Look who else has a book with that title

I don’t know about you, I don’t have an answer to that question yet.

This is a year after Badiou’s (which I might return to) – Agamben is often shipped with him, if you never heard of him. Just trying to take a look at what these types have to say. Hm he has a book on the pandemic? Someone more “practical” would do a post on that instead. Not knowing how to think is a worse plague anyway. Heh, Badiou is like Fauci (some kind of useless fraud–ah I knew it, the French translation of “charlatan” is “charlatan”–sounds better in French tbh). “Expert”. One does find “thinking experts” sometimes though, there are real ones out there, mostly dead, so it couldn’t hurt to look among the living.

Hermeneutically speaking I would suggest to the more rabid rightists to try to approach these texts not as “the enemy” because we will be able to mine them for more gems without that kind of hostile attitude. “It’s an inescapable feeling.” I just say try, I try myself. “Looting leftists”.

You can’t say these people are “normal”

We can think a being entirely without relation to language only through a language without any relation to being.

One needs peak attention span for them, regardless of whether you’re opposite of them politically. Like I said, they’re closer to the Forms than what we usually think of as a “leftist”- they’re cloudpeople. They might dwell in the heads of average leftists in ways they’re not aware of. Drivers, mechanics, engineers- institutional state philosophers are a cross between mechanics and engineers, and truly the only real engineer is Plato. “We need to get around Plato’s designs, his Protocols…” What do you think this is, that’s what I’ve always been trying to do. Be fluent in ancient greek at age 7, for starters. A “designer baby” created just for that purpose, no one talks about that.

Something true about this

That’s an insult to Plato though- he wasn’t as simplistic as Moses.

Huh, it’s a less simplistic grammar in general

There are “moods” of the soul that are not possible relying on the Abrahamic tradition alone. Plato and Nietzsche invite patricide, scripture demands faith. That’s why I don’t hold it against Badiou to “rewrite” Plato, I just wonder how much he deradicalizes him by doing so. That’s why people don’t even like to play this game- “Yes, stab ME now, please.” You, as an avatar of the corporacracy, stabs me, okay. Orthodox Platonism doesn’t take the easy way out like that. Plato is similar to the faith traditions in that if you don’t look for the Forms as a real thing then you’re never going to find them. Beginning with an “atheistic” attitude is only going to result in you being a lowbrow who is not attuned to more invisible currents.

Agamben on the faculty more original than speech

mostly borrowed from other functional systems (the majority of which are linked with nutrition)

-covering mouth with hand to hide laugh- They still pretty much use it only for chewing and eating. No more advanced “grammar” is found among the gossip-caste rabble. If only they still walked on all fours they’d better conceal their real nature. Mmmooooooo ba-aa-aad!

Somewhat jarring statement

grammar, which is now taught in primary schools, has been, and to a certain extent is still, the foundational discipline of knowledge.

What is philosophy? That is true, it’s the use of grammar. Try not to think of “grammar nazis” in this context if you want to save yourself.

So for Badiou philosophy originates in math – proofs are proofs. How does one prove? With precise grammar.

Clicking back to Heidegger’s take on this question

A sentiment, an appeal to emotion, is ultimately a non sequitur which violates the laws of grammar and thus does not suffice as a “proof”. Just trying to juggle these three. Honestly I like Deleuze’s book of the same title out of any of these so far. There are multiple secondary texts on that? Oh my, I might have to get to one of those later. Suffocate in the stratosphere type of juggling.

This is how Deleuze and Guattari begin theirs

I don’t doubt them! I’m just taking these texts at a glance so far, one could write a dissertation on all this.

Think of this in light of all these other What is — ? answers

philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts

If only I had a Guattari to help me synthesize all these into one provable, unsentimental, and grammatical concept.

I feel like I’m visiting God’s Workshop some moments reading these texts.

“Humans aren’t supposed to be here.” “Yes we are, yes we are.”

I forgot how Deleuze can give one schizo thoughts.

Yes, I’m juggling these books to discover created concepts.

This is D&G’s style of “rewriting”

the Ideas as philosophical concepts

Is that really a created concept in that light? Or is Plato still Moses?

Plato said that Ideas must be contemplated, but first of all he had to create the concept of Idea.

Is there something sentimental about the concept of concept? Why not just continue to call it idea? I’m sure he gives proof for it, it’s been years since I read this. Whichever way you want to call it–ideas or concepts–the state religion’s don’t hold up to any of these answers to the question What is philosophy? besides Deleuze’s, i.e. they were created. Whether they are unsentimental, grammatical, or provable is another story entirely, and I haven’t seen much reason to believe they are any of those things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: