(via BiblioVault - Binding Violence: Literary Visions of Political Origins)
Oooh, interesting:

Binding Violence exposes the relation between literary imagination, autonomous politics, and violence through the close analysis of literary texts—in particular Sophocles’ Antigone, D. A. F. de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom, and Vargas Llosa’s The Feast of the Goat—that speak to a blind spot in democratic theory, namely, how we decide democratically on the borders of our political communities. These works bear the imprint of the anxieties of democracy concerning its other—violence—especially when the question of a redefinition of membership is at stake.The book shares the philosophical interest in rethinking politics that has recently surfaced at the crossroads of literary criticism, philosophy, critical theory, and psychoanalysis. Fradinger takes seriously the responsibility to think through and give names to the political uses of violence and to provoke useful reflection on the problem of violence as it relates to politics and on literature as it relates to its times.

(via BiblioVault - Binding Violence: Literary Visions of Political Origins)

Oooh, interesting:

Binding Violence exposes the relation between literary imagination, autonomous politics, and violence through the close analysis of literary texts—in particular Sophocles’ Antigone, D. A. F. de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom, and Vargas Llosa’s The Feast of the Goat—that speak to a blind spot in democratic theory, namely, how we decide democratically on the borders of our political communities. These works bear the imprint of the anxieties of democracy concerning its other—violence—especially when the question of a redefinition of membership is at stake.

The book shares the philosophical interest in rethinking politics that has recently surfaced at the crossroads of literary criticism, philosophy, critical theory, and psychoanalysis. Fradinger takes seriously the responsibility to think through and give names to the political uses of violence and to provoke useful reflection on the problem of violence as it relates to politics and on literature as it relates to its times.

lord-kitschener

aminotes:

What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology


Tim Maudlin: “There are problems that are fairly specific to cosmology. Standard cosmology, or what was considered standard cosmology twenty years ago, led people to the conclude that the universe…

A very interesting read. One that reminds me that we need to consider that people like Alfred North Whitehead did, in fact, exists as both physicists and philosophers. Whitehead even had a theory of relativity that competed with Einstein’s for a while. It lost out, as Einstein’s seemed to work best for predicting phenomena, but he was one of these people who was thinking along both lines.

Specifically, his formulation of process metaphysics (corrected, slightly, and very well, I think, by one of his “successors” Charles Hartshorne, a theologian) gives us a whole host of tools to take fundamental philosophical questions and find ways in which they can inform the physical world. An entire chapter of Process and Reality is devoted to recreating human concepts of mathematics and physics from the underlying metaphysics principles introduced in the book.

(via BiblioVault - A Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality)
Unless you have a really, really good philosophy professor/lecturer (like I did, thank you Prof. Gamwell) when you’re reading Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead, you are likely to get lost. The man was exacting and precise in his terminology and though process. It helps to have someone prepared to guide you along the way.
Now, I certainly recommend that people become familiar with process philosophy/process theology, and usually suggest Charles Hartshorne (Whitehead’s student/protege) because he is a little more readable/approachable, but it is very much process theology. If you want the pure metaphysics of process philosophy, you have to tackle Process and Reality.

(via BiblioVault - A Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality)

Unless you have a really, really good philosophy professor/lecturer (like I did, thank you Prof. Gamwell) when you’re reading Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead, you are likely to get lost. The man was exacting and precise in his terminology and though process. It helps to have someone prepared to guide you along the way.

Now, I certainly recommend that people become familiar with process philosophy/process theology, and usually suggest Charles Hartshorne (Whitehead’s student/protege) because he is a little more readable/approachable, but it is very much process theology. If you want the pure metaphysics of process philosophy, you have to tackle Process and Reality.

(via BiblioVault - A New Philosophy of History)
I was going to say “for FS and the historians”, but I think this has wider purview:
What is history? From Thucydides to Toynbee historians and nonhistorians alike have wondered how to answer this question. A New Philosophy of History reflects on developments over the last two decades in historical writing, not least the renewed interest in the status of narrative itself and the presence of the authorial “voice.” Subjects include the problems of Grand Narrative, multiple voices and the personal presence of the historian in his text, the ambitions of the French Annales school and the so-called “Grand Chronicler,” and the relevance of non-literary models—museum presentations and picturings—regarding historical discourse.
 Interesting reading…

(via BiblioVault - A New Philosophy of History)

I was going to say “for FS and the historians”, but I think this has wider purview:

What is history? From Thucydides to Toynbee historians and nonhistorians alike have wondered how to answer this question. A New Philosophy of History reflects on developments over the last two decades in historical writing, not least the renewed interest in the status of narrative itself and the presence of the authorial “voice.” Subjects include the problems of Grand Narrative, multiple voices and the personal presence of the historian in his text, the ambitions of the French Annales school and the so-called “Grand Chronicler,” and the relevance of non-literary models—museum presentations and picturings—regarding historical discourse.

 Interesting reading…

(via BiblioVault - The Archetypal Process: Self and Divine and Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman)
As someone who actually took a class on Whitehead where we read Process and Reality, this would be a very interesting book indeed. It includes Hartshorne (who made some good adjustments to Whitehead’s thinking on process philosophy and metaphysics) and then connects process philosophy to the archetypal psychology of Jung and James Hillman. This is a connection that seems rather ripe, given the archetypal nature of reality in process philosophy. (An attempt at a simple example is that a “stone” is not just a lump of matter for process philosophy, it is a series of events that constitute, to our perception, generally, a “stone as such” but which it would be more accurate to say is the “series of events of that type of stone-matter in that configuration which I am perceiving. It gets trickier from there, and I recommend any good introduction to Hartshorne and Whitehead before you try too much harder to get the full Whitehead-ean process philosophy and metaphysics.)
Did you know that Whitehead was also a physicist who had a theory of relativity that was different from (and competed with) Einstein’s?

(via BiblioVault - The Archetypal Process: Self and Divine and Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman)

As someone who actually took a class on Whitehead where we read Process and Reality, this would be a very interesting book indeed. It includes Hartshorne (who made some good adjustments to Whitehead’s thinking on process philosophy and metaphysics) and then connects process philosophy to the archetypal psychology of Jung and James Hillman. This is a connection that seems rather ripe, given the archetypal nature of reality in process philosophy. (An attempt at a simple example is that a “stone” is not just a lump of matter for process philosophy, it is a series of events that constitute, to our perception, generally, a “stone as such” but which it would be more accurate to say is the “series of events of that type of stone-matter in that configuration which I am perceiving. It gets trickier from there, and I recommend any good introduction to Hartshorne and Whitehead before you try too much harder to get the full Whitehead-ean process philosophy and metaphysics.)

Did you know that Whitehead was also a physicist who had a theory of relativity that was different from (and competed with) Einstein’s?

(via BiblioVault - From Quarks to Quasars: Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics)
By science standards, this is way old. Published in 1986. However, the philosophy of science is sometimes something that endures the test of time. (Go and read Lewis Thomas sometime, especially Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler’s Ninth Symphony, and you’ll see what I mean.)

(via BiblioVault - From Quarks to Quasars: Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics)

By science standards, this is way old. Published in 1986. However, the philosophy of science is sometimes something that endures the test of time. (Go and read Lewis Thomas sometime, especially Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler’s Ninth Symphony, and you’ll see what I mean.)