Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Seminal works in contemporary theory and philosophy

Page: (1)2

13:09 / 29.06.06

I'm composing a post-graduation reading list, comprised of the books I always should have read for my degree but never did. It's the classic undergrad issue: I've had a taste of just about everything, but haven't had a really good bite of anything. I'll be finishing in December, though, and that's when I plan to delve into my reading list. Your input would be appreciated.

I'm drawing an arbitrary line with Nietzsche, mainly because I like his skepticism of language and his style. Anything before that will most likely be addressed after I finish with these books, but not beforehand. This is mainly due to the fact that my degree (philosophy) program has been fairly modern, in a pre-Nietzschean sense (I have a fair dose of Kant, Marx, Descartes, Leibniz, etc.).

I'm aiming for ~20 texts, give or take:

-Nietzsche (I'm thinking On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense, perhaps followed up by Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
-Should I bother with Saussure? I know the gist of his theory.
-Being and Nothingness because I need to read it again.
-Heidegger. But what? The Basic Problems of Phenomenology or Being and Time? Would it be worthwhile to read both?
-Foucault. I really don't like him much, but I want to tackle Archaeology of Knowledge and The Order of Things.
-Derrida. Most likely Of Grammatology and Writing and Difference. Probably more, because I really enjoy reading Derrida.
-Some Barthes. I liked "Death of the Author", but I'm looking for something with more content. I'm considering Mythologies.
-Paul de Man. I have no idea where to start.
-Jacques Lacan. Ditto.
-Levinas. Probably Totality and Infinity and Otherwise than Being.
-A more contemporary theorist. Chomsky's kind of tired and boring by now.

There are some glaring omissions. I'm really lacking any sort of feminist texts and would like some more theoretical and less philosophical works peppered in there.

All Acting Regiment

17:02 / 29.06.06

Definitely read Mythologies.

01:44 / 30.06.06

i'd suggest also the 'other' moderns...

gilbert ryle's 'concept of mind' and then daniel dennett's 'consciousness explained'
karl popper's 'the logic of scientific discovery'
peter singer's 'how are we to live' or any collection of his ethics writings
and maybe jerry fodor on language of thought

happy reading!

paranoidwriter waves hello

04:18 / 30.06.06

If you liked Barthes and Derrida, you might enjoy "Hypertext 2.0 : The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology" by George P. Landow. It's been a few years since I read it, so it may be a little outdated now, but I found it "did exactly what it said on the tin" and it introduced me to many interesting avenues that were well worth exploring.

Hope that helps.

18:26 / 30.06.06

astrojax, I've read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. I understand his consequentialist position and pretty much agree with it. Would I glean anything really unique from reading his formal ethical stuff?

06:08 / 01.07.06

bell hooks! I really reccommend 'Teaching to transgress' if you have further interest in the classroom setting at any level. Her thing is critical theory engaged for revolutionary purposes. She points out that the problem with reactionary racist academic institutions is exactly their refusal of critical thinking, etc. Refreshing, and very readable without losing any depth, in my opinion.

07:25 / 01.07.06

Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is pretty much a must.

14:12 / 01.07.06

Saturn's nod, I've read bell hooks's book on love...can't remember the title...and didn't find it very appealing or engaging. Can you tell me if the work you suggested is any better?

Topher, Bicycles for Everyone

19:42 / 18.07.06

Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil over Zarathustra as it is a recap of Zarathustra only better and more apt to the task of summarizing his philosophy. Although Zarathustra is a great literary masterpiece as well as a great philosophy!

As to Foucault, I read Archeology, you will like it in some parts.

Might I suggest some Maurice Merleau-Ponty?

22:04 / 18.07.06

sorry the delay jesse - somehow i skipped over this thread a few times...

while he is pretty consistent, singer's views on some other issues might be worth a look. i also find he writes pretty well and is clear and digestible on most things he writes. i didn't read his critique of bush's morals - i thought that was a bit of a soft target.

02:48 / 22.07.06

Why should I read Merleau-Ponty, Topher? What am I going to get besides another, slightly modified version of Levi-Strauss?

Tryphena Absent

23:06 / 23.07.06

Some Sartre to temper the moral ambiguity of all of these philosophers?

Tryphena Absent

23:08 / 23.07.06

(Not Singer obviously, not morally ambiguous at all but Derrida and chums certainly are and I find that I need a grounding effect after reading deconstructive work)

10:43 / 25.07.06

(Apologies if I'm speaking out of turn - I really ought to read more of this stuff)

Any space for Deleuze/Guattari's A Thousands Plateaus? Might fit your "more contemporary theorist" slot...

15:57 / 26.07.06

I would second the above suggestion; ATP is a great toolbox to have on hand.

Disco is My Class War

14:23 / 27.07.06

I think you're opening a hornet's nest in asking for a list of 'seminal' works in contemporary theory and philosophy. From looking at the list you've already composed, you seem to be erring on the side of books by famous dead white men. Is there any particular reason for this?

If you want to read theory that's 'cool' right now, do read Deleuze and Guattari, and while you're at it, Badiou's Being and Event seems in fashion, as does Slavoj Zizek (Many books, and all much the same once you get down to it, I find.) If you get into Zizek, you might want to return to Lacan, if you're not familiar with Lacan already. Agamben is still popular, amazingly, although people seem to be reading him purely as a 'philosopher' now, rather than as someone advocating a particular mode of politics. Jean-Luc Nancy is bloody amazing and not really cool at all -- lots of inroads in Levinas, though. Althusser is worth reading to understand ideology and build on an understanding of Marx, and also to understand Judith Butler if you want to go there.

Disco is My Class War

14:25 / 27.07.06

And if you really want practicality or grounding without liberalism, you could always try Bob Black.

23:10 / 27.07.06

Agamben is still popular, amazingly, although people seem to be reading him purely as a 'philosopher' now, rather than as someone advocating a particular mode of politics

Why 'amazingly'? I mean that as a genuine question, I've only just encountered him and I was going to read Homo Sacer later this month.

Disco is My Class War

06:45 / 28.07.06

It's amazing because I see Homo Sacer as quite explicitly related to a political critique of the detention of stateless people, and I keep encountering philoosophy students who would like to read it as some kind of 'pure philosophy', a response to or reading of Heidegger, Schmitt, Foucault. To me, this strips the writing of context and setting, and also renders the Agamben's engagements with those various writers totally meaningless (even as it tries to see the philosophical engagement as primary) -- please, tell me how one could consider the intersections between Agamben and Foucault in Homo Saceras 'pure philosophy'? (Interestingly, the people I'm thinking of don't like Foucault, because he is more difficult to read as a pure philosopher than, say, Heidegger.) I think this strategy depoliticises theory, and renders any reading that results quite boring. I suppose I also see the desire to read anything as 'pure philosophy' as evidence that they're interested in the writer not for the content but for the cultural capital of being an 'Agamben scholar', or whatever. Again, totally boring. And a big wank.

Disco is My Class War

06:45 / 28.07.06

But do read Homo Sacer!!

10:23 / 28.07.06

I'd actually go for Foucault's Discipline & Punish. Which I found far more engaging than The Order Of Things.

D&G's A Thousand Plateaus plus Lyotard's Libidinal Economy.

Not an expert of on either of them but Merleau-Ponty is more interested in the phenomenology of bodies rather than the structure of the social order in anthropology.

Also: Antonio Negri pre-Empire?

Slightly less fashionably, I'd probably recommend Ian Hacking's Rewriting The Soul and Jonathan Ree's I See A Voice. Philosophers writing histories of the body & mind.

Genesis by Michel Serres. Despite being a contemporary of Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze & Lyotard; US academia never took him in the same way. I love his writing.

15:28 / 29.07.06

Pepsi Max, I read Discipline & Punish. Didn't really enjoy it much. If I must read Foucault, I'd rather stick to his more philosophical stuff and not his quasi-historical shots in the dark (a la Madness & Civilization).

Mister Disco, I realized that this would be a bit of a struggle, but I'm really pulling some good works out of this. I think the discussion itself will probably point me more towards things I should read, rather than simple lists would.

Tryphena, I've read Sartre quite a bit. Enjoy B&N, didn't really like his Notebooks. I don't consider Derrida ambiguous. He's more of a...skeptic. And I really like that.

sdv (non-human)

07:32 / 31.07.06

Jesse,
Entertaining thought.... some other lines of thought:

To balance the genders...
Julia Kristeva - revolution in poetic language
Julia Kristeva - The powers and limits of psychoanalysis (both volumes)
Luce Irigaray - Speculeum
Michelle le doeuff - the sex of knowing
Judith Butler - subjects of desire
Songe-Muller - philosophy without women

And to add a few other lines of thought

Alain Badiou - being and event
Heidegger - being and time / question of technology
Deleuze - The Neitzsche book
Guy Debord - society of the spectacle
Lyotard - Differend

i could go on ... but i think the general opening out of the line of thought might help

sdv (non-human)

09:39 / 31.07.06

Mister Disco's point about Agamben (philosophy or politics?) is a good one - but I think it's worth bearing in mind that a major theme of philosophy, both western and non-western is the ralationship between philosophers, philosophy and the poor. In this sense I am thinking not just about Agamben but also Negri, Marx and those like Bourdiou, Bauman and Foucault whose construction of a poor is less philosophical. In some ways it might all comes down to where you stand in the populist proposition 'that truth is to be located in those most dispossessed...' rather than being located in the traditional philosophical and political exclusion of those who do not have the right to think.

Hence whilst i agree with the sentiment expressed I am not so sure about the idea of context and setting. As the point is that Agamben and Foucault's work fits so easily within the tradion of writings on the poor... (too well actually).

This is not a western problem incidentally more a human one....

Disco is My Class War

13:08 / 31.07.06

a major theme of philosophy, both western and non-western is the ralationship between philosophers, philosophy and the poor.

sdv, that's exactly what I'm getting at. By 'depoliticisation' I was also referring implicitly to the desire to remove considerations of capital and class from philosophy, and to behave as if philosophy is just something that intellectuals do to pass the time, a passing interest in reason, truth and knowledge blah blah.

16:01 / 31.07.06

Bob Black's actually being read academically?

For some reason, I thought the Hogshire thing was it for him. (Loompanics' catalogue suddenly got *very interesting* while that business was going on.) I have a book or two by him on work that interested me at the time, but sort of cooled on his rhetoric after that affair. He's kind of easy to read as a crank given the right frame...

sdv (non-human)

21:01 / 31.07.06

understood, sorry I misunderstood earlier... but I still want to fold a slightly different concept back into the difference. That that philosophy frequently defines itself against a concept of the Other, the Poor, which means that in the difference we should recognize that reason etc can never apolitical... If we say that philosophy constitutes itself by defining those (the Poor) who cannot be philosophical then we can identify that in the founding moment, the difference is a constituting political divisor, the political exists in that difference.

As such then I'd argue that depolitisation is surely an impossible concept... Hence depolitization is not something a philosopher can accept, except as an non-concept... To deny this is....

22:02 / 31.07.06

If I must read Foucault, I'd rather stick to his more philosophical stuff and not his quasi-historical shots in the dark (a la Madness & Civilization).

Well, you'd better stick to the Archeology of Knowledge then. I think it's his least interesting book because it tends towards the abstract.

Helene Cixous "Laugh of the Medusa". Coming from a similar trajectory to Kristeva & Irigaray but more "literary".

22:10 / 31.07.06

As such then I'd argue that depolitisation is surely an impossible concept

sdv - an interesting string of words but what does that actually mean for the various parties involved - the academics, my billionaire CEO employer, the immigrant that cleans my desk at night, the politican whose picture has just been posted outside my door..?

Whilst it may be possible to claim that all actions have a political impact, is it correct to claim that particular individuals & groups cannot be removed from the decision-making process - which is what depoliticization may involve? I may well have misunderstood your point...

sdv (non-human)

15:41 / 01.08.06

Max,

I was explicity refusing the possibility that "...the desire to remove considerations of capital and class from philosophy...." could ever succeed. I'd suggest that since so much philosophy requires the Other to constitute itself and as such the depolitization of philosophy is impossible then it's an equally small step to suggest that... The phantasy of empire that it can disenfranchise people from social and political processes is simply a phantasy, and in attempting this the processes themselves will die - these processes are (in capital) always defined against the poor.

Isn't it the case that only through defining an outside that empire can exist? (as in us/israel). Attempts to depoliticize situations by constituting your local area around religion, race or thorough an increasingly narrow range definition of citizenship - and the response will be resistance.

I am much taken by the following image from Mike Davis "Night after night, hornetlike helicopter gunships stalk enigmatic enemies in the narrow streets of the slum districts, pouring hellfire into shanties or fleeing cars. Every morning the slums reply with suicide bombers and eloquent explosions. If the empire can deploy Orwellian technologies of repression, it's outcasts have the gods of chaos on their side...." (Planet of Slums (p206)).

(Good suggestion the Cixous book by the way )

sdv (non-human)

15:51 / 01.08.06

Jesse,

Derrida as skeptic ? care to justify why you think that ?

17:22 / 01.08.06

sdv, I'm looking forward to the discussion we're about to have. I view Derrida as a skeptic because of the point that seems prominent in most of his later work, articulated well in "Structure, Sign, & Play". I mean the skepticism he has towards all of the humanities in general and critical theory, as well: that is...if you (the theorist) can assert the presence of an overarching, ever-present system that touches and affects all parts of society (oppressive masculinity, domineering capitalist structures, etc.), from where are you giving this objective account of its operation? In short, where is your Archimedean point? Why should your views be any more valid than those diametrically opposed to your own when this system is all-encompassing?

This point, I feel, along with his quasi-skeptical position towards language, makes him significantly more "skeptical" than someone like Foucault, Althusser, or Bhabha. He and I depart, however, when he argues that we must take these suppositions as a given in order to continue to function. This much is true if you want to continue to function "academically"--however, say we cast the humanities in a skeptical light and pose questions about its existence that it cannot address. Should they really continue to exist on the intellectual plane on which they currently reside? I don't necessarily think so.

Tangentially, I'm intrigued by the political connotation that you give philosophy. I think it's a shot in the dark, at best: I believe that an equally valid case could be made that, in doing philosophy, people are necessarily asserting their primacy over other species of animals. Pardon my curtness, but I fail to see how this kind of hypothesis is useful or constructive in the grand scheme of things when it lacks any foundation whatsoever. It seems presumptuous and, furthermore, unimportant.

I've read "Laugh of the Medusa" and enjoyed it quite a bit. I'm glad you've given me a few women to look into, as well. Thanks for the suggestions.

sdv (non-human)

15:35 / 02.08.06

"....in doing philosophy, people are necessarily asserting their primacy over other species of animals. Pardon my curtness, but I fail to see how this kind of hypothesis is useful or constructive in the grand scheme of things when it lacks any foundation whatsoeve..." Lets deal with the first part 'primacy over other species...' this statement maintains the common error that one species or one subject may be understood as superior to another. This is, as I suspect you realize, precisely the founding error that Plato amongst others introduced into philosophy - with his definition of the philosopher being defined against someone or something Other. Usually the artisan or the worker. When you extend the definition into the non-human you are merely continuing and confirming the delusion that 'thought' is in someway marking one subject as superior to another, actually whether human or non-human is largely irrelevant. This is precisely the point no such case can be successfully made. In philosophical terms 'superior' is not a category that can be recognized as a truth category. To be a little more precise for a philosopher such things as ethnic roots, national identity and since you bring it up 'species' are simply not a category of truth....

The 'foundation' which you appear to want to deny is explicit and written throughout the history of philosophy....

17:29 / 06.08.06

sdv, I'm not actually advocating the primacy of man over other species and don't wish to debate something as tangential at there here. The point being, I could assert something along those lines with validity equal to something along the lines of, "Philosophy is always an act of political oppression." The claim remains the same, in principle (that man, or philosophers, or whoever, in acting, are reaffirming their position as dominant agents over the oppressed). Regardless, it has no actual benefit to the actual study of philosophy, our understanding of the world, and ultimately becomes self-defeating, as any act--even one in defense of the poor/oppressed--is an act of philosphy and is inherently oppressive.

As far as your claim that the "foundation" that Derrida cast doubt upon is "explicit"--would you mind articulating that a little bit?

12:31 / 07.08.06

"Ontology is a conjuration."

Derrida & skepticism. The interesting question - which you've started to outline - is "How is Derrida a skeptic - and how not?"

There are many strands of skeptical thought - all of which to some degree or another cast doubt on our ability to make true statements about the nature of the world.

Given that a major influence on Derrida was the hermeneutical phenomenology of Heidigger then you might expect there to be a sympathy with the phenomenological bracketing of experience that the ancient skeptics were so keen on. For Sextus Empiricus that bracketing was an end, where as for Husserl it was the beginning. Although Derrida struck me as being more hermeneutic than phenomenological.

Derrida might be classed a skeptic but he was not so much hostile to making truth claims about the world as uninterested. Language & texts - their interplay and what haunts them - was his true fascination.

He might be classed as a skeptic but would other skeptics recognise him as such?

Page: (1)2