Comments on: … is attractive about the discipline of history? http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/ A working notebook Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:38:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2197 Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:47:48 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2197 hi Colin, Yeah it was MacIntyre initially. It was something like Kant-Marx-Hegel-Schelling-Rorty/Foucault-MacIntyre-Kierkegaard, with some anglo-american philosophy of language coming at the same time as Kierkegaard. I remember those arguments, that was a really good time. All of this is stuff I'd love to revisit someday... I agree that what you're doing is a much more interesting way to work in the theory lab than what I'd had in mind. I know I always ask you this, but have you read Bowie's book on Schelling? take care, Nate hi Colin,
Yeah it was MacIntyre initially. It was something like Kant-Marx-Hegel-Schelling-Rorty/Foucault-MacIntyre-Kierkegaard, with some anglo-american philosophy of language coming at the same time as Kierkegaard.

I remember those arguments, that was a really good time. All of this is stuff I’d love to revisit someday…

I agree that what you’re doing is a much more interesting way to work in the theory lab than what I’d had in mind. I know I always ask you this, but have you read Bowie’s book on Schelling?

take care,
Nate

]]> by: colin http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2196 Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:31:45 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2196 If I remember correctly, you got your reading of Kierkegaard from MacIntyre. I remember our Rorty-MacIntyre vs. Habermas arguments around 1999-2000. I cut my philosophical teeth on those arguments. Since then, our paths have converged in interesting ways. While you've moved into the discipline of history, I've become more of a historian of philosophy, within the discipline of philosophy. I've done that partly to undercut the privilege afforded to those names which are ever-so-authoritatively-dropped in continental philosophy, and partly because I'm fascinated by the idea that if there were "special knowledge" of the kind you've (always) more or less disavowed, it would have to emerge in history. I'm interested in the (historical and intelletual) conditions that would produce that kind of knowledge, as well as the conditions under which it could be recognized as "special" (true, meaningful, relevant, whatever). That's a different way of working in the theory shop, and one I find more interesting. If I remember correctly, you got your reading of Kierkegaard from MacIntyre. I remember our Rorty-MacIntyre vs. Habermas arguments around 1999-2000. I cut my philosophical teeth on those arguments. Since then, our paths have converged in interesting ways. While you’ve moved into the discipline of history, I’ve become more of a historian of philosophy, within the discipline of philosophy. I’ve done that partly to undercut the privilege afforded to those names which are ever-so-authoritatively-dropped in continental philosophy, and partly because I’m fascinated by the idea that if there were “special knowledge” of the kind you’ve (always) more or less disavowed, it would have to emerge in history. I’m interested in the (historical and intelletual) conditions that would produce that kind of knowledge, as well as the conditions under which it could be recognized as “special” (true, meaningful, relevant, whatever). That’s a different way of working in the theory shop, and one I find more interesting.

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2192 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:30:09 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2192 Thanks Todd. I'm into pragmatism, but it's late pragmatism. ;) Rorty and shit. I'd like to go back and read Dewey and James and all those cats in their entirety. Someday. I'm kind of selective about larger philosophical claims - the deflationary thing again. I'm happy to run an argument that points toward anti-realism and all that if it works to defend something I like, and I'm happy to run an argument that has a more realist inclination for the same reason... xox, Nate ps- who IS that redwing blog?! it's gotta be someone we know, right? Thanks Todd. I’m into pragmatism, but it’s late pragmatism. ;)
Rorty and shit. I’d like to go back and read Dewey and James and all those cats in their entirety. Someday. I’m kind of selective about larger philosophical claims - the deflationary thing again. I’m happy to run an argument that points toward anti-realism and all that if it works to defend something I like, and I’m happy to run an argument that has a more realist inclination for the same reason…
xox,
Nate
ps- who IS that redwing blog?! it’s gotta be someone we know, right?

]]> by: todd http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2190 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:13:57 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2190 anti-realist? Read more Nietzsche (late nietzsche like twilight of the idols) and pragmatists! i've gotten weird i was all anti-realist and anti-foundationalist, but linguistics and age has made me a pretty hard line rationalist. I read Malebranche for god's sake. fuck experience, i gots it all intuited from outside space and time! you make a good historian, and with the powers of philosophy you can vanquish stupid. anti-realist? Read more Nietzsche (late nietzsche like twilight of the idols) and pragmatists! i’ve gotten weird i was all anti-realist and anti-foundationalist, but linguistics and age has made me a pretty hard line rationalist. I read Malebranche for god’s sake.

fuck experience, i gots it all intuited from outside space and time!

you make a good historian, and with the powers of philosophy you can vanquish stupid.

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2189 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:44:15 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/11/25/p571/#comment-2189 1077. 1077.

]]>