Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Agnes Callard
"Like police detectives who go undercover and become too attached to the trappings of the criminal underworld to ever return from it, so too are logicians drawn in by sophisms.” (Currently enjoying *Irrationality*)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Agnes Callard 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
He is good on how Zizek's "self-Orientalizing schtick...enables him to play at undermining the pieties of liberal democratic or bourgeois society, as he comes from a place where, the prejudice has it, these pieties have no hope of taking root in the inhospitable soil. ”
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
On Nabokov on Freud:"What Nabokov could not abide is the idea that we might be mysteries to ourselves, that we might not be fully in command of our own lives, but rather are all driven by strange tics and hang-ups that we must turn to someone else, a purported expert, to discern"
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @jehsmith
Now reading part on art and genius, I wish had discussed the way in which "genius" makes idiosyncracy/irrationality safe--the idea that genius is innate, unacquirable, untransmittable i.e. *uninfectious*, has always struck me as important for 'containment' of irrational
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
on the fineness of the line between computation, and its ancestor, divination:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
Smith (rightly) criticizes Brennan for not explaining how epistocracy could come to be (in any way that doesn't entrench power), but is guilty of same lacuna when suggesting the internet/social media could be good if regulated by democratic deliberation. How cd. this come to be?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
Not to get too meta on you but here's his take on twitter: “Online discourse feels free, to the extent that it is pleasing to the individual who puts it out there, but it is more or less always channeled either down the path of like-seeking, or down the path of trolling.”
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
"if we hope to establish a way of looking at human variety that favors continuity and fluidity, how does it help matters to simply shift the fundamental rift from that between “male” and “female” to that between “cis” and “trans”? ” I enjoyed his tiptoeing into "universalism"
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
On why we can't draw clean lines defining when humor "goes too far"
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
Related to the point about humor, which, it turns out, encapsulated the thesis of the whole book:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AgnesCallard
“the economic model of the individual actor has tended to envision him as being of infinite duration, as not standing before the horizon of his own finitude.” I do think this is the dividing line btwn the parts of phil. more and less conversant with economics.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Agnes Callard 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @jehsmith
"We have been analyzing human diversity to no end over the past several decades, but the sort of diversity of human experience that emerges from the fact that we are all of different ages, that there are stages on life’s way, has been largely neglected” --, Irrationality
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"