Paul Virilio on philosophy and literature...

In a tv interview,

Cyberwar, God And Television: http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=62

Paul Virilio asserts:
>
I always write with images. I cannot write a book if I don't have images.

I believe that philosophy is part of literature, and not the reverse. Writing is not possible without images. Yet, images don't have to be descriptive; they can be concepts, and Deleuze and I often discuss this point. Concepts are mental images.<<

Two interesting points for consideration here:

1]Writing isn't possible without images (and the concomitant remark about philosophy as part of literature!)

2]Images can be concepts--and concepts are mental images.

The notion that concepts are mental images seems at least open to debate to me, since concepts are usually seen as separate from images, based on cognition rather than pictorially imbued (?) One has a mental image of a cat, does this predate the concept of the cat, or is the mental image of the cat identical to the concept of it?? Or, can one grasp the concept of a cat without a corresponding mental image?

Hmmm

Ruth

The Human Brain Analogy

The trend, in relatively recent years has been to think of ourselves and perhaps more specifically our brains as very sophisticated computers. Prior to this, top scientific minds understood the brain as though it were some sort of very complicated clockwork mechanism. In this short article I would like to make an effort to counter this trend of anthropomorphic infatuation with our ‘highest’ technology and so posit the notion that the human brain is like a very sophisticated potato.

If you look at the facts I think you’ll agree. In terms of shape, size (admittedly that would be a large potato) and chemical composition a human brain is much more like a potato than the tiny silicon chip that can be found in any number of computational devices. I’ve had a look about online and most accounts seem to suggest that a human brain is approximately 75-80% water depending on personal circadian rhythms and that potatoes are pretty uniformly around 78%, which for me is almost close enough to cause concern. Have we all gone totally mad and fixated on this benign head tuber when it simply has nothing to do with what makes us human?

I’m bound to say it’s possible. From here it looks as though the inevitable connection between medical science and medical technology has created an overly organised view of the human body. It is quite understandable as the technology, the tools of the trade if you will, is only capable of solving a technological problem. It isn’t that they don’t work, it’s just that the problem is partly made by the solution, when the solution is to make a diagnosis in analogy.

“Yes Mr Smith, you’re a mechanic you’ll understand. You see the body’s vital organs are like a car’s engine. If they do not receive enough oxygen then the spark plugs will be unable to burn the fuel in the chamber and the engine will not run. In short Mr Smith, smoking has blocked your intake valve.”

As horribly mixed a metaphor as it is, the analogy here serves a purpose but it is technological at it’s core. Mr Smith understands the mechanical results of smoking but that is all the analogy is capable of. And the same holds true for the analogous brain-computer. There are respects when medically, the analysis of the brain as though it were a computer will be useful, however in the case of trying to comprehend human conciseness the medical analogy is simply inadequate. As is any I suppose, so I’ll have to retract my earlier statement about potatoes.

Staff Student Seminar - Revised Programme

Philosophy – Staff Student Seminar Series 2011

Revised Programme


Weds Jan 12th 2011, room 215, Ugur Parlar - Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Ethics in 19th and 20th Century Western Thought: From Emerson’s and Thoreau’s Transcendentalism to Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic

Weds 19th January 2011, room 215: Neil Turnbull - Philosophers and Players: Narcissism as a Theme in Western Philosophy

Weds Feb 9th 2011, room 219, Ulrich Hass, Manchester Metropolitan University - Nietzsche and the Future of our Educational Institutions

Weds Feb 23rd 2011 Frederick Aspbury, room 219 - Hegel meets Freud: The Dialectic of the Subconscious

Weds March 2nd 2011 Ruth Griffin, room 215 - Through the Zizekian Lens Darkly: Lacanian Psycho-analysis and the Philosophy of Film

Weds April 13 2011, room 215 Jim Bunker – Working with Mental Health is an Extreme Philosophy

Weds April 20th, room 215 Patrick O’Connor - Desire and Pleasure: The Death of Life in Recent French Thought.


All seminars start at 1pm and finish @2.45pm.

All welcome.

My Top 10 Greatest Short Philosophical Works

There has a lot been said, and many charts have been compiled about the top 10 and top 20 greatest philosophical works. But I thought it would be interesting to collate a top ten of short philosophical works. Graham Harman (see his blog on the side links 'object-oriented philosophy') has recently spoken extensively on the idea of the TOP 20 books, so I thought it would be interesting to give a brief justification of what makes a short work great and include my top ten. I think this would be good for you students as well since it offers you a great entry into philosophy, in a concise but by no means uncomplicated introduction to philosophy. I know that 'long' and 'short' can be fairly subjective, but we can think of a short work as in some way self-contained, for example, one of Montaigne’s essays, which could easily be placed in a larger collection. Also as a rule of thumb, we can say a short work, at the top end, could take you a day to read if you put your mind to it. But what makes a short work interesting? The first thing that springs to mind is precision, and I don’t necessarily mean in the analytical sense. These texts are precise in the sense that there is a lot going on in them which is expressed in the minimal amount of prose, dialogue or even poetry. These texts stylistically embody the universal in the particular. To my mind Plato''s Symposium despite its length is exceptionally rich, having infinitly more depth, truth and rigour than AJ Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic. Secondly, I think that short philosophical works can provide us with an interesting historical insight. Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto (around 10000 words which is less than a level three dissertation!) has a unique ability to make present its time, namely the urgencies, political malaise and anxieties of industrial Europe, much more I think say than ploughing through Das Kapital. Thirdly, I think that we do not have to think of a short work as necessarily a book. We could easily think of some of Leibniz’s letters to Arnauld has having a huge philosophical impact, or a collection of Marcus Aurelius' maxims. if we look at the letters, this is interesting because it gives an insight into the biography of the philosopher. If we think of philosophy in letters we can see the human behind the interlocutor, and can gain a sense of their lived debate. Fourthly, for philosophical reasons, short works are great because we can get a sense of what the philosopher thinks is most essential rather than just engaging in the finesse of arguments. This brings a dynamism to philosophy, which might be lost where one has the luxury of working out ones arguments over 800 pages!

All of these choices are of course arbitrary, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this, or a reminder of any omissions

So off the top of my head, and in no particular order:

Aristotle-De Anima
Plato – Phaedo (All of his short dialogues could be here but these are my favourites)
Plato – Symposium
Leibniz – Monadology
Hume – Autobiography
Kant – The Metaphysics of Morals
Nietzsche – On the Uses and Abuses of History for Life
Marx – The Communist Manifesto
Bergson – An Introduction to Metaphysics
Wittgenstein – Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus

BBC4; Justice - A Citizen's Guide season

BBC4 is currently airing a number of programmes as part of its 'Justice: A Citizen's Guide' season, which should be of interest to anyone interested in ethics and/or political philosophy in particular.

As a taster, in the first link, below, Mark Vernon explores the ways whereby Aristotle, Kant and Bentham might have approached the topical issue of bankers' bonuses in a piece for BBC Online.

The second link, meanwhile, enables you to view Harvard Professor Michael Sandel's lively and thought provoking programme, 'Justice: A Citizen's Guide to the 21st Century' via BBC Iplayer for the next seven days (first screened Monday 24th on BBC4).
Enjoy!
Ruth

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12250405


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xyzjw

Yesterday's Staff-Student Seminar

Hello Everyone

I have just received an e-mail from Dom that raises a few questions about yesterday's staff student seminar. This is what it says:

'I've been thinking about the discussion earlier in your seminar, specifically about the references to viewing a philosopher's life alongside their philosophy and the discussion about Neitzsche and Heidegger.

What I seemed to get from the discussion was that it was stated that we have to view Heidegger's philosophy as fascist and that as proof of this we should consider his life. I'm not sure if I agree with this idea of considering a philosopher alongside their philosophy which seemed to me to be a kind of quick and easy way of evaluating their philosophy. Shouldn't we really just deal with the philosophy itself and, if people believe it is fascist or leads to madness, bring it down on its own weaknesses, not by ad hominem?

Also as far as Neitszche is concerned can't he be viewed as the epitome of non-nihilism? What I get with Neitszche is that he is stating that it is the truth-proofs that societies need that actually brings them into nihilism, whereas his eternal return and affirmation acted as a positive denial of nihilism, such as Deleuze used them. This article I thought was both timely and necessary to defend Nietszche as a positive force from people like Jared Loughner and others who use Neitszche to belittle this type of philosophy, such as Bertrand Russell?

This article (http://www.slate.com/id/2281133/) sums it up here when it says that 'Neitszche saw himself as the scourge of European nihilism, and possibly also its remedy. Nietzsche saw nihilism as a disease, which grows from, in Alexander Nehamas' words, "the assumption that if some single standard is not good for everyone and all time, then no standard is good for anyone at any time."'

So what I'm asking you is do you really think that philosophy has to be considered alongside the philosopher's life? I remember someone in the lecture saying that they won't read Heidegger because he's 'evil' and I've been thinking about this and maybe there's a phil blog discussion to be had? Maybe the question 'Is it right to not read things because they don't adhere to our ideological commitments?' could have some going power?'

To answer Dom's question:

The point being made by Dom here is that in making the link between philosophy and biography we are committing the fallacy of 'argumentum ad hominem'.

However, I am not sure that this fallacy applies in all cases. It might not apply to philosophers and it certainly doenot apply to politicians. For example can we really view Thactherism as somehow divorced from Thatcher's own lower-middle class bellicose personality. Isn't Hitler, in some sense, essential the very meaning of Nazi ideology?

Let's take a less well known case - Richard Nixon. Nixon, we know we a paranoid delusionist, who saw enemies everywhere. He was a compulsive seeker of fame and power’, but like many narcissists waqs much ‘more fragile’ than would initially appear.

Psychanalytic theorists have suggested not only that Nixon’s desire to be a leader figure act was a mask for feelings of dependency, rage and envy, but that many of his policy decisions - such as his tragic decision to escalate the war in Vietnam, stemmed from his ‘projecting’ the ‘unacceptable’ aspects of his character onto the world in a ‘paranoid’ manner.

Is this ad hominem? If so, psychoanalysis itself is clearly ad hominem; because it examines the roots of human thought in the unconscious minds of specific individuals (take a look at Freud's study Leonardo da Vinci - a study, incidentally, where 'narcissism' is first deployed as a critical concept).


Neil

Postponed guest speaker: Wednsday 26th January; 2-4pm in GE089

Hello All

Please see below for details of the postponed guest speaker session, now taking place on the coming Wednesday. I hope to see some of you there!

Cheers

Ruth

You are warmly invited to our Philosophy and Everyday Life visiting speaker session under the auspices of the BA Philosophy joint honours programme in the School of Arts and Humanities:

Is there anything that could not count as a moral issue?

NOW ON: Wednesday 26^th January from 2-4pm

George Eliot GEE089 (LT3 Clifton Campus)

Trevor Curnow, University of Cumbria

In this lecture, Trevor will consider why he became interested in ancient philosophy, his experiences of moral philosophy before he did, and why he thinks ancient philosophy is in many ways superior to modern philosophy in its approach to life.

Enquiries may be directed to: Dr Ruth Griffin

All welcome.