Marder goes a step further and promises a kind of Plant-Thinking that “accommodates plants’ constitutive subjectivity, drastically different from that of human beings, and describes their world from the hermeneutical perspective of vegetal ontology (i.e., from the standpoint of the plant itself)” (9). In fact, Marder hopes to provide nothing less than a “vegetal existentiality, referring to the time, freedom and wisdom of plants” (90).
This has to be a joke, right? Very funny, guys. This is just an elaborate attempt to provoke me to start posting again, isn’t it? I mean, no one could actually take seriously someone who purports to understand the standpoint and wisdom of plants! And even if this book were published, it’s not like it would ever be reviewed in a respected journal, right?
… oh. Well, shit.
Rather than dispute Western thinking’s understanding of plant life, Marder doubles down on it: he shows quite persuasively that from Aristotle forward, plants represent the “lowest” form of life in Western thinking, with the subsequent tradition seldom straying far from Aristotle’s picture of the “vegetable soul” as mere purposeless growth, without a higher or more noble end.
Fine. Whatever. If this is a thing that’s happening, then I call dibs on writing a follow-up piece on rocks, beginning with Aristotle’s use of a stone to make a point about human habituation in the NE. Why should we think that rocks are mere objects to be used to illustrate points about the nature of human beings? We ought not to ignore the fact that rocks have a time, wisdom, and freedom all their own. I look forward to filling this egregious gap in the literature on… things.
EDIT: Apparently the link-as-title wasn’t obvious enough.
Commenters keep telling me that my problem is just that I haven’t read enough continental philosophy. While I am of the opinion that I have read more than enough drivel to last me a lifetime, (I’ll sometimes encounter drivel in analytic philosophy, but it’s reassuring to study in a field where ridiculousness is the exception rather than the rule,) I have decided to indulge the critics and read a definitive continental work. Maybe if I read more, I will “get it”! Maybe I will have a revelation, convert to the other side, and after the obligatory period of sackcloth, ashes and self-flagellation, I will awaken. Indeed, as a butterfly emerges from its chrysalis, I will emerge reborn as someone who non-sarcastically babbles on about biopower at the drop of a hat. Fingers crossed.
Read more …
So, just to clarify, I can either love someone for “the things they are like their beauty or intelligence”, or I can love them for their… haecceity?
So, posting obviously hasn’t happened for a few months. I apologize to anyone who may care about that. Stress/real life is a bitch. However, I have been super amused by the little flame wars which have cropped up in the comments while I’ve been away. They are hilarious and wonderful and I want to thank everyone who gave the trolls a massive middle finger. There is one comment in particular that is so profoundly dumb as to warrant something special in the way of mockery, so look forward to some amateurish animation (or something). In the meantime we’ll return to your regularly-scheduled obscene commentary, of which Bertrand Russell would NOT approve! INDIGNATION!
In the above video, Timothy Williamson explains why he chose to do analytic rather than continental philosophy.
The following is from Francois Laruelle’s A Summary of Non-Philosophy. This is as good a point as any to laugh derisively at the very idea of “non-philosophy” as a practice, getting as many giggles/guffaws as possible out of the way before the soul-crushing inanity of it all sinks in.
[P]hilosophy is regulated in accordance with a principle higher than that of Reason: the Principle of sufficient philosophy. The latter expresses philosophy’s absolute autonomy, its essence as self-positing/donating/naming/deciding/grounding, etc. It guarantees philosophy’s command of the regional disciplines and sciences. Ultimately, it articulates the idealist pretension of philosophy as that which is able to at least co-determine that Real which is most radical.
Capitalization for extra SUPER DUPER EMPHASIS? Check. Inability to pick one fucking word to describe a concept? Check. Liberal use of standard continental buzzwords? Check.
Thank you, Francois, for bringing to our attention the nasty dirty incestuous narcissistic masturbatory nature of philosophy. I know my main goal in life is to (at least co-)determine that REAL which is most RADICAL!!!111!!!11!!!!1!!!111!!!!!11!
Fuck REASON. Philosophy is a totally different and self-contained thing, in which we all suck our own dicks. The end.