An Occasion to Discuss Our Current Methodological Block:: Call for papers: “Objects Across the Traditions”

call for papers: “Objects Across the Traditions”
— Read on

Communication across the disciplines.

I feel that what we are finding today, which is really still within the postmodern dilemma, is that the institution, or the manner of methodological propriety, has defined a space of activity where the subject agent is supposed to recall and retain The products of their own intuition against the possibility of another’s. Post modernity has defined a space that is walled off, or as I say partitioned, From, as Badiou has said, difference as difference.

If you notice this is the second call for papers. I am not yet in academic circles to know what all this paper is and second and calling for papers and all that stuff really means, and I could be wrong but it seems to me that they’re having a second calling for papers because not enough people could come up with good ideas along this topic.

The crisis of academia, I feel, could be that the institutional methods applied over time has yielded a state of utter competition over cooperation; rather the cooperation is viewed through the contradiction of exclusive subjectivity being able to bridge a gap into universal objectivity. The institution and our society in general has a difficult time in figuring out how to be cooperative whilst in competition.

It seems to me that in the more rigorous theoretical disciplines, this is a severe problem. One of the reasons I feel is because within this end time methodological results people are resistant toward a common pedagogical framework. We find this levied against Harman and his object oriented ontology, As well as Bruno Latour’s An inquiry into modes of existence project; these two philosophers, amongst a few more that I know of, have attempted to lay down a general framework through which Disse plans may bridge their exclusive content. Hi see these in response to an ever increasing Lee closed subjectivity on one hand, and a subjectivity that is so open that it defies bridging anything. particularly with philosophy, or the more philosophically grounded disciplines, The results of the method has made it ultra skeptical, meta-deconstructionist and generally antagonistic towards any sort of unitive frame work that might be able to accomplish a platform of cooperation. It’s as if the acid test of deconstructive modes is supposed at some point to yield a bridge into some other domain. It seems obvious to me that this particular modeyields nothing but itself, and more of it.

What I see is a paradigm of thinkers that are more concerned with the trees than they are with the forest. If I may overgeneralize most probably, they are in capable of reading in a manner of the sort that Derrida talks about through his work, or Barthes.

Difference as difference means to me that I have to take a risk, to give up what I think is true for the sake of understanding what I see through that truth as false.

But I’m not sure that career academia allows this. Or at least this is something of a subjectivity that academics need to work out for themselves.

I am glad that I will be able to be a part of this community soon. But for now, I am not educated or skilled in the proper manner of submitting papers, or I would probably write one up just because they’re calling for papers again. Lol. And I wonder if due to the fact that I’m lacking an extension of letters after my name if they would even consider it as a viable candidate to print. Who knows ?

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

7 thoughts on “An Occasion to Discuss Our Current Methodological Block:: Call for papers: “Objects Across the Traditions””

    1. I generally don’t discuss things I’m unfamiliar with. Conversely, I discuss things I’m familiar with. I agree philosophy examines, or should examine, everything – but that doesn’t mean I’ll still know. So I just had a radio interview the other day where the host asked me a question and I responded “not to my knowledge but someone who knows more may say differently.” Philosophy is at the root of everything as it is the fundamental study of reality. But we all know the real enemy: time! :p

      1. Oh… so that is why I think the question of what philosophy Can address, what it is actually capable of addressing to still be useful or sensible, is significant. Philosophy is the only discipline that seems to never ask itself this question.

  1. I wonder if you’ve thought of this, as I have, but I think existentialism signaled the “end” of philosophy as it returned us to the pre-Socratic outlook on things. Nietzsche, famously, understood Hegel as ushering in the end of philosophy which was the end of history. What I mean is, though trained in philosophy among other disciplines, when I refer to myself as a philosopher, that’s really just to denote a descriptive term that acknowledges my education in philosophy. If you consider philosophy as the original creation of a metaphysics, ontology, ethics, epistemology, and aesthetics, few if any “philosophers” today are doing such projects. Rather, we are all either historians of philosophy or align with a certain school and tradition and that this becomes a cause of our inability to communicate with each other as people are firmly situated in their tradition. Speaking honestly about myself, I clearly see myself situated within certain traditions and drawing from Platonism, neo-Platonism, Augustinianism, Hegelianism, and Marxianism, but I’m not actually engaged in offering a new metaphysic, ontology, ethic, epistemology, or aesthetic.

    Take someone like Zizek who is just repackaging Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. Or Dennet who is just repacking Baconian materialism with evolutionary psychology. Or Appiah who is just repacking Kantian universal cosmopolitanism. There may be slight alterations here and there but there is, if we’re being honest, nothing particularly new. And as we entrench ourselves in our particular tradition we become blind to the other schools.

    1. I’ve never actually put it into those words. So yes and thx. Sometimes I notice stuff. But it takes someone else to say it.

      I speak of. “Conventional “Philosophy Which sounds like what you’re saying about like ‘traditional’.

      But also. I talk about how there is a confusion in philosophy because the discernment you make is not often noticed.

    2. I’ve also suggested we ask the question “what is philosophy capable of doing and what it is allowed to do”.

      I feel that, like it appears your self, people should admit to what kind of philosophy they’re doing. Because I feel that in the types of philosophy, which I haven’t really outlined except to say conventional, The cross discussion-year-olds a sort of cloud of confusion and philosophy.

      Of course we have all sorts of levels of readers and thinkers, but I feel that there are certain types of philosophy that go beyond our typical categories such as epistemology and ontology and whatever other ologies.

      I could be wrong and I could be way overgeneralizing, but the simple thing that you just admitted with no apology behind it whatsoever and what appears to me as a full acceptance that there are other philosophers who are not treating philosophy in the same way, is something that I get a broad impression that most people will not admit, behind the idea that my idea is better than yours or I know the arguments better than you as if everything can be reduced to one kind of philosophy.

      The book I’m writing right now is about this very topic. actually.

      I feel that one of the problems is is because I can’t point to a particular kind a philosopher without those philosophers getting offended and coming back at me as if I don’t know what I’m talking about and here’s all the information in arguments I have behind it to tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Sorry this reply is getting a little long.😜

      I don’t remember if I told you this anecdote. There’s one guy on here who has a Lotta good things to say I think overall, but the only way that you can discuss anything with him, the only way that you’re allowed by him to argue with him is to use the same terms as him, to basically stay with in one particular frame of understanding that uses a particular dictionary of terms that means specific things. And if you don’t use those terms he gets a big head and starts to insult you, or I should say he started insulting me personally even though I was agreeing with him and then offering something more to contemplate.

      He could not even see that I was agreeing with him. And this guy is a professor emeritus at some university.

      It makes me wonder what a PhD or what a position at a university even means. I mean like that one dude Scott Peterson or whatever his name was it he’s semi Noah ball right now, lol.

      Anyways. 🤘🏾

    3. Oh. If I wasn’t clear: I think it’s excellent that you just admit what you do how you look at things what philosophy you do and within that I would imagine that if you came up always come upon by an issue that you felt was outside if your domain you could have the integrity enough to say hey my area is lacking in to respond to that or I could respond to it in this way but I’m not sure if that would be sufficient .etc..

      But it’s as if philosophy meaning this thing that everyone has access to, that they can buy reading various papers submitted wherever in professional channels or not so professional or whatever , Philosophy is understood in the most general sense to mean that everyone has access to all information about philosophy. It is the only discipline I would say that has that kind of liberal application. Every other discipline knows it’s limits and is comfortable with in those limits. Philosophy, on the other hand, assumes that it has the privilege and the right to address every category there is as to whether it’s right or wrong correct or incorrect good or bad.

      Now what I suggest is that sure there is a kind a philosophy that can take all things that are possible and being presented and address them to all other things, and that’s totally fine; I call that conventional philosophy.

      But then because that this philosophy is assumed to be every philosophy that can be nobody who claims philosophy as hell allowed to have any sort of informational privilege or content privilege.

      I think this is unique in philosophy and doesn’t occur in any other human endeavor.

Leave a Reply to landzek Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s