Check this out; Casey Kolodin has planned a refreshing two summer evening event. But no worries if you can only make one day.

First, MOCA is doing an Arshile Gorky retrospectve. It would make for an interesting discussion, as Gorky’s work is in many ways typically modern, and therefore, somewhat inaccessible to a lot of people. People will probably have strong opinions on whether or not they liked his work, in any case. Gombrich’s essay offers an interesting inroad into thinking through abstraction and purely formal representation.

We will meet for the Arshile Gorky retrospectve on Thursday, July 29 @6pm at MOCA. MOCA is open til 8pm and free.

Next, the discussion on E.H. Gombrich’s essay ” Meditations on a Hobby Horse” will take place on the next day, Friday, July 30 @5:30pm at 466 E. Mariposa Street, Altadena, CA 91001. You can download then print the essay here. To combat the heat, bring your favorite beverage and a swim suit for the pool.

Source: Foucault at a lecture in Japan (DR) In Michel Foucault: Une histoire de la vérité, Paris: Syros, 1985, pp. 20-21.

“But then, what is philosophy today – philosophical activity, I mean – if it is not the critical work of thought on itself? And if it does not consist in the endeavour of knowing how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, rather than legitimating what is already known? There is always something ludicrous in philosophical discourse when it tries, from the outside, to dictate to others, to tell them where their truth is and how to find it, or when it presumes to give them naively positivistic instruction. But it is its right to explore what might be changed, in its own thought, through the practice of a knowledge that is foreign to it. The “essay” – which should be understood as the test by means of which one modifies oneself through the play of truth and not as the simplistic appropriation of others for the purpose of communication – is the living body of philosophy, at least if we assume that philosophy is still what it was in times past, i.e., an “ascesis”, an exercise of the self, in thought.” (trans. mod)   -Michel Foucault.

(1992) [1984]. The Use of Pleasure. The History of Sexuality Volume 2, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, pp. 8-9.

Fellow Philosophers,

Hope all is well with you.

On Wednesday May 19th at 6:10pm in room E&T A420 I will have the privilege of leading a short discussion on one of the most influential French thinkers of the 20th century. Foucault’s influence reaches beyond the discipline of philosophy. In fact, he is often thought of as a historian, sociologist, and a cultural theorist.

Unfortunately, Foucault is not taught in most Philosophy departments today due to the heavy emphasis on the analytical tradition. He can be a bit difficult to digest if you are not familiar with continental writers. However, I think his work is well worth the trouble.

Throughout the several years I have been in and out of school, I have not done enough homework to graduate but have done plenty of reading on my own (maybe too much). I can say that by far Foucault has left the most significant mark on my examined life.

This is the article we will use as a guideline for our discussion:

Please read: http://foucault.info/foucault/biography.html.

When trying to choose a piece by Foucault:

1. I wanted the article to be short enough for most people to have the time to read,

2. I wanted the piece to be introductory but not a biographical piece written by a third party,

3. I wanted Foucault’s writing style and overall project to come through,

4. I also thought that it is fascinating to read a piece written by a philosopher on himself but from a third person perspective.

If you are looking for interesting links to look at in the meantime, here are a few:

http://www.michel-foucault.com/index.html

http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/foucault.home.html

Foucault’s extensive bibliography:

http://foucault.info/foucault/extensiveBibliography.pdf

Also, if you know a bit more about Foucault and are a fan of Chomsky:

just search YouTube for a video of a debate between them. I might bring this up in our discussion. This debate was more important than most people realize.

Enjoy and see you on 5/19/2010 at 6:10pm in room E&T A420

In my existentialism class, we kept coming up against this idea: is it possible to ever get outside of das Man ? … so eventually Mr. G G Allin was mentioned, as someone who perhaps chooses for himself the norms and values he lives by, a modern day Diogenes. Here is a a clip for those who might have been puzzled by the reference. There very well might be better interviews out there but I couldn’t resist putting up the Jerry Springer Show.

The following are some background facts and trivia from an academic take on “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”, presented by the CSULA Philosophy Club in Room KH B3018, 6:10pm – 10:00pm Wednesday, April 28th.

The movie’s setting is in the Province of Judea c. 30 CE, the same timeframe as the classic films Ben Hur and the Robe. Political rule of this region was maintained under an “ethnarch” , where an area was governed by military prefects. Of these the most famous is Pontius Pilate. When Herod the Great died, Augustus divided the kingdom between the three surviving sons, Herod Antipas (Galilee), Herod Philip I (Golan Heights), and Herod Archelaus (Samaria, Judea, and Edom) .

The Zealots were an anti-Romanist group who sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the holy land by force of arms .

“Life of Brian” was filmed in Tunisia and released in 1979. Directed by Terry Jones and featuring John Cleese, the most vocal of the comedy troupe, Monty Python’s Flying Circus (1969 to 1974).

(Back row:) Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, (Front row:) Terry Jones, John Cleese, Michael Palin of Monty Python, 1969

The film exhibits the comedy troupe’s penchant for being drawn to the taboo nature of mocking established religion. And there was quite a bit of backlash for it. Note the difference between blasphemy and heresy: blasphemy is considered the contradicting of teachings of the church, whereas heresy is taking something true and saying it is something else. Monty Python is not challenging the doctrines of the church, but its practitioneers. The group is also parodying misrepresentations in religion. Note the stoning scene involving the use of the supposedly sacred word “Jehovah!”

From Wikipedia: “The alleged representation of Christ proved controversial. Protests against the film were organised based on its perceived blasphemy. On its initial release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils – some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film for themselves.”

The film makes fun of the ancient world, its mythology, culture and history, all of which have been the subject of cinema practically since the invention of the medium.

These notes were compiled from from the Spring 2008 course CLAS 380 Myth, History and the Movies, Department of Classics, SFSU, Dr. Michael Anderson.

Hubert Dreyfus on Husserl and Heidegger

Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Time: 6:10pm – 10:00pm
Location: On Campus, Room: KH B3017

Come and check out our next philosophy in film discussion where we will talk about the flick, Fight Club directed by David Fincher. See you there.

And then, something happened. I let go. Lost in oblivion. Dark and silent and complete. I found freedom. Losing all hope was freedom.

* * *

God Damn! We just had a near-life experience, fellas.

Thanks to everyone who attended and generated questions and input to our club discussion on scientific explanation on Wednesday, Feb. 24th!

// Here is the link to Nancy Cartwright’s discussion group and paper (to which I referred most of my material and criticism):

*Causality: Metaphysics and Methods – Discussion Papers: www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/CPNSS-DPS/causalityDPseries.aspx

*”From Causation to Explanation and Back” by Nancy Cartwright/ PDF … The download link is located midway in the page, about 9th from the bottom …

// Some key points extracted from the text:
– Cartwright: Hume taught that discussion of “causation” was metaphysics and should be disregarded, as did the Logical Positivists. But Carnap salvaged some important metaphysical concepts, urging that there are many concepts that appear to be in the ‘material mode’ but would be more perspicuously expressed in the ‘formal mode’ — ie, there are many concepts that seem to be directly about the world but are really instead about our own theories and descriptions of the world. Various concepts of causation came to be treated in this way.
– Cartwright: In the eager attempt (due to influence of Hume & Positivists) to rid science of the concept of causality, One standard strategy has been to ‘reduce it away’, ie, to eliminate all use of causal notions and define causation purely in terms of “regular association” plus some other non-causal concepts like “temporal succession” and “spatio-temporal contiguity”. Nowadays the demand for absolutely regular association has given way.
– Cartwright: We have seen a number of accounts of “causal-explanatory relevance”, and I noted that there are also a variety of different accounts of “singular causal explanation” on offer. Which is the correct one? I shall suggest that probably they all are – each for a different kind of causal relation.
– Cartwright: At the level of general causal relevance, I am a strong advocate of causal diversity. We need a background model of the kind of causal system we are dealing with and of the way by which the putative cause is supposed to operate before we can devise a test, or a characterisation, for it. This means that settling matters of causal relevance requires either a lot of antecedent knowledge or a reasonable success at bootstrapping. This makes causal testing difficult, but not impossible. To proceed, however, we need far better accounts of the kinds of causal systems we may encounter and the variety of ways that a cause may operate within them.
– Cartwright: This need is the basis for the three-year project “Causality: Metaphysics and Methods” now underway at LSE, funded by the British Arts and Humanities Research Board.

– Question 1: How can Cartwright’s proposal for causal diversity in scientific explanation adequately address the historical problems associated with causation if such considerations are still formulated within a “causal” framework?
– Question 2: If we can come to terms with metaphysics playing a viable (though limited) role in the philosophy of science, then why couldn’t we expand the explanatory programme toward a wholistic approach (ie, where causation is but only a single component) that leans toward a phenomenological account of our world? That is, a phenomenological account of the diverse phenomena of our world may conceivably expand the explanatory programme beyond the confines of causation (at the same time, expanding the scope of empiricism). So by formulating a new approach to scientific explanation through a causal framework (which is how I am reading Cartwright’s proposal), are we not just shuffling around the same old causal problems into a new and diverse arrangement?

Thanks again, and see everyone at the next club function!

James@CSULA

Join the Philosophy Club for a group discussion on scientific explanation this Wednesday evening. The time & date is 6:10pm this Wednesday, February 24th; and the place is E&T A420.

We will be using Carl Hempel’s 1967 article on Scientific Explanation as the point of reference for our discussion. A link to Hempel’s article is included in this post.

We will discuss the ideas behind Hempel’s theory of scientific explanation and generate discussion on why other theories of explanation have challenged and replaced his, and why scientific explanation is still a problem for the philosopher of science today.

** Also, don’t forget that there is a general meeting at Dolcini’s Cafe the very same day (Wednesday the 24th) from 3:15-4:15pm.

Hope to see you there! Sincerely,

James @ the CSULA Philosophy Club

1967_hempel_scientific_explanation

Here is an audio recorded rehearsal of a play that friends and I put on about three years back, just for fun.

It’s based on “Is GOD a Taoist?” from The Tao is silent by Raymond M. Smullyan. (C) 1977 by Raymond M. Smullyan.