим поглављима своје књиге Агамбен урања у старе текстове – али и мање познате средњовековне ауторе – анализирајући управо место језика у односу према трансцендентним величинама. 

https://www.rts.rs/page/radio/ci/story/1464/radio-beograd-3/4331111/.html

Tekst: ovde.

Branko Romčević polazi od teze Petera Sloterdajka iznete u tekstu „Pravila za ljudski vrt" (1999), prema kojoj je Hajdegerovo „Pismo humanizmu" (1946), raskidajući sa tradicijama sklonim konceptualizovanju čoveka kao animalitas, te razbirajući između čoveka i životinje ontološku, a ne graduelnu razliku, otvorilo transhumanistički i posthumanistički misaoni prostor 20. veka. Sloterdajk smatra da se u tom prostoru oslobađa mogućnost preispitivanja upotrebe mehanizma pripitomljavanja i vaspitanja, karakterističnih za klasičan humanizam. Tako će se, veruje on, raskrčiti horizont na kojem ono ljudsko može da se razume mimo, evolucijom novovekovnog i modernog humanizma u čoveku pogrešno prepoznate, bezazlenosti (nekakve, kako se neretko smatra, dobrote i/ili naivnosti). Time bi se ono ljudsko konačno moglo dovesti u odnos prema savremenim tehnikama radikalnog transformisanja, uključujući (pre svih) one koje se tiču mogućnosti genetske reforme.

Ipak, Sloterdajk nije pobornik genetskog inženjeringa, već zagovornik teze po kojoj zatvaranje očiju pred jednom takvom, faktički već osvojenom mogućnošću, predstavlja put u sigurnu katastrofu, čija bi jedina kredibilna alternativa bila formiranje izvesnog kodeksa savremene antropotehnike. Međutim, Sloterdajk gubi iz vida to da su (prema analizama Mišela Fukoa) moderna društva još od 19. veka staro pravo suverenitetea da neko bude ubijen ili pušten da živi, dopunila jednim novim pravom: da se dodeli život ili da se pusti da umre. Za razliku od klasicističke, disciplinske moći, koja se obraćala individualnom čoveku-telu, ovaj tipično moderni odnos ima, prema Fukou, u vidu čoveka kao živo biće, i to ne više kao individuu već kao vrstu. Tako svojevrsna, kako je Fuko naziva, anatomo-politika ljudskog tela trasira put za biopolitiku ljudske vrste. Usled toga, genetska reforma o kojoj Sloterdajk piše, ne bi bila prekretnica, nego (samo) još jedan korak dalje u biopolitičkoj odiseji, započetoj pre oko dvesta godina. Dakle, ključno kritičko pitanje Romčevićevog izlaganja tiče se odnosa sloterdajkovskih antropotehnika i fukoovske biopolitike, to jest napetosti, preklapanja i odstupanja kojima su oni obeleženi

https://www.rts.rs/page/radio/sr/story/1466/radio-beograd-3/4490217/branko-romcevic-transhumanizam-antropotehnike-i-biopolitika.html

Ne znam gde bih

Philip K Dick’s letter to the FBI reporting Fred Jameson as a Marxist. pic.twitter.com/EtMN27sHGw

— Daniel Tutt (@DanielTutt) September 5, 2021

:ljaksofon:

То је изгледа овај профа, још је жив
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darko_Suvin

Да ли је Лем прецењен је битније питање.
Прочитао сам пар књига, није ми баш легао. Иама превише научни приступ за научну фантастику 

Sotir wrote:То је изгледа овај профа, још је жив
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darko_Suvin

Da, njega spominje i Mark Fisher, točnije njegov pojam cognitive estrangement, a ima ga i u Novostima.

ziv je bre darko. inace mu je omiljeni pisac dilejni. kaze za mievila - sve je to lepo samo sta ce mu ti golemi. zapravo ima paceovsku odbojnost prema fantasy literaturi

listao nešto knjigu Džerija Fodora i Ernija Lepora iz 2002. i na prvoj strani kakav primer Buš era liberalizma, kleo sam oči da bi nevidele

dva lib bumera wrote:Productivity is the property that a system of representation has when it contains an infinite number of syntactically and semantically distinct symbols (as, for example, English contains the open-ended sequence of nonsynonymous expressions: 'missile shield', 'anti-missile-shield', 'anti-anti-missile-shield-shield', 'anti-anti-anti-missile-shield-shield-shield', and so forth until President Bush bankrupts us all).

Jean-Luc Nancy (1940-2021)

Philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy, renowned for his wide-ranging, challenging, and thoughtful writing on art, film, and politics, died August 23 at the age of eighty-one. Best known for his unfetteredly fresh takes on giants of thought, including Heidegger, Kant, and Sartre, he wrote extensively on art, taking as his subjects Simon Hantaï, Soun-Gui Kim, and On Kawara, the last of whom he especially admired for his works investigating death, time, and human existence. Nancy’s 2000 essay “L’intrus” (The Intruder), perhaps his most famous work, served as the basis for Claire Denis’s well-regarded 2004 film of the same name.

Born in 1940 in Caudéran, outside of Bordeaux, France, Nancy in 1962 graduated in philosophy from the University of Paris, going on to teach all over the world for the following two decades while writing extensively. During this time, he and his family lived communally with fellow philosophy professor Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and his family. Describing in Expert Comment the coteaching style of Nancy and Lacoue-Labarthe, who cowrote many texts together, John Mckeane characterized the pair’s preferred method of working “in a haze of cigarette smoke and without the rituals of authority” as “unthinkable in today’s universities.” In 1973, Nancy took up a teaching job at Strasbourg’s Université des Sciences Humaines, where he would work for the next thirty years. In 1987, Nancy obtained his state doctorate from the Université de Toulouse le Mirai; his thesis, which put forth the concept of freedom as a kind of personal property, was reviewed by Jean-François Lyotard and Jacques Derrida, and was subsequently published as L’experience de la liberté in 1988.

Beset by ill health in the late 1980s and early 1990, Nancy underwent the first heart transplant to take place in France and found his subsequent recovery complicated by a diagnosis of long-term cancer caused by the drugs he was ordered to take to suppress his immune system around the organ transplant. Around this time he ceased teaching and stepped away from many of the committees in which he was a participant, but he continued writing, notably producing 1993’s Le sense du monde, which queried the idea of living in the world rather than apart from it, and the startlingly intimate “L’intrus,” about his decadelong health crisis.

Following the dawn of the new millennium, Nancy worked extensively with artist and filmmaker Phillip Warnell, collaborating on works exploring human–animal relations, among other topics. No matter with whom he was collaborating, the human condition, in regard to which he had great sympathy, remained his central theme. Asserted Mckeane, “Nancy should be remembered for seeing humans not as isolated minds, but as embodied beings who create meaning through our senses.”
Nisam video ovo...

Može li se ovo skinuti sa CEEOL-a:

https://www.ceeol.com/search/book-detail?id=308868

Eto, vakcinisao se i umro.

A Agamben jos ziv.

Pametnom dosta.

Kakvo je mišljenje filozofski potkovanih Burunđana o teorijskim dometima Rečnika tehnologije? U onom a i sadašnjem trenutku?

Inače, u onom zborniku, Piroćančev tekst je sramno loš, ono je urednik trebao da mu vrati ili odbije.

Hannah Arendt's syllabus for Introduction to Politics, taught at the University of Chicago in 1963 pic.twitter.com/60fr10FEnm

— Samantha Rose Hill (@Samantharhill) September 2, 2022

nije filozofski fragment al da postenim filmofilima ne spamujem filmski pdf. u ovom teskom trenutku uzeo sam ponovo da citam klarkov tekst in defense of abstract expressionism. inace kad se nadjem u nekom redu, ili nesto cekam, a nemam kindl sa sobom, odem na lrb i otvorim neki timov tekst. misim da mi je omiljeni pisac, uvek me smiri. jedva cekam da mi stigne nova knjiga o sezanu. elem pocetak teksta je kljucan:

⦁ We have come a certain way from Abstract Expressionism, and the question of how we should understand our relationship to it gets to be interesting again. Awe at its triumphs is long gone; but so is laughter at its cheap philosophy, or distaste for its heavy breathing, or boredom with its sublimity, or resentment at the part it played in the Cold War. Not that any of those feelings have gone away or ever should, but that it begins to be clear that none of them-not even the sum of them-amounts to an attitude to the painting in question. They are what artists and critics once had because they did not have an attitude-because something stood in the way of their making Abstract Expressionism a thing of the past.

⦁ Not being able to make a previous moment of high achievement part of the past-not to lose it and mourn it and if necessary revile it-is, for art under the circumstances of modernism, more or less synonymous with not being able to make art at all. Because ever since Hegel put the basic proposition of modernism into words in the 1820s-that "art, considered in its highest vocation, is and remains for us a thing of the past"-art's being able to continue has depended on its success in making that dictum specific and punctual. That is to say, fixing the moment of art's last flowering at some point in the comparatively recent past, and discovering that enough remains from this finale for a work of ironic or melan­choly or decadent continuation to seem possible after all. The "can't go on, will go on" syndrome. I think of the relation of nineteenth-century orchestral and cham­ber music to the moment of Mozart and Beethoven; or of how nineteenth- and twentieth-century literature managed to continue living on the idea of "the Roman tics," or on the terminal images it fashioned of Baudelaire and Rimbaud, or of the past that "Impressionism" went on providing for French painting deep into the twentieth century (till the deaths of Bonnard and Matisse), or of the feeding of later modernisms on the myth of the Readymade and the Black Square.

Hegel's dictum had to be localized, that is to say. And to point to the fact that it can be localized, and therefore in a sense evaded, is, of course, to confirm the Hegelian thesis, not refute it. For Hegel did not anticipate any literal ceasing, or 

even withering-away, of activities calling themselves art. He just did not see that they could possibly remain the form in which men and women articulated the relations of mind and body to possible worlds. Or I should say, articulated them to good effect. What he did not see, as I understand it, was that the full depth and implication of that inability-the inability to go on giving Idea and World sensu­ous immediacy, of a kind that opened both to the play of practice-would itself prove a persistent, maybe sufficient, subject. That was because he had a naive hubris about philosophy, and because he could not detach himself from the sense of world-historical beginnings and endings that came with an adulthood passed in the shadow of the French Revolution. And other reasons besides. He could never have guessed that the disenchantment of the world would take so long.

Modernism, as I conceive it, is the art of the situation Hegel pointed to, but its job turns out to be to make the endlessness of the ending bearable, by time and again imagining that it has taken place-back there with Beethoven scratching out Napoleon's name on the Eroica symphony, or with Rimbaud getting on the boat at Marseilles. Every modernism has to have its own proximate Black Square.

Therefore our failure to see Jackson Pollock and Clyfford Still as ending something, or our lack of a story of what it is they were ending, is considerably more than a crisis in art criticism or art history. It means that for us art is no longer a thing of the past; that is, we have no usable image of its ending, at a time and place we could imagine ourselves inhabiting, even if we would rather not. Therefore art will eternally hold us with its glittering eye. Not only will it forego its role in the disenchantment of the world, but it will accept the role that has constantly been foisted upon it by its false friends: it will become one of the forms, maybe the form, in which the world is reenchanted. With a magic no more and no less powerful (here is my real fear) than that of the general conjuror of depth and desirability back into our world-that is, the commodity form. For the one thing the myth of the end of art made possible was the maintaining of some kind of distance between art's sensuous immediacy and that of other (stronger) claimants to the same power.

⦁ Of course the situation I have been describing may not be remediable. It may be that we have lost Abstract Expressionism because we have lost modernism tout court, and therefore the need to imagine art altogether-whether continuing or ending.

https://rs.n1info.com/kultura/preminuo-francuski-filozof-bruno-latur/