#rhizombie

[sterwood-blog]

So, out of the blue question born from anxiousness:

For those of you currently going through it, do you think grad school is worth the pursuit?

I've had two people whose opinions I really respect give negative opinions on this question today and I'm always already in oscillation about whether or not it's worth pursuing, so I thought I'd make the question open.

I've really got to think this through over the next year or so, so opinions are very worthwhile.

[sterwood-blog]

Uh, just to clarify (to Rhizombie and others), because I don't think I was clear enough beforehand, I wasn't knocking Deleuze with that last comment (especially since that charge of neo-Platonism with the 'One-All' is something important to discuss). I just meant that the debate over immanence and transcendence is impossibly muddled at this point (unless you're addressing how immanence, say, is talked about by 'x' philosopher), and this can be seen from how quickly the discussion turned from talking about immanence/transcendence to talking about how immanence works in the works of a 'canonical' 'immantist'.

Does that make sense? I wasn't trying to detract from talking about Deleuze, but just to point out a problematic metaphysical distinction.

(Also, Rhizombie, I really do need to read 'Immanence'. That is, after I finish D&R and everything else I have to read. *sigh*)

[sterwood-blog]

rhizombie replied to your post: leviathvn replied to your post: leviathvn...

u guyz r cute

Yes. Tell me more. Feed my ego.

(Thank you though! This is always nice to hear from one of my favorite people on here :D )

[sterwood-blog]

rhizombie replied to your post: rhizombie replied to your post: rhizombie...

theory partyyyyy

The only party I really want to be having ever, to be honest. You're all invited, by the way.

leviathvn replied to your post: leviathvn replied to your post: ...

hatred of democracy and disagreement are great places to start! his article who is the subject of the rights of man does a good job of outlining essentially his whole project as well

Damn, I really do have to check that out. I'm almost certain I'll like him a lot, but he's just been this tangential figure for me lately and I haven't been able to get to him. Especially since I've been really ambivalent about philosophy and theory lately (although, you probably can't tell from my blog since that's like 90% of what I do on here).

getradified replied to your post: rhizombie replied to your post: rhizombie...

Whoever you prefer to read, just try and use their ideas to make the world less fucked up and were cool.

Same. That's really, like, a total summation of my position on things. Everything else is just fun debate on things. That's why I get so tired of a lot of the Marxist/Anarchist debates on here: they're both like "fuck capitalism, sexism, racism, etc." (when done well, which is rare, but that's another issue) and I just don't really care beyond that point? The rest is just splitting hairs, but splitting necessary ones, but that shouldn't generate as much hate as that does on here.

[sterwood-blog]

rhizombie replied to your post: rhizombie replied to your post: towerofsleep...

I think our disagreement is probably on Zs interpretation of JD then. Every instance ive read or heard Z talking about D has been not just polemical rhetorical posturing but gross generalizations and caricatures. Im more familiar with D than Z tho

Ah, see, I'm almost the exact opposite. Maybe we should read more of both then? Or at least that's already my plan with Derrida - I can't totally recommend reading Zizek to anyone because I know there's a lot of fucked up stuff he does in his books (even if I think he's worthwhile on some level regardless).

Point is: theory's cool, we're cool, let's party, yay!

[sterwood-blog]

rhizombie replied to your post: towerofsleep replied to your post: About that...

I agree generally, but if SZs problem is with the academic reception of Derrida, why doesnt he say that instead of making facile caricatures he tries to pass off as representative of JDs work? I find it disingenuous

But, I mean, most of the time he does. If he uses Derrida in a book or something and it's not a moment of outright criticism of him, then he usually uses a single quote or so by Derrida as a fulcrum point to think about 'larger' cultural issues precisely because he more interested in those.

Derrida isn't his enemy; what can only be called (horribly) 'Derrideanism' is. And in the few-far-between moments where he engages with Derrida directly, it's usually with his later ethical work more than anything, and he's usually really explicit about engaging with Derrida in those moments. 

But I don't think I've ever really seen him just out-and-out say shitty things about Derrida. He usually talks about him in friendly terms, even if he is critical. 

I mean, there be a brief polemical essay or two, but when you've written 51681684615186 essays, there's bound to be a few of those. And those tend to be more rhetorical posturing than anything that should be taken seriously in any way, as Z. would be the first to admit. And let's not pretend that Derrida and others didn't fall into that sometimes too (e.g., even though this wasn't a part of the 'text' of the piece, how else are we to interpret Derrida's invitation to Foucault for the presentation of 'Cogito and the History of Madness' except as a somewhat polemical move? I could probably think of others, but I don't know Derrida well enough for that).

[sterwood-blog]

Oh, and @Rhizombie!

Thanks for the compliment. I was too busy in that last post trying to be coherent and forgot to mention that. I do really appreciate it.

[sterwood-blog]

rhizombie replied to your quote: The ventriloquism of the speaking subaltern is the...

just wait till you get to the part where she completely misreads Foucault and Deleuze!

I haven't read the 'Dialogues' she's quoting from, but I got the impression that a lot of people on here would think that about her analysis. But, regardless, I kind of just take the whole thing as a good warning to myself on how not to let notions of a totalized subject enter into my discourse (as a white,western, male 'intellectual' of sorts). So, yeah, that's kind of the light I'm reading it in, not having the requisite source-knowledge.