Ed Casey rules
So I had an excellent weekend at home. Thursday was an Ed Casey marathon running from about 2:30 in the afternoon until 1am. The best was rering to Galen's house after he evening talk and just hanging around with a bunch of my friends and Ed. He got excited when Galen mentioned my paper on the role of the affect in Merleau-Ponty's Eye and Mind, so I told him I'd send him a copy. This is pretty exciting because if he likes it, then I'll know whether to apply to Stony Brook or not. Since this paper is essentially what I want to expand out into my dissertation, if he doesn't like it, then there is really no point in going to Stony Brook (since Ed would be my dissertation director there). Anyhow, I was pretty impressed by his thinking.
In other ego-centric news, Len gave me that same paper back with his comments. I was really encouraged by his enthusiasm because I was taking a distinctly phenomenological stand and he has given interviews and written books about the death of phenomenology. This is something I'm very concerned about, phenomenology, that is. It is the only philosophical movement that has made any sense to me prima facie, and, for all its flaws, I can't see being interested in philosophy any longer without it. Doing only analytic aesthetics would bore me to death, I think, or worse, transform my inchoate thought into nothing but propostitional syllogism without reference to the world in which I live. I don't know wheret this is going, I guess I'm just experiencing a bit of distress at the dismay in the jubilation of my belongingness to beyng. <--That isn't a typo :-)
That brings up yesterday. I was terrified of giving my presentation in Robert's class. It was on the interrealtion of Heidegger's Origin of the Work of Art and Contributions to Philosophy, which you all may have noticed that I have become enamoured with as of late. It seemed to go over well, the class seemed interested, and Robert didn't really correct me until the very end where I slipped up and spoke of the being of humanity as "Dasein" instead of "Da-sein". Believe it or not, there is a difference. Now I just need to write the papers.
Next semester is looking pretty good: 700 level seminars on Husserl (primarily Logical Investigations) with Tom Nenon (the fellow I took Being and Time with in the fall), Wittgenstein's Tractatus with Deb Tollefsen, and Len is teaching a Ph.D. course he calls "Stories of the Eye" on the concept of vision in Merleau-Ponty, Foucault (yay!), and Derrida (boo!). We'll see what happens in the spring.
Well, I'm out. I have to get a bite to eat. I'll post something more interesting tomorrow.
In other ego-centric news, Len gave me that same paper back with his comments. I was really encouraged by his enthusiasm because I was taking a distinctly phenomenological stand and he has given interviews and written books about the death of phenomenology. This is something I'm very concerned about, phenomenology, that is. It is the only philosophical movement that has made any sense to me prima facie, and, for all its flaws, I can't see being interested in philosophy any longer without it. Doing only analytic aesthetics would bore me to death, I think, or worse, transform my inchoate thought into nothing but propostitional syllogism without reference to the world in which I live. I don't know wheret this is going, I guess I'm just experiencing a bit of distress at the dismay in the jubilation of my belongingness to beyng. <--That isn't a typo :-)
That brings up yesterday. I was terrified of giving my presentation in Robert's class. It was on the interrealtion of Heidegger's Origin of the Work of Art and Contributions to Philosophy, which you all may have noticed that I have become enamoured with as of late. It seemed to go over well, the class seemed interested, and Robert didn't really correct me until the very end where I slipped up and spoke of the being of humanity as "Dasein" instead of "Da-sein". Believe it or not, there is a difference. Now I just need to write the papers.
Next semester is looking pretty good: 700 level seminars on Husserl (primarily Logical Investigations) with Tom Nenon (the fellow I took Being and Time with in the fall), Wittgenstein's Tractatus with Deb Tollefsen, and Len is teaching a Ph.D. course he calls "Stories of the Eye" on the concept of vision in Merleau-Ponty, Foucault (yay!), and Derrida (boo!). We'll see what happens in the spring.
Well, I'm out. I have to get a bite to eat. I'll post something more interesting tomorrow.