Hysterical realism and the postmodern trademark

[quietphilosophe]

I finished up reading Infinite Jest a few days ago and I've been wandering around in a bit of a daze ever since.  The length wasn't as much of an issue as the general structure and nature of the novel--it was arguably one of the most difficult texts that I've gone through, but it was also profoundly rewarding.  I rarely blog on the books I read

Comments

[quietphilosophe]

I think you may have understood this book to be primarily a philosophical text--this is just my initial reading of your response, however. Please note that it is, in fact, fiction and filed amongst Ender's Game and other "groundbreaking" works of fiction.

Because in my world view, precisely because we live in a flood of information, there is very little which is worth paying attention to with my precious time, and what little there is must therefore audition for me, present its bona fides, and convince me that it is worth the effort--for it competes with mountains of drivel and I have no time to waste on drivel, nor do I have quick and easy ways to sift the valuable from the drivel, or otherwise identify it as being worthy.Well, this is basically what the novel is trying to express and contextualize. There's no really good way to have a reader understand a "glut" unless they actually experience something along those lines. DFW's glut is simply more engaging and heady than if you were to take 10 of the NY Times' best-selling

Don't cop out on me now!

[quietphilosophe]

What are these works of philosophy that consumed so much of your time? I'm genuinely curious. I'm afraid we're talking past one another, as I'm making claims about the essence of philosophy that I'm not sure you have actually acknowledged.

Take the Euclidean proof issue above:

You might view this as a chicken-or-egg kind of situation, but I think philosophy preceded and enabled much of the scientific progress. We could just as easily be having this conversation outside in a Greek forum. The crux of my point: hard sciences frame and enable degrees of human interaction. Philosophy is at the essence of our interaction, however. There's a sharp distinction here that I'm not sure you appreciate.

I, on the other hand, have a high regard for the hard sciences and don't consider a moment I spent learning physics, calculus, or chemistry a wasted moment. It certainly doesn't seem like you can claim the inverse.

Re: Don't cop out on me now!

[quietphilosophe]

Totally agreed. I just finished grad apps and made it perfectly clear that I was interested in philosophy that made itself relevant to the culture that it was part of. I think a lot of the philosophy published in the last 60 years or so has become re-oriented towards the "real." And while a lot of it is still bullshit, I think the intentions have shifted significantly.

Re: Don't cop out on me now!

[quietphilosophe]

That's bullshit.

There are different camps within philosophy that disagree with one another. Since you lack the grounding offered by mathematics and/or observation, there are matters of debate. But in order to be taken seriously by someone in philosophy, you can't just say anything you'd like and be done with it.

Re: Don't cop out on me now!

[quietphilosophe]

So...the admittedly limited perspective of someone who hasn't taken the time or made the effort is the Decider when it comes to figuring out what is and is not relevant, much less clear or logically consistent? Your failure to recognize that there are standards in philosophy does not mean that there are not standards within philosophy

Re: Don't cop out on me now!

[quietphilosophe]

Very few of the philosophical texts I've actually read have claimed the absolute correct position. It is, admittedly, more prominent within early modern philosophy than it is in the 20th century stuff, which is what I'm primarily interested in. At any rate, contemporary philosophy now seems to be more concerned about the limits to knowledge rather than flouncing a specific metaphysical position. Your experience here makes me question whether you've exposed yourself to anything related to the continental tradition

Re: Don't cop out on me now!

[quietphilosophe]

You were right to walk out. You weren't right to let the experience frame the entirety of your field. I understand and acknowledge that you've had a series of bad anecdotal experiences with philosophy. I am arguing that these do not constitute a well-rounded understanding of the field.

Moreover--and this ties in with your earlier comment--you simply cannot expect to plunge yourself into something ridiculously advanced without prior preparation. I understand that you think anything written in English should be plainly understandable and I'm challenging that assumption.

Re: Don't cop out on me now!

[quietphilosophe]

The issue is that there is no set way to really go about approaching some complicated philosophical text. Some people think reading Nietzsche is fundamental to understanding Heidegger; others think you can get away with a bit of experience with Hegel