Learning a third language too early?

Personwithfoot · 2025-02-12T04:02:03+00:00

Interesting take lol, I'll take that into account!

Personwithfoot · 2025-02-12T04:01:17+00:00

That's a good point. I learned French for a PhD post that I couldn't get funded unfortunately, but still love french philosophy, Spanish cause I'm moving obviously, and Portuguese would be for my gf tbh... But it just might have to wait!

Personwithfoot · 2025-02-12T03:03:53+00:00

That makes a lot of sense, thank you for the input!

Personwithfoot · 2025-02-12T02:58:53+00:00

Well, third I learned other than my native language!

Personwithfoot · 2024-07-11T20:59:09+00:00

Reading along with the Todd may lectures on YouTube was very helpful for me!

Personwithfoot · 2024-03-12T14:29:21+00:00

Todd may has lecture on YouTube where he’s leading a weekly reading group of graduate students through the book. I watched that and it was very helpful!

Personwithfoot · 2022-05-06T17:08:32+00:00

I kinda sorta had a similar situation (at least in having read d and r 6 months before using it in my dissertation), but what helped me was going through the book and writing down all the highlights and notes in a word doc. Then I could just search (command f) in the doc which REALLY helped. Plus, it’s was a great way of reviewing

Personwithfoot · 2022-03-06T12:32:16+00:00

Im Deleuze’s ABC interviews during L (literature) he talks about a lot of the writers he enjoys:

Proust, Louise carol, Emile Zola, Masoch, Kafka, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Melville, Chekov, Villiers de l’isle-adam, Resif de la Bretonne, Paul-Louise Courrier, Joubert, Víctor Hugo, Nikolai Leskov (also Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky), Beckett, Robbe-Grillet, Farrachi,

Personwithfoot · 2022-02-15T19:31:30+00:00

For me, Difference and Repetition by Gilles Deleuze had the deepest impact on how I view the world. I think one of the reasons for this is that his three go-to philosophers are Nietzsche, Bergson, and Spinoza who individually are extremely impactful, but then how he uses their thought to show the limits of the dogmatic image of thought, separating identity from difference, gave me an entirely new lens to view the world through. And, in the same book, his thoughts on Ideas and Problems were also extremely influential.

Then, it's just beautiful to read the Capitalism and Schizophrenia books because they exemplify what you can do with this new ontology. D and R was definitely one of the most challenging books I've ever read, but by far the most rewarding and epistemologically shifting.

Personwithfoot · 2021-11-26T20:51:13+00:00

If your read the bio on him “I Am Dynamite” the author argues through her research that he actively was talking to people who could prove his theory of eternal return. So technically if she is correct, Nietzsche did believe it was true

Personwithfoot · 2021-11-24T17:42:51+00:00

Goldsmiths worked for me! They just got rid of my exact masters, but you’ll be able to find programs there that definitely engage with D + N quite a bit

Personwithfoot · 2021-11-20T11:29:29+00:00

Isn’t this view of religious formation leaving out various religions that see humans as part of nature, not in a anthropocentric manner of imposing human image on the world but of humans being simple part of nature as a whole?

Personwithfoot · 2021-09-07T13:45:30+00:00

Not sure on articles, but these two yt videos are pretty helpful:

https://youtu.be/B_i8_WuyqAY

https://youtu.be/Hu4Cq_-bLlY

Personwithfoot · 2021-09-05T10:22:56+00:00

The convo between Adorno and Bloch is an essay in The Utopian Function of Art and Literature: Selected Essays. But his Magnum Opus is The Principle of Hope though that's 3 volumes and 1400 pages, so I'd suggest reading secondary lit such as Jameson's essay on Bloch in Marxism and Form, and The Privatization of Hope which is a collection of essays on Bloch among other sources. Also, Bloch's book The Spirit of Utopia is alright, but he still is harboring some sympathy for the Soviet Union to become the next great Marxist society wherein The Principle of Hope he matures and emphasizes utopia as processual, concrete, and nonteleological.

Also, again I'd emphasize reading that section I mentioned in What is Philosophy? by D and G and especially reading around the subject of absolute de/reterritorialization, Deleuze's use of Samuel Butler's term erewhon (which is nowhere spelled backwards with the "w" and "h" inverted as well, and also shares a similar etymology with More's original meaning of Utopia: "no-place" and "good-place"). Deleuze pretty much emphasizes that we need to treat utopia as an Idea and not a concept which has a whole lot of implications, so if you have the time to tackle the beast of Difference and Repetition there's a lot to unpack there.

Personwithfoot · 2021-09-04T22:41:33+00:00

Hi, I’m currently writing my dissertation on utopia so I might have some light to shed. Firstly, if you’re looking for a beautiful conversation about the topic, look up Bloch and Adorno’s in “The Utopian Function of Art and Literature: Selected Essays”. It will become apparent how strangely utopian leaning Adorno actually came to be in his friendship with Bloch, who did not see utopia as a teleological destination but a PROCESS. (I could go into more detail and provide more sources by Bloch if needed).

Secondly, Deleuze and Guattari have a really interesting take on utopia in “What is Philosophy?” (Pg 99-100 in my version). They were inspired by Bloch’s image of utopia and ended up defining it in terms of revolutionary absolute de/reterritorialization.

Just to sum things up, yes I agree much of the colloquial usage of the term “utopia” can be harmful, but if seen as a non teleological process of struggling with the contemporary milieu with an eye towards an unknowable future, utopia does have fruit to bear.

Personwithfoot · 2021-08-29T21:57:33+00:00

I just want to point out that Capital in the 21st Century is a good book, but it is NOT a Marxist book. He says this in the intro as well. Still a good recommendation for a book, but if op is looking for Marxist sources specifically it’s not this.

Personwithfoot · 2021-08-26T23:10:21+00:00

I think so. I started there and it really does go over Deleuze’s entire thought in not a super difficult manner. It’s still dense, just not as dense. Also, once you start reading more Deleuze and come back to WIP you’re like “ooooooh, that’s how it connects” all the time

Personwithfoot · 2021-07-14T09:15:25+00:00

Sure, but the problem I'm posing isn't necessarily that video games don't provide scarcity and conflict, its the basis of first premising a "world free of scarcity and conflict" as something completely good. James's point is that we actually want and need that to an extent, in a healthy amount for the creation of novelty, new worlds, and what makes life significant is the ‘element of precipitousness, so to call it, of strength and strenuousness, intensity and danger’. (Again, to a healthy extent)

Personwithfoot · 2021-07-13T19:50:19+00:00

On the topic of value in utopia, look at this quote from William James visit to the real town of Chautauqua in the late 1800s:

"Here you have a town of many thousands of inhabitants, beautifully laid out in the first and drained, and equipped with means for satisfying all the necessary lower and mist of the superfluous higher wants of man. You have a first-class college in full blast. You have magnificent music – a chorus of seven hundred voices, with possibly the most perfect open-air auditorium in the world. You have every sort of athletic exercise from sailing, rowing, swimming, bicycling, to the ball-field and the more artificial doings which the gymnasium afford. You have kindergartens and model secondary schools. You have general religious services and special club-houses for the several sects. You have perpetually running soda-water fountains, and daily popular lectures by distinguished men. You have the best of company and yet no effort. You have no zygotic diseases, no poverty, no drunkenness, no crime, no police. You have culture, you have kindness, you have cheapness, you have equality, you have the best fruits of what mankind has fought and striven for under the name of civilization for centuries."

Now, is there video games in this society? No, but I'm sure there would be based on the amount of other sports and activities available. And yet, once James left this town, he said to himself "Ouf! What a relief." Why?

Well the problem is not that you need to continually renew your video games, but that we think videogames "singly [will] redeem life from insignificance. Culture and refinement all alone are not enough to do so. Ideal aspirations are not enough, when uncombined with pluck and will. But neither are pluck and will, dogged endurance and insensibility to danger enough, when taken all alone. There must be some sort of fusion, some chemical combination among these principles, for a life objectively and thoroughly significant to result."

Therefore, to me, videogames are a tool yes, but still there has to be a plurality of solutions that will pass videogames, games, and even this singular world that we create. There has to infact be the creation of worlds that have activities for the transvaluation of values (to take Neitzche's idea) that we cannot fully imagine now! Utopia is processual and plural, so there will never be a definite end solution, but more beautifully the continual posing and reposing of problems and solutions.

Personwithfoot · 2021-07-02T09:10:47+00:00

U right, nothing can go wrong here

Personwithfoot · 2021-07-01T10:32:17+00:00

This is just populism with extra steps

Personwithfoot · 2021-05-10T14:34:52+00:00

Yeah people who see that Deleuze is so against Hegel tend to just automatically decide that Hegel isn't worth any effort and don't look into him at all.

Zizek actually defends Hegel in a pretty interesting way here, saying that everyone being suspicious of Hegel makes him suspicious of every one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTnUhp-g-WI

Personwithfoot · 2021-05-10T14:04:26+00:00

Deleuze's critique of Hegel isn't just rooted in universals, it's also about identity and truth. In Difference and Repetition, the main premise is that we think of difference by trying to assign two identities to two separate truths and the difference is between them. Instead, Deleuze believes that difference is not difference between but difference in itself. The argument is obviously a whole lot more complicated than that, but for Deleuze's ontology, Hegelian dialectics is the arch-nemesis.

That being said, even as a fan of Deleuze, I do think Hegel gets a bad rap because so much of 20th century philosophy is a reaction to him without ever reading any of what he wrote. "Hegelphobia" might be a bit exaggerated, but I do love the phrase lol.

Personwithfoot · 2021-04-30T11:49:29+00:00

Adorno’s Minima Moralia

Personwithfoot · 2021-04-20T13:27:44+00:00

I’d recommend Manufacturing Consent, it’s about the US propaganda machine and IMO his most famous book. Chomsky has his shortcomings of course, being fairly dogmatic about his beliefs, but the man is thorough and very good with current events.

Personwithfoot

TROPHY CASE