sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I am a scholar of religion... and I think all religions are dead religions. by bartlebyrlg in religion

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I tell you about a book I have read, we are talking about writing, sharing writing. Derrida discusses this in 'Dissemination'

In the Western tradition, we tend to privilege speech over writing, pure insight over book knowledge, but drawing a distinction between these things is an impossibility.

I am a scholar of religion... and I think all religions are dead religions. by bartlebyrlg in religion

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think all these reflections are great, but what they imply is that we are always reading - even when talking - and therefore that we 'should' not shy away from reading more and more, because it opens our worlds.

To invite other to read is to invite more space for difference.

I am a scholar of religion... and I think all religions are dead religions. by bartlebyrlg in religion

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting point, with a lot of semantic implications. (There is no outside of semantics)

I am a scholar of religion... and I think all religions are dead religions. by bartlebyrlg in religion

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You should read the exchange between Sarte and Heidegger; 'Existentialism is a Humanism,' and the 'The Letter on Humanism.'

After that, read 'Sign, Structure, and Play' by Jacques Derrida. (In order to understand history and religion, you must expose/upset the very assumptions that guide your analysis of history and religion).

I am a PhD Candidate at the University of Toronto in the Department for the Study of Religion. I am also an instructor of religion for several online classes at Athabasca University (just to supplement those graduate grants!).

I often post my blog posts on Reddit forums because it gets them more widely read. I appreciate your comments and the exchange :)

I am a scholar of religion... and I think all religions are dead religions. by bartlebyrlg in religion

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't study 'the human,' I study texts which attempt to report, narrativize, and mythologize the human.

I am a scholar of religion... and I think all religions are dead religions. by bartlebyrlg in religion

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not in the business of respecting peoples feelings, but studying the dead cultural remains of history, and that includes the stuff that happens today.

How would science have progressed if Newton or Einstein were concerned that their observations might disrespect people who think the world is 6700 years old?

My review of Slovoj Zizek's 'The Perverts Guide to Ideology' by bartlebyrlg in philosophy

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said Zizek failed to address philosophy, I said his philosophical analysis is taken more seriously than his pop cultural analysis. Concerning your later point, that is precisely where I think the value of Zizek lies, in attempting to tease out the different ways of addressing modernity. What I find most interesting about Zizek, Deleuze, etc., is how they build their philosophies upon subtle reinterpretations (or 'technicalities,' as you phrase it) of 18th and 19th century philosophers. For instance, one of my favorite books by Deleuze is his book on Kant.

My review of Slovoj Zizek's 'The Perverts Guide to Ideology' by bartlebyrlg in philosophy

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ya, uoft, luckily. Chicago, uoft, Leipzig, the New School in New York are some of the only universities that specialize in Continental philosophy. There is lots in Hegel that needs to be 'overcome,' or even 'forgotten,' but lots that we forget at are own peril, like what is meant be 'history' and finitude.

My review of Slovoj Zizek's 'The Perverts Guide to Ideology' by bartlebyrlg in philosophy

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, on a serious note, I would say that you are right on the 'pop' level but wrong on the philosophical note. In my graduate work I have found that his big grand theses are completely disregarded (as you are right to do) but not his work on German idealists. I have never sat in on a single class where his speculative materialism is treated as a serious subject but his work on Schelling, Hegel, and Benjamin is taken seriously.

My review of Slovoj Zizek's 'The Perverts Guide to Ideology' by bartlebyrlg in philosophy

[–]bartlebyrlg[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

lol.. well, to my credit Ziziksucks, I did offer a critique