tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post8741438328596121537..comments2024-03-26T14:20:38.103-04:00Comments on The Thought Criminal: Reading Out From Injustice And Into JusticeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-80632202865000181932018-07-30T08:07:35.535-04:002018-07-30T08:07:35.535-04:00The ones from last weekend were pretty stupid.
...The ones from last weekend were pretty stupid. <br /><br />Sometimes I feel guilty for wasting my time playing wack-a-troll with him. But not that guilty. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-25016353846084520812018-07-29T23:02:06.206-04:002018-07-29T23:02:06.206-04:00And get him to show his lunch companion these comm...And get him to show his lunch companion these comments. I have no doubt it will make quite an impression.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-34716821975705752182018-07-29T21:12:12.517-04:002018-07-29T21:12:12.517-04:00And there, you ruin it by trying to be funny witho...And there, you ruin it by trying to be funny without copying some lame comedian or movie scene. <br /><br />And you include class snobbery. How very Eschatonian of you. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-67656699077115145512018-07-29T21:09:16.560-04:002018-07-29T21:09:16.560-04:00I guarantee you have had lunches with department s...I guarantee you have had lunches with department store dummies. Oh wait -- you've told me you never go to restaurants. On the other hand, maybe you just invite them to your hovel.steve simelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13247393763004076992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-49352476844559376572018-07-29T21:06:33.029-04:002018-07-29T21:06:33.029-04:00Jealous of not having lunch with someone who think...Jealous of not having lunch with someone who thinks you're cool? Well, there it is, what it takes for you to say something funny, it has to be clueless and unintentional. <br /><br />I think I'd rather have lunch with a department store dummy than a NYT wit. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-90256877197883214092018-07-29T21:01:00.653-04:002018-07-29T21:01:00.653-04:00You’re so jealous it’s eating you fucking alive.You’re so jealous it’s eating you fucking alive.steve simelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13247393763004076992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-45289183899845701712018-07-29T21:00:58.220-04:002018-07-29T21:00:58.220-04:00Let's see if he wants a follow up lunch.
He ...Let's see if he wants a follow up lunch. <br /><br />He thinks you're cool? Oh dear. And here I thought the long-hair stereotype had died back in the 1940s. And if he is impressed with Glenn Gould's playing he's an idiot. Ask him how he likes the set of Mozart Sonatas Gould crapped all over. <br /><br />I'd rather have lunch with a working musician, someone who makes music, than any critic who has ever scribbled about music. <br /><br />With whatever drawbacks living in a small town has it's got its advantages, one is that I have no temptation to be overly impressed with myself for coming from here, second, you aren't here and aren't likely ever to be here.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-85094044806211684532018-07-29T20:41:48.806-04:002018-07-29T20:41:48.806-04:00By the way, schmucko -- I'm having lunch tomor...By the way, schmucko -- I'm having lunch tomorrow -- meeting him for the first time -- with a former classical music critic for the NYT who won a Pulitzer and loves Glenn Gould. Plus he thinks I'm cool.<br /><br />Get back to me when you have a similar experience in that hick burg you teach piano in.steve simelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13247393763004076992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-77730829049775492342018-07-29T20:09:44.926-04:002018-07-29T20:09:44.926-04:00You expected that because you're a dishonest i...You expected that because you're a dishonest idiot and a pathological liar who doesn't know more than what he thinks it's groovy to think without bothering to find out how to think about it. <br /><br />Wikipedia, really, the Eschatonian idea of an ultimate authority. And here I figured I was dumbing it down by resorting to the Stanford Encyclopedia. <br /><br />I'm not annoyed that you prove you're incapable of thinking in anything but the crudest and most inept stereotypes, I expect that when it's you and the Tots. <br /> <br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-52148663542750623982018-07-29T19:52:06.806-04:002018-07-29T19:52:06.806-04:00You disappointed me, Sparkles. I thought you were ...You disappointed me, Sparkles. I thought you were going to write a full-throated defense of this post-Modernist deconstructionist asshole.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Man<br /><br />He's my favorite, for the obvious reason that -- how conveeeeeeeenient -- he espoused, along with Jacques Derrida, an influential critical movement that went beyond traditional interpretation of literary texts to reflect on the epistemological difficulties inherent in any textual, literary, or critical activity. And then, of course, after his death, a researcher uncovered some two hundred previously unknown articles which de Man had written in his early twenties for Belgian collaborationist newspapers during World War II, some of them implicitly and two explicitly anti-Semitic. <br /><br />How wonderfully Hermeneutic. And Jew-hating. Nothing to do with Darwin, of course.<br />steve simelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13247393763004076992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-59018454316980418142018-07-29T19:35:34.072-04:002018-07-29T19:35:34.072-04:00And the same on "Postmodern Hermeneutics"...And the same on "Postmodern Hermeneutics"<br /><br />7. Postmodern Hermeneutics<br />Hermeneutics, the science of textual interpretation, also plays a role in postmodern philosophy. Unlike deconstruction, which focuses upon the functional structures of a text, hermeneutics seeks to arrive at an agreement or consensus as to what the text means, or is about. Gianni Vattimo formulates a postmodern hermeneutics in The End of Modernity (1985, in English 1988 [1985]), where he distinguishes himself from his Parisian counterparts by posing the question of post-modernity as a matter for ontological hermeneutics. Instead of calling for experimentation with counter-strategies and functional structures, he sees the heterogeneity and diversity in our experience of the world as a hermeneutical problem to be solved by developing a sense continuity between the present and the past. This continuity is to be a unity of meaning rather than the repetition of a functional structure, and the meaning is ontological. In this respect, Vattimo's project is an extension of Heidegger's inquiries into the meaning of being. However, where Heidegger situates Nietzsche within the limits of metaphysics, Vattimo joins Heidegger's ontological hermeneutics with Nietzsche's attempt to think beyond nihilism and historicism with his concept of eternal return. The result, says Vattimo, is a certain distortion of Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche, allowing Heidegger and Nietzsche to be interpreted through one another (Vattimo 1988 [1985], 176). This is a significant point of difference between Vattimo and the French postmodernists, who read Nietzsche against Heidegger, and prefer Nietzsche's textual strategies over Heidegger's pursuit of the meaning of being.<br /><br />On Vattimo's account, Nietzsche and Heidegger can be brought together under the common theme of overcoming. Where Nietzsche announces the overcoming of nihilism through the active nihilism of the eternal return, Heidegger proposes to overcome metaphysics through a non-metaphysical experience of being. In both cases, he argues, what is to be overcome is modernity, characterized by the image that philosophy and science are progressive developments in which thought and knowledge increasingly appropriate their own origins and foundations. Overcoming modernity, however, cannot mean progressing into a new historical phase. As Vattimo observes: “Both philosophers find themselves obliged, on the one hand, to take up a critical distance from Western thought insofar as it is foundational; on the other hand, however, they find themselves unable to criticize Western thought in the name of another, and truer, foundation” (Vattimo 1988 [1985], 2). Overcoming modernity must therefore mean a Verwindung, in the sense of twisting or distorting modernity itself, rather than an Überwindung or progression beyond it.<br /><br />I know that you neither read that (though you might skim, which is you at the apex of your version of rigorous study) nor understood any of it nor why your comment was especially stupid in the context of what I said. You're just generally stupid. Now, go share your stupidity with your fellow simpletons at Duncleton's. <br /><br />It is really bizarre for bunch of people anything from ten to over twenty years older than Duncan see to have some kind of weird daddy issues with him. Maybe that's why he didn't like me, I was supportive out of common courtesy but I never called him "Dad" and I didn't hesitate to tell him when I disagreed with him. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-40766106399878915872018-07-29T19:35:19.781-04:002018-07-29T19:35:19.781-04:00As always, Simps, you demonstrate your stupidity a...As always, Simps, you demonstrate your stupidity and your laziness. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy NOT THAT I EXPECT YOU'RE GOING TO READ IT. <br /><br />In the Middle Ages the most remarkable characteristic of the interpretative praxis was the so-called accessus ad auctores; this was a standardized introduction that preceded the editions and commentaries of (classical) authors. There were many versions of the accessus, but one of the more widely used was the following typology of seven questions (Detel 2011: 84f.):<br /><br />Who (is the author) (quis/persona)?<br />What (is the subject matter of the text) (quid/materia)?<br />Why (was the text written) (cur/causa)?<br />How (was the text composed) (quomodo/modus)?<br />When (was the text written or published) (quando/tempus)?<br />Where (was the text written or published) (ubi/loco)?<br />By which means (was the text written or published) (quibus faculatibus/facultas)?<br />Johann Conrad Dannhauer was the first to present a systematic textbook on general hermeneutics (Jaeger 1974), the Idea boni interpretis et malitiosi calumniatoris (1630) introducing the Latin neologism hermeneutica as the title of a general modus sciendi. The intention of this work was to supplement the Aristotelian Organon and its subject matter to distinguish between the true and false meaning of any text (verum sensum a falso discernere). It is explicitly general in scope, relevant for all scientific domains (una generalis omnibus scientiis communis) and applicable to the oral discourse and texts of all authors (in omnibus auctorum scriptis et orationibus). A series of authors followed the lead of Dannhauer who established the systematic locus of hermeneutics within logic (Schönert and Vollhardt 2005). Most remarkable is the work of Johann Clauberg (1654), who introduced sophisticated distinctions between the rules of interpretation with respect to their generality and clarified the capturing of the intention of the author as a valuable aim of interpretative praxis. Thus, a general hermeneutics had existed at least two centuries before Schleiermacher offered his own conception at the beginning of the 19th century—so his claim that such a discipline did not already exist before him is simply false (Schönert and Vollhardt 2005: 9; Detel 2011: 119ff., Scholz 2016: 68ff.)<br /><br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-78869347851942580742018-07-29T18:05:32.343-04:002018-07-29T18:05:32.343-04:00"The frameworks through which we read texts i..."The frameworks through which we read texts is called "hermeneutics" and<br />the study of that practice are called the same thing. And,<br />furthermore, that every reading of every text, every understanding of it<br />becomes more secure instead of less only when we admit to and take into<br />account our heremeneutical process as we read them."<br /><br />Holy shit, Sparky -- you''ve gone all post-modern and semiotic approximately 30 years after that shit was fashionable. Coming up next: you announce that texts write themselves.steve simelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13247393763004076992noreply@blogger.com