kierkegaard, and foucault, and rousseau, oh my!
well...we only have to take 3 classes per semester, but in addition to those three classes we have a language test to pass and an introductory seminar for incoming students, but none of this is really phasing me yet. i'm taking one class on the human will and its evolution from medieval to modern philosophy, and the professor said quite blatantly that all of the reading was suggested, none of it is required and since there is no test or anything to worry about (only a 20 page term paper on a topic of my choice), i'm not so inclined to read much unless it is specifically interesting to me.
for our next class we're supposed to read some rousseau. he's another one of those early modern philosophers that was primarily concerned with the natural order of things versus the culmination of the city-state and how the two compare. i haven't read much of him and as i sat down to try to get into it, i remembered why. its not very interesting stuff. its all about social contracts where the masses determine the norms of civilized society based on models from naturally occuring societies (such as the family unit). as the masses work out basic rules and everything, eventually a ruler comes around who either takes his power from the grace of god, or is given his power through the aggregate will of the masses. i mean...its interesting to think about how things came to be, but i'm just not feeling it yet...maybe the lecture will get my early modern juices flowing.
foucault is an endless source of joy, particularly because of my enlightening conversations with my beloved, but so far i'm not too impressed with the class. as suz has made reference to in her blog, the professor is so far just teasing us with philosophical concepts, trying to fit foucault into a tidy little box labelled with whatever multi-hyphened philosophical jargon you feel most comfortable labelling him with. i just want to tear into some of his texts for crab's sake. i understand that she has to sorta set the stage, but lets get going already...we only meet once a week and i'm fiending for some flamboyancy.
so far the only thing that has really been interesting to me is my kierkegaard class. for those of you that know me, you understand that my kinship with kierkegaard is at the very least skin deep. the hebrew lettering i have tattooed on me is based largely on one of kierkegaard's famed works, fear and trembling. i thought that kierkegaard's concentration on contradiction was interesting in that text, but it goes so much deeper than that. in either/or a whole new aspect of contradiction is considered. its still to nebulous for me to really articulate, but it has brought me to such questions as, is reflective sorrow the cause of the internal/external contradiction, or is that contradiction the cause of the sorrow, and furthermore if it isn't the cause what function does it play in furthering that type of sorrow? if don giovanni as represented in mozart's work of the same name is representative of sensual desire and is constantly at the mercy of the immediacy of his desires, is don giovanni really an erotic genius or is he merely a puppet to his sensuality? if at the mercy of his desires, don giovanni is perpetually in flux and in that sense does he serve as a theoretical exemplification of kierkegaard's reflective sorrow which perpetually walks "back and forth in its by-chamber, never wearying of putting sorrow's long or short road behind it." does this mean that the erotic conqueror, while on the outside appears quite satisfied with his 1,003 sexual conquests is actually on the inside full of sorrow? could it be said that this sorrow, if it exists, is the result of the fact that he is perpetually driven to these conquests, but he himself doesn't actually want them?
it might not shock you to know that i answer yes to all these questions. nonetheless i want to bring them up in class, but unfortunately the professor sees it fit to only pay attention to one half of the class and despite the fact that i have plenty of interesting questions, she will never see me raise my hand.
at least my brain is working again. at least i'm not contemplating the complexities of gasoline related credit issues.
so yeah, there's some of what i've been thinking about. like i said, i haven't really formed a comprehensive theory about any of this, but its really only 2 weeks into class, so i'm not quite there yet.
i hope y'all enjoy the pictures i have up on flickr...there will be more added as soon as the first of the next calendar month rolls around.
i know this has gone a little long so i'll wrap it up with this. there's some sort of block party going on down the street right now. i don't really think its the sort of thing that's sanctioned by the city because its really just a dude with a bangin' system in his car chillin with all his doors open and the volume turned up all the way with a bunch of stupid assholes standing around, occasionally dancing, occasionally yelling loudly so as to be heard over the excessive bass.
i love weekends in bushwick.
for our next class we're supposed to read some rousseau. he's another one of those early modern philosophers that was primarily concerned with the natural order of things versus the culmination of the city-state and how the two compare. i haven't read much of him and as i sat down to try to get into it, i remembered why. its not very interesting stuff. its all about social contracts where the masses determine the norms of civilized society based on models from naturally occuring societies (such as the family unit). as the masses work out basic rules and everything, eventually a ruler comes around who either takes his power from the grace of god, or is given his power through the aggregate will of the masses. i mean...its interesting to think about how things came to be, but i'm just not feeling it yet...maybe the lecture will get my early modern juices flowing.
foucault is an endless source of joy, particularly because of my enlightening conversations with my beloved, but so far i'm not too impressed with the class. as suz has made reference to in her blog, the professor is so far just teasing us with philosophical concepts, trying to fit foucault into a tidy little box labelled with whatever multi-hyphened philosophical jargon you feel most comfortable labelling him with. i just want to tear into some of his texts for crab's sake. i understand that she has to sorta set the stage, but lets get going already...we only meet once a week and i'm fiending for some flamboyancy.
so far the only thing that has really been interesting to me is my kierkegaard class. for those of you that know me, you understand that my kinship with kierkegaard is at the very least skin deep. the hebrew lettering i have tattooed on me is based largely on one of kierkegaard's famed works, fear and trembling. i thought that kierkegaard's concentration on contradiction was interesting in that text, but it goes so much deeper than that. in either/or a whole new aspect of contradiction is considered. its still to nebulous for me to really articulate, but it has brought me to such questions as, is reflective sorrow the cause of the internal/external contradiction, or is that contradiction the cause of the sorrow, and furthermore if it isn't the cause what function does it play in furthering that type of sorrow? if don giovanni as represented in mozart's work of the same name is representative of sensual desire and is constantly at the mercy of the immediacy of his desires, is don giovanni really an erotic genius or is he merely a puppet to his sensuality? if at the mercy of his desires, don giovanni is perpetually in flux and in that sense does he serve as a theoretical exemplification of kierkegaard's reflective sorrow which perpetually walks "back and forth in its by-chamber, never wearying of putting sorrow's long or short road behind it." does this mean that the erotic conqueror, while on the outside appears quite satisfied with his 1,003 sexual conquests is actually on the inside full of sorrow? could it be said that this sorrow, if it exists, is the result of the fact that he is perpetually driven to these conquests, but he himself doesn't actually want them?
it might not shock you to know that i answer yes to all these questions. nonetheless i want to bring them up in class, but unfortunately the professor sees it fit to only pay attention to one half of the class and despite the fact that i have plenty of interesting questions, she will never see me raise my hand.
at least my brain is working again. at least i'm not contemplating the complexities of gasoline related credit issues.
so yeah, there's some of what i've been thinking about. like i said, i haven't really formed a comprehensive theory about any of this, but its really only 2 weeks into class, so i'm not quite there yet.
i hope y'all enjoy the pictures i have up on flickr...there will be more added as soon as the first of the next calendar month rolls around.
i know this has gone a little long so i'll wrap it up with this. there's some sort of block party going on down the street right now. i don't really think its the sort of thing that's sanctioned by the city because its really just a dude with a bangin' system in his car chillin with all his doors open and the volume turned up all the way with a bunch of stupid assholes standing around, occasionally dancing, occasionally yelling loudly so as to be heard over the excessive bass.
i love weekends in bushwick.
posted by R. Peeps at 12:55 AM
1 Comments:
Fantastic photos - where was that stunning cliff? Was that in Big Sur too?
Very happy for you that you're using your brain again. I'm doing all I can to keep mine from atrophying in the meantime... so keep using those big words. I'll learn vicariously through you guys. Or something.
Post a Comment
<< Home