Johnny Foreigner, Branes, and the Limits of Fun

[jauntyalan]

(To post to PBS when Blogger stops piggin about

Comments

[byebyepride]

Is the Foucault you remember the intro to Order of Things (aka Les Mots et Les Choses) or Words and Ting as it should have been translated...? (I think the original Ricoeur title should become 'Live Metaphor' or 'Living Metaphor', can't remember tho').

[byebyepride]

No need for apols. BTW. I'm still not quite sure why the style is such a problem with some of these Frenchies. Partly a dick-waving thing I think; partly that if you're used to reading that style it genuinely doesn't seem such a problem; partly that the reference points are totally taken for granted (years of sedimented Parisian what-passes-for common knowledge to be drawn on) and yes, I think very often it is the translation that's an issue.

[jauntyalan]

yeah, yr right, it's totally a cultural thing (which is sort of what i was getting at right at the start). and yes it was Order of Things, which is a great title - top marks to whoever chose to translate it as such (ie less literally)

[jauntyalan]

and the double-edged sword thing is still making me smile

[dubdobdee]

i seem to recall readin once that cartesian "clarté" as an ideal wz considered the UNRECONSTRUCTED ENEMY by some of these folks (viz possibly hegel and heidegger?): they believed that to "get" their argument actually required a depth immersion in their jargon and structure

i have no strong opinion on this either way: i find derridean rhythmic a soothing read even when i totally don't get him, whereas hegel just stumps me

[byebyepride]

Yeah it's totally hard to generalise. Derrida does write well, but not according to UK philosophical or critical traditions; Hegel and Heidegger both have complex theories about how language (and German and Greek in particular) is related to philosophy (i.e. the right way of thinking about philosophy is somehow already in the words) but I have never really got to the bottom of this. Foucault I find fairly clear (although I've only read him in translation) but a bit pedantic in his methodological writings and overbearing and pretentious in the more literary stuff. I blame a lot of this on Blanchot, whose ideas are interesting and seems to be much revered these days on the 'theory' fringes, but when it comes down to it I prefer reading Eliot or Empson or ... (add examples here) -- even Richards, who can be a hoot! (But not Leavis, or Williams: I guess I like the slightly sarcastic / ironic deadpan writers over the earnest ones).

[byebyepride]

And the anti-Descartes thing is pretty much true, yes. But the problem with post-Kantian philosophy is at least as much the result of trying to construct new systems with their own original vocabularies as it is of trying to reject modern philosophy's system-building in favour of something more 'literary'. The appealing thing about some ordinary language philosophy is that it sidesteps the 'must begin from the beginning' question; I think this is prob. the case with pragmatism also -- William James is great for being easy to read (whether his thought is clear is another question).

[carsmilesteve]

cartesian BLUD clarté more like ;)

also this cannot go on PBS until you work in a football reference innit