Foaming at the mouth to read this play by Stephen Squibb, the smartest high church literary-philosophical intellectual I ever met, that just got published at n+1 https://t.co/Qh3TYYyH2m
I’m seeing lots of skepticism re this new text, and I’m here to say that we as thinkers have to take the revolution in quantum physics seriously. It’s the final nail in the coffin for the Cartesian subject, and we rly must have broad ranging discussions of QP’s implications.
Regimes of power/knowledge are just modes of representation which are as material as modes of production, just in a different way. Foucault is too imprecise for my taste but he is not the anti-materialist some comrades take him for
@booksoftitans So, again, you’re meant to be annoyed and confused by that sentence, because Plato’s point is that an approach to Being that can’t account for something as basic as *motion* is a dead end. It has to be
@booksoftitans We don’t get a dialogue dedicated to the philosopher so we have to piece it together from theaetetus, sophist and statesman, negatively, as it were. But certainly one aspect of the philosopher is that he does not traffic in spectacularly confusing accounts of Being!
@theo_nash That would only be the case if we knew for certain it was *not* staged after the plague. And a straightforward political reading of the play could suggest that it was, especially read alongside the relevant Thucydides and Aristophanes. None of this rises to the level of theory
George Henry Lewes, life partner of George Eliot, has a very good summary critique of Bacon’s ostensible novelty vis a vis Aristotle’s logic; Bacon indisputably important, but any greatness is regional
Francis Bacon is easily among the greatest philosophers to have ever lived
His text “The New Atlantis” alone qualifies him among the greatest, but consider the depths of his “Advancement of Learning” and his “New Organon”
Always “new”—understand why and you understand Modernity
This poor guy is demonstrating in real time why you absolutely positively have to switch Parmenides and Cratylus in the thrasyllan canon. B/c you cannot understand sophist if you have not read Parmenides
Here’s to hoping the third time is the charm. I’m reading Plato’s Sophist for a third time using a third translation. I’ve struggled to understand this dialogue. This time, I’ve spent time trying to obtain a guide to follow as I read through it again. I’ve done that by poring over the introduction in this book and by seeking reading guides online to help facilitate this reading. I’m just a few pages in. Let’s see how this goes.
but because English lacks a really good translation for eidolon (‘model’ is probably closest in this case) it’s really hard to track the different species of representation the dialogue is cataloging. But it’s my favorite Plato; the master at his most ironic, hilarious & humane
Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Euthydemus (4th) Protagoras, Eryxias, Gorgias, Meno (5th) Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias, Ion, Menexenus (6th) clitophon, republic, Timaeus, critias (7th) - 7 tetralogies, no apocrypha, except for Eryxias which gets a pass for being real good
Thrasyllus predates the neo-platonists and is a lot closer to the correct order than they were. Correct order is: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo (first tetralogy) Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Politicus (2nd) Cratylus, Philebus, Symposium, Phaedrus (3rd)…
That's because modern editions have butchered the proper order of the dialogues.
Old Platonists like Iamblichus and Proclus had a specific order in their curriculum.
Thomas Taylor is the only one to have imitated this attempt with the full 36 dialogues.
Guenonfag.