New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

The Prince of Darkness reads Derrida

In the midst of the numerous comments to Eric’s post on the supposed differences of clarity between analytic and continental philosophy, Reinhard Muskens asked (#110) whether or not “deconstrucion dialectics can be formalized in some way,” to which John Protevi answered that yes, for pedagogical purposes one can discern a three step methodology consistently at work (or play?) in Derrida’s analyses of texts, but as one actually grapples with the texts the deconstructive reading produces “singular effects” (#111) whereby the “formulaic deconstructive dialectic pretty much vanishes” and where it is difficult to discern the “three step approach easily” (#121).

The distinction John is working with here between an abstract methodological rule or dialectic and a material to which this rule is applied, is precisely the distinction that Derrida’s work challenges, though John knows this and was bringing this distinction in for purposes of clarifying Derrida’s project. This is not to say that formalization is ruled out as inappropriate or irrelevant to the project of deconstruction; rather, Derrida is attempting, if you will, to employ a logic of singular effects, or what Deleuze will call, in similar fashion and for similar reasons, a logic of sense. To keep this to an appropriate length for a blog post, I’ll confine myself to two main points about what this logic of sense entails, drawing from two important attempts to formalize Derrida’s project—Graham Priest’s and Paul Livingston’s.

Précis of Livingston's "Derrida and Formal Logic"

“Derrida and Formal Logic”: précis

Livingston sets out to explore the “analogy” between results in metalogic and Derrida’s terms such as différance and “undecidable.” Livingston is following up on two leads. First, Derrida’s suggestion in 1970 in his paper on Mallarmé (“The Double Session” in Dissemination) of an analogy between his term “undecidable” and the same term in Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and second, Graham Priest’s suggestion in Beyond the Limits of Thought of différance as an instance of diagonalization and “in-closure.”

Context of Livingston's Derrida work: Politics of Logic

To frame our discussion of Paul Livingston’s paper on “Derrida and Formal Logic: Formalising the Undecidable,” (Derrida Today 3.2 [2010]: 221-239), I want to sketch the framework of Paul’s recent book, The Politics of Logic: Badiou, Wittgenstein, and the Consequences of Formalism (Routledge, 2012; hereafter PL) in which the Derrida paper is Chapter 4. (Paul touched on some of the aspects of his book in this wide-ranging New APPS interview from September 2011.)

New APPS Interview: Kelly Oliver

Today’s New APPS interview is with Kelly Oliver, W Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University

Thanks for doing this interview with us today, Kelly. Let’s start with your personal practice of philosophy. What are the pleasures of philosophy for you?

I love reading difficult philosophical texts because I feel like a detective following clues.  I am especially drawn to philosophy that takes up big questions about the meaning of life, particularly as they relate to social issues. 

But it can’t be all positive.

A prudent argument (or two) against Philosophy as Normal Science

Here at NewAPPS, Mohan Matthen has been advocating the Philosophy as Normal Science meme. (See here; recall my satire.) Colin McGinn seems to have jumped on Mohan's bandwagon in the NYT. (I write "seems," because I do not want to rule out that McGinn has offered a satirical reductio of the idea. I am unsure either way.) Before I offer my prudential arguments against the Matthen-McGinn approach, let me first quote the crucial passage(s) from McGinn:

On dismissive reviews (updated)

I have been mulling a very smug, dismissive review of a recent book by Keith Lehrer. The review is clearly (and probably rightly) annoyed that Lehrer does not engage with recent scholarship in aesthetics. This kind of calling out is necessary function of reviews. (We need a lot more of it. See here for a great instance.) I also am not against folk using terms from the philosophical lexicon correctly in print. (I am one of those vain morons that is proud to have contributed an entry!)

I have never been a fan of Lehrer's philosophizing, so what follows is not particularly motivated by admiration for Lehrer. I am also no fan of his painting, which fits the definition of kitsch without somehow being an ironic statement on my bourgeois taste. I just find the review deeply problematic; I am not sure I have put my finger on the problem, so what follows is still tentative.

Talk reason to them

From Malebranche via Brandon at Siris comes this ever-timely dictum:

THÉODORE: … The great secret of delivering oneself from a great many importunate people is to talk reason. This language, which they do not understand, sends them off for good, without their having grounds for complaint.

Nicolas Malebranche, Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion
VI.viii (Pléiade 2:775; orig. publ. 1688)

A bit earlier the seeming pride here exhibited by Théodore proves to be nothing of the sort.

"the right of dominion over the child dependeth on her will, and is consequently hers."

At NewAPPS there is a healthy discussion over the scholarly origins of the recent debate on the moral equivalence (and permissibility) of abortion and infanticide. Ever since writing a paper on Hobbes and Cathrine MacKinnon in a seminar taught by Martha Nussbaum (way back when), it has been my view that Hobbes has a story about common moral origin (and permissibility) of abortion and infanticide in the state of nature. (To be clear, I don't have a view on the way Hobbes anticipates and differs from Tooley!) Below two passages (one from De Cive, the other from Leviathan). I admit that neither passage speaks directly of abortion, although the first passage suggests it in various ways.

"Amazons, have in former times waged war against their adversaries, and disposed of their children at their own wils, and at this day in divers places, women are invested with the principall authority. Neither doe their husbands dispose of their children, but themselves; which in truth they do by the right of nature; forasmuch as they who have the supreme power, are not tyed at all (as hath bin shewed) to the civill lawes. Adde also that in the state of nature it cannot be known who is the Father but by the testimony of the Mother; the child therefore is his whose the Mother will have it, and therefore hers; Wherefore originall Dominion over children belongs to the Mother, and among men no lesse than other creatures: The birth followes the belly."

(De Cive, Chapter 9.)

Minds on Monday: Games, Art, and Evolution

Wittgenstein famously claimed that game could not be defined, since it is a “family resemblance”. His argument is embarrassingly anorexic. Nevertheless, he announces it with characteristic grandiosity: “Don't say there must be something in common or they would not be called 'games' - but look and see whether there is anything common to all.”

The late University of Waterloo philosopher, Bernard Suits, ignored the bull—I mean this word in the papal as well as the fecal sense—but took the advice. He took a look and found a common element, a philosophically interesting structural feature of games. (See The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia, 1978; republished by Broadview in 2005 with an Introduction by Tom Hurka. The title is for Aesop’s grasshopper, who plays all summer—Suits thought he was on to something.)

Ruth Barcan Marcus

To date the New York Times has not published an obituary of Ruth Barcan Marcus. Michael Della Rocca, Don Garrett, and Diana Raffman have started a campaign. The full story here.

Histories of Violence multi-media project

Histories of Violence is a multi-media project directed by Brad Evans of Leeds University. The project is "dedicated to exploring the theoretical, empirical and aesthetic dimensions to violence." From the home page of the project:

This trans-disciplinary project provides an open access platform for the specific purposes of academic and public engagement; knowledge transfer; political discussion; philosophical reflection; along with exhibiting works which directly engage the perennial problem afflicting human life. Amongst the sites key features include:

• Dedicated filmed symposia by international scholars
• Introductory lectures to key canonical thinkers
• Comprehensive author-specific resource hub
• Selected interviews
• Short films & Creative Reflections
• Online exhibitions/filmed readings by renowned artists, writers, and creative visionaries

Sarah Hrdy on infanticide

In the context of the controversy sparked by the article published last week comparing infanticide (which it refers to as 'after-birth abortion') to abortion, I thought it might be useful to highlight Sarah Hrdy’s work on infanticide, both among humans and among other animals (see here for example). Some attempts to refute the analogy between abortion and infanticide presented in the polemic paper (see here for example) argued that infanticide is unnatural among humans, and hardly ever practiced.

Now, in her book Mother Nature Hrdy argues convincingly that infanticide is much more widespread among humans than we like to think. One need not agree with her attribution of a fitness-enhancing component to the practice of infanticide (criticized for example in this paper) to be convinced by the data she presents, indicating the ubiquity of the practice among humans. My point here is not to argue that, since humans practice it, it must be a legitimate practice (I did take ‘Is-ought fallacy 101’ after all), but simply to point out that there is a lot of misconception out there concerning actual occurrences of infanticide among humans (and other species). Everyone interested in the topic would benefit from a closer analysis of Hrdy’s work, even from a ‘purely philosophical’ point of view (i.e. the ‘ought’ side of the story).

Silence, please! I can't hear myself think!

All sorts of things to talk about in this piece. My comments interspersed. Of course I realize this is just a filler piece -- or "content" as they say; the point is that there are big philosophical decisions embedded in everyday language, and this is a good spot to bring some out. Of course I'm just being persnickety, but it's important to see the lay of the land of the metaphysics of our cultural unconscious, if you'll let me put it that way.

a strange and unsettling new gun being developed by Japanese researchers shoots sound waves in an effort to disrupt and silence anyone who dares speak out of turn.

The gun operates based on the concept of delayed auditory feedback. An attached microphone picks up the sound being made by the target and plays it back 0.2 seconds later. The effect is incredibly confusing to the human brain, making it all but impossible to talk or hold a conversation. The device doesn't cause the person it's being used on any physical harm — it simply messes with their head.

Male minds, or mindless men?

The conference Interfaces of the Mind, taking place in Bochum in July, looks rather excellent except for one but crucial aspect: 13 invited speakers, all men. As far as I can tell, the only prominent female presence is the woman on the picture at the conference's website:

Brazilian music on Fridays: 'Samba e Amor'

I wasn’t sure what to write on for BMoF of this week, until I saw Jeff Bell’s post on Leonard Cohen of yesterday; it got me thinking about Brazilian songs whose lyrics could be published in the poetry section of a cultural magazine. Now, there are undoubtedly many songs which would qualify, but I had to think of ‘Samba e Amor’, written by Chico Buarque. As some readers may recall, over the last decade or so Chico Buarque has been having a very successful career as a fiction writer, but since the beginning of his career as a musician and composer his songs are marked by great attention to the text of the lyrics.

Logic and languages

Discussion here in Eric's post suggesting that NDPR commission reviews of non-English books led me to wonder about language and logic requirements in graduate programs. 

I think it would be useful to have both empirical and normative elements to the discussion.

1. Empirical: which notable programs have 

       a. requirements in both logic and languages?

        b. requirements in only logic?

        c. requirements in only languages?

2. Normative: what are the arguments for and against any of the options above? Related: what level of proficiency should graduate students have in logic and languages?

Hobbes on God's underestimation of Eve.

In much of Leviathan, Hobbes accepts the story of Adam's original sin: "Adam, if he had not sinned, had had an eternal life on earth" (CH. XXXVIII). But earlier, when confronted with the problem of evil (a problem that shakes "the faith, not only of the vulgar, but of philosophers and, which is more, the saints, concerning the Divine providence"), Hobbes very slyly, first, puts the denial of original sin in the mouth of Christ ("Neither hath this man sinned: nor his fathers"). Second, after re-affirming the meaning of the doctrine of original sin, he points out that humans are now in the same mortal position as animals, who could never sin. The implied argument is straightforward: if animal mortality is the result of no sin, why would the human kind be? (Elsewhere Hobbes also points out that immortals would overpopulate Earth.) Okay, with these thoughts in mind, we can now turn to Hobbes' audacious re-interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve:

Leonard Cohen - "Going Home"

 Leonard Cohen has been brought up a few times on this blog, most frequently in Jon Cogburn's Punkrockmonday posts (such as here), and various commenters have praised Cohen as the master songwriter of our time. I have to agree and his most recent album, Old Ideas, is further evidence for the claim. The New Yorker recently published the lyrics to "Going Home," the lead song of Old Ideas, in its poetry section, and rightfully so. The lyrics are below the fold.

Ratio, really irreal: ethics without the ladies

Does a corporate sponsor (Wiley-Blackwell) wish risking adverse publicity with a boys only line-up?

Aesthetics (almost) without the female gaze

This Routledge Companion "contains fifty-four chapters written by leading international scholars covering all aspects of aesthetics." By my count at most 10% of these scholars is female. Not...ahum...a pretty picture.

CORECTION: It has been pointed out to me I was mislead by the contents page on the Routledge website; I should have consulted the table of contents in the volume: The percentage is closer to 13%. Maybe this makes a material difference for one's judgment.

A plea for more cosmopolitanism at NDPR

My philosophic life is immeasurably enhanced by the existence of three wonderful philosophical web-resources: Edward N. Zalta's The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, David Chalmer's PhilPapers, and Gary and Anastasia Gutting's The Notre Dame Philosophical Review. All three projects tap the collective genius of philosophy to exhibit a far more comprehensive snap-shot of the state of philosophical research than ever before in the history of philosophy since, say, the time of Plato and Aristotle or, maybe, the library of Alexandria. As a philosophic community we owe a huge debt of gratitude to these wonderful institutions. (I start every work-day by reading the reviews in NDPR.)

But discussion with Dario Perinetti reminded me that there is still room for improvement. In particular NDPR rarely reviews books published in languages other than English (it does review translations regularly). This makes NDPR needlessly more provincial than it could be. No doubt within one's expertise one can keep track (if one is so inclined) with non-English scholarship/philosophy. But the current state of affairs means that our principal source for reflection on the state of philosophy is either a couple of years out of date (i.e., until translations appear--and these are often catered to the demands in Literary Theory) or simply out of touch even with most work in very dynamic philosophic cultures (Germany, France, Italy, South America).