spinoza research network

One of my jobs at the university is getting to be the assistant to Dr. Beth Lord on the Spinoza Research Network project. Part of my role is maintaining and updating the website. Not sure how many of you came across the previous one, but we just put a new version of the site up, now based on the more user friendly wordpress model.

You can visit the website here.

For all of those interested in Spinoza, be sure to check out the information on the ‘Spinoza and Bodies’ conference which will take place in Dundee this fall, as well as the podcast which are available from last month’s ‘Thinking with Spinoza’ conference at Birkbeck College.

Lynch on the Latin American Turn

Good friend and blogger Thomas Lynch just posted his notes from the conference held at Birkbeck last week called “The Latin American Turn: On the Unfinished Project of Decolonisation”. I was incredibly disappointed to be unable to attend the event, especially as one of my living philosophical heroes, Enrique Dussel, was presenting.

You can read all about it here.

One brief side note: it’s interesting that when Birkbeck holds large events featuring prominent European/American speakers, they charge for attendance. But when they feature an event with an equally established group of Latin American scholars, it’s free. Interesting.

good response…

…to some of the recent ‘happenings’ from i.t.

An excerpt:

I’m sure that people in much more serious physical trouble – heavy addiction, sickness exacerbated by poverty, those who have suffered bodily abuse – are unlikely to celebrate their oh-so-exciting degradation and would probably prefer access to free, high-quality healthcare. There is something horrible, truly horrible, about people who have access to clean water, enough food and adequate shelter celebrating ‘the rot of the flesh’ and ‘contamination’ as if it were sexy. Go and lick open wounds and tube seats if you think it constitutes an interesting philosophical position.

read the rest here

the lawsuit?

Just when it looks like the ‘leiter wars’ are starting to wind down, he goes and threatens Graham with a lawsuit.

I’m sure the courts in egypt will tremble when they see that the legendary and all powerful Brian Leiter is faxing over a lawsuit from his chicago office. As funny as this all is, it’s terribly sad that someone like this can climb the academic ranks and end up with a chair at one of the more prestigious universities in the United States. I guess enough well placed kisses on enough of the right asses can do wonders in academia.

I must say, however, that if Leiter’s lawsuit forces Graham out of house and home, he’ll have a place to stay in Scotland, as I guess it’d be ‘my fault’.

If anyone has an endless supply of money, we should take turns sending books/journals of a recent continental vein to Leiter’s office. Or maybe someone in chicago can leave a flaming bag of crap outside his door?

the board.

Graham provides a link to the editorial board Leiter was so dismissive of. Here are some names:

Alain Badiou

Donna Haraway

Graham Harman

Bruno Latour

Antonio Negri

Yep. Bunch of ‘no names’ indeed.

A Leiter Report

In the past 24 hours I’ve somehow managed to enter into a bit of online disagreement with the (in)famous Brian Leiter, who is famous for, um, having a blog. Occasionally I check this blog to see what’s happening on the other side of the divide, and occasionally there is some interesting material. Yesterday there was a post asking why there was not more open access journals in philosophy.  The original post can be seen here. For those who don’t want to visit that site for moral reasons, here is the post:

I’d love to see philosophers discuss open access philosophy journals.  

Some observations:  (1) In many sciences, some of the most prestigious journals are now open access. 

 (2) In philosophy, only one open access journal (Philosophers’ Imprint) has a good enough reputation to be ranked among the 20 best philosophy journals (as per the ranking recently published in Leiter Reports); the top philosophy journals remain the usual ones.  

 (3) Some commercial publishers, such as Bentham, are now trying to establish for profit, open access philosophy journals, but their quality is questionable.

High quality, open access philosophy journals seem to be both desirable and feasible – witness Philosophers’ Imprint, not to mention the many prestigious open access journals in other fields.  Why aren’t there more prestigious open access philosophy journals?  Why haven’t open access journals been able to threaten the dominance of the old philosophy journals in the way they have done in other fields?

I found this an interesting issue, and since there are some very interesting online open access journals in recent European (or, continental) philosophy, decided to post a response, which read:

Not sure if this crowd will be a fan, but, there are a good number of quality open access journals dealing with recent European/continental philosophy. Some examples would be Cosmos and History, Parrhesia, and Phaenex [...] I can only speak for those working in contemporary European philosophy, but much of the work being produced in journals such as these (and, the new french/english online journal Nessiea:http://nessie-philo.com/) are putting out much more exciting research than many of the more ‘established’ print journals in contemporary European philosophy [...]

to which Dr. Leiter responded:

I do not have the impression that, even among those working in recent Continental philosophy, that these journals are especially well-regarded.

I then attempted to post a polite defense of my original post that said:

Brian,
I’m not sure if that’s true, I’m a graduate student [at a continental department] and some of the figures who’ve had work published in these journals: Alain Badiou, Daniel Smith, Adrian Johnston, James Williams, Alberto Toscano, Bruno Bosteels, Miguel de Beistegui, Alexander García Düttmann,Christian Kerslake; are some of the most well regarded people working in the field [...] And I can absolutely guarantee that these journals are all well read by graduate students who work in recent European philosophy.

This is where Dr. Leiter started to get mad at me. He refused to approve this comment, and sent me this email response:

Without a full name attached to these comments, no one can evaluate them.  But I also think it not advisable to pursue this.  The people you list, Badiou excepted, are minor figures, and the editorial boards of some of the journals you mention are extremely weak.  I don’t think you need to go out on a limb on this.

I was a bit surprised, as I said nothing aggressive or combative, and was surely not ‘going out on a limb’. If anything, I was just trying to share what was happening on the continental side of things in regards to open access journals. So I wrote him this response:

Sorry for the lack of full name [...] While those people may be minor figures to some, they are some of the most notable figures working contemporary European philosophy, and to any student/scholar working on people like Bergson, Deleuze, Sartre, Laruelle, or Badiou, they are household names. Sorry for bringing up a conversation on your blog you’d rather not have, but at the same time, for those of us working on continental philosophy in the UK, many of the people I listed are in fact notable figures. sorry for making it seem as if I was going out on a limb, just trying to share some open access journals that myself and colleagues have found useful.

At this point, I was still trying to be as polite as possible to someone who was treating me like an idiot. But of course, Dr. Leiter had to get his last word in:

Having recently finished editing with Michael Rosen The Oxford Handbook of Continental Philosophy, which included quite a bit on contemporary European philosophy, I do not share your assessment, and I’m sure Michael Rosen doesn’t share it either.   I think it would be highly misleading to students and young philosophers to suggest that these on-line journals would be good places to publish.

So, because Brian Leiter and Michael Rosen (prof. of government at Harvard), two figures I’ve never heard anyone working in recent European philosophy reference, edited a book that no one I know actually working in continental philosophy has read or taken seriously (in all fairness, a few really good people have chapters, but the book is clearly written for an analytic crowd, as the notre dame review evidences) he knows whats happening in continental philosophy and who the important figures are? Absolute bullshit. The guy has pretty much no idea what he’s talking about, and somehow gains some satisfaction from being a complete asshole to well intentioned graduate students on the damn internet.  Him telling me that a government professor wouldn’t agree with my assessment on interesting journals in recent European philosophy is equally idiotic, as being a graduate student in a well regarded continental department who actively participates in the British continental philosophy community, I think I can humbly say I’d be a better judge than him, or Leiter for that fact.

People like Leiter seem like they just take out the fact they were bullied in high school out on anyone who disagrees with them. His general attitude (as well as his ranking system) represents the sort of thing which is ruining the beauty of the discipline of philosophy. The guy is, to be blunt, a pretentious dick, and thus I see no problem in publicly proclaiming that here. But then again, what else would one expect from a guy who waits until someone (Derrida) dies and then mocks a well intentioned obituary. The worst thing about the internet is the way it’s created space for complete cowards, and bullies, to sit behind the safety of their computer screen mocking the world around them.

The report is out, Leiter is an ass.

Speculative Realism Event

Speculative Materialism/Speculative Realism

Ray Brassier

Iain Hamilton Grant

Graham Harman

Quentin Meillassoux

Friday 24th April 2009

UWE Bristol, St Matthias Campus UK

——–

This is all the information that’s out thus far, so mark your calenders I suppose!

on the idea of communism

On the Idea of Communism – Conference 13th,14th & 15th March

“It’s just the simple thing that’s hard, so hard to do.”(B.Brecht)

The year of 1990 stands for the triple defeat of the Left: the retreat of the social-democratic Welfare State politics in the developed First World, the disintegration of the Soviet-style Socialist states in the industrialized Second World, and the retreat of emancipatory movements in the Third World. A certain epoch was thereby over, the epoch which began with the October Revolution and was characterized by the Party-State form of organization. Does this mean that the time of radical emancipatory politics is over?

In recent years, there are multiple signs which indicate the need for a new beginning. The utopia of the 1990, the Fukuyamaist “end of history” (liberal-democratic capitalist as the finally found natural social order) died twice in the first decade of the XXIst century. While the 9/11 attacks signaled its political death, the financial crisis of 2008 signals its economic death. In these new conditions, the task is not only to reflect on new strategies, but to radically rethink the most basic coordinates of emancipatory politics. One should go well beyond the rejection of the Party-State Left in its “Stalinist” form – a common place today -, and extend this rejection to the entire field of the “democratic Left” as the strategy to reform the system from within its representative-democratic state form. Much more than the debacle of the Really-Existing Socialism, the defeat of 1990 was the final defeat of this “democratic Left.” This defeat raises the question: is “Communism” still the name to be used to designate the horizon of radical emancipatory projects? In spite of their theoretical differences, the participants share the thesis that one should remain faithful to the name “Communism”: this name is potent to serve as the Idea which guides our activity, as well as the instrument which enables us to expose the catastrophes of the XXth century politics, those of the Left included.

The symposium will not deal with practico-political questions of how to analyze the latest economic, political, and military troubles, or how to organize a new political movement. More radical questioning is needed today – this is a meeting of philosophers who will deal with Communism as a philosophical concept, advocating a precise and strong thesis: from Plato onwards, Communism is the only political Idea worthy of a philosopher.

“The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action. Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher. Let everyone bother about his own affairs, and let us stop talking about it. In this case, the rat-man is right, as is, by the way, the case with some ex-communists who are either avid of their rents or who lost courage. However, to hold on to the Idea, to the existence of this hypothesis, does not mean that we should retain its first form of presentation which was centered on property and State. In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself.” (Alain Badiou)

Speakers: Judith Balso, Alain Badiou, Bruno Bosteels, Terry Eagleton, Peter Hallward, Michael Hardt, Jean-Luc Nancy, Toni Negri, Jacques Ranciere, Alessandro Russo, Alberto Toscano, Gianni Vattimo, Wang Hui, Slavoj Zizek

booking just re-opened for the third time on this conference. if you want to go and haven’t registered yet I suggest you book asap. the line-up for this thing is just too good.

more info and booking here

logics of worlds update(s)

Seeing as continuum’s website has long stated today was the day that Badiou’s Logics of Worlds would be released to ravage the english speaking world, I woke up surprised to see none of the major book retailers listing it available on their websites. I then went to the continuum website, where they are taking orders for the book. Being as naive as I am, I placed my order.

Well, infinite thought has just posted this update on the forthcoming release of LW where she lets us know:

it’s looking like March at the earliest.

the wait continues.

also, another upcoming Badiou translation just hit amazon. looks like by the end of 2009 almost everything he wrote will be tranlsated. this has the be one of the quickest translation shit-storms in the history of french philosophy.

Badiou conference in glasgow

Paul, Political Fidelity and the Philosophy of Alain Badiou: a Discussion of Incident at Antioch.

A Conference at the University of Glasgow
13-14 February, 2009

Schedule
13th February, 2009 (Western Infirmary Lecture Theatre)

14.30-16.00
Reading of Selections from Alain Badiou’s Incident at Antioch

16.00-16.30
Break

16.30-18.00
Interview with Alain Badiou
Ward Blanton (Glasgow) and Susan Spitzer (Los Angeles)

18.00-19.15
Reception

14th February, 2009 (Wolfson Medical School, Seminar Rm 1)

10-11.15
The Use of Forcing: Badiou, Paul and Messianism
Kenneth Reinhard (University of California, Los Angeles)

11.30-12.45
Paul, Badiou and the Event as Gift
John Barclay (University of Durham)

13-14.30
Lunch

14.30-15.30
Ernst Bloch and Aristotle’s dynámei ón: Not-Yetness, Hope and the Promise of the Universal
Peter Thompson (University of Sheffield, Ernst Bloch Centre)

15.45-16.45
Theatre and Politics, Althusser to Badiou
Patrick Lyons (University of Glasgow)

17-18.10
Response & Invitation to Open Discussion
Johan Van der Walt (University of Glasgow, School of Law)

18.15-19.30
Reception

The conference is free and open to the public.

Click HERE for the flyer (pdf)