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

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.

Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Time: 3:15pm – 5:00pm*
Location: University Student Union 307 (Pasadena Room)
Topic: Whitehead’s Cosmic Epochs and Contemporary Cosmology

Please join us Tuesday, March 2 as Leemon McHenry (CSUN) offers a lecture/PowerPoint presentation on process philosophy and, particularly, Whitehead’s cosmology. …To read an introductory essay on metaphyics written by Dr. McHenry, click here. See pages 43-46 and the section entitled “Events vs. Substances” for a few basic arguments that motivate process philosophy. Note, however, that Dr. McHenry’s talk Tuesday will go beyond these basics. His abstract:

Recent developments in cosmology and particle physics have led to speculation that our universe is merely one of a multitude of universes. While this notion, the multiverse theory, is highly contested as a legitimate scientific theory, it has nonetheless struck many physicists as a necessary consequence of the effort to construct a final theory. In his masterpiece, Process and Reality (1929), Alfred North Whitehead advanced a cosmology as part of his more general metaphysics of process. Part of this project involved a theory of cosmic epochs which bears a remarkable affinity to current cosmological speculation. This talk demonstrates how the basic framework of a multiverse theory is already present in Whitehead’s cosmology.

*Immediately following the lecture, stay for a finger-food reception to be held in the same room. It will be an interesting talk. Hope you can attend!

Date: Wednesday, February 17. 2010
Time: 7:00pm
Location: L.A. Central Library, 630 W. 5TH ST.
Topic: Breakthroughs in Science from Pythagoras to Heisenberg

Come join us for a free Q&A at the L.A. Central Library [ALOUD]

Philosopher and science historian Robert P. Crease tells the stories behind ten of the greatest equations in human history. Was Nobel laureate Richard Feynman really joking when he called Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations the most significant event of the nineteenth century? How did Newton’s law of gravitation influence young revolutionaries? Why has Euler’s formula been called “God’s equation,” and why did a mysterious ecoterrorist make it his calling card? What role do betrayal, insanity, and suicide play in the second law of thermodynamics? The Great Equations tells the stories of how these equations were discovered, revealing the personal struggles of their ingenious originators. From “1 + 1 = 2″ to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Crease locates these equations in the panoramic sweep of Western history, showing how they are as integral to their time and place of creation as are great works of art.

If you’re interested, make reservations yourselves and reserve your seat here.
For more information, contact: Joel @ (626) 437-8126

Film’s power is in the spectacle. As an event that is seen or witnessed, it becomes object that is impressive, unusual, or disturbing. Thus some say cinema belongs up on the big screen. Yet, homebound and riding out the violent storms also presents a suitable mood to watch a film and since the film is mainly talking heads, I feel larger screens may be substituted for smaller ones. Stay dry, check it out, and reply what you think about the flick.

Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009
Time: 6:30pm – 9:30pm
Location: On Campus, Room KH B3012
Topic: Disputing Transcendence

.
Please join us in the next discussion group. We’ll be discussing Spinoza’s Ethics, beginning where Spinoza begins, with metaphysics. If we could discuss two of Spinoza’s critiques against transcendence, as a plausible response to two notorious philosophical problems that are inherited from Descartes’ definition of substance and his latter use (or misuse) of that term. The infamous philosophical problem of Cartesian dualism appears from attempting to explain the interaction between two, purportedly, distinct substances. Spinoza’s analysis develops from taking up seriously Descartes’ first definition of substance, as that what requires nothing but itself to exist, and then just consistently following it through to all of its rational implications. For those of you who are particularly ambitious, you can read the entire text here or you may just click on any of the appropriate links below.

.

The first critique is of God as the transcendent cause of nature. How can a non-material God interact at all with a material world?
Reading: PART I. Of God.

Prop. XVIII. God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.

Proof.–All things which are, are in God, and must be conceived through God (by Prop. xv.), therefore (by Prop. xvi., Coroll i.) God is the cause of those things which are in him. This is our first point. Further, besides God there can be no substance (by Prop. xiv.), that is nothing in itself external to God. This is our second point. God, therefore, is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. Q.E.D

Reading: Appendix. (read if you read nothing else)
Spinoza highlights not only his major moves taking place in Part I, but also lays out some astonishing insights into motivations behind some prejudices and misconceptions we have of our own nature, primarily the propensity of imagining an anthropomorphic God, or in another way, conceiving of Nature as having a goal. This goal we interpret to believe to be for our own sake and form abstract notions for the explanation of the nature of things, such as good and evil, beautiful and ugly, and more of the like. These notions are our imagination and we confused them as proper understanding of true nature. In regards to style, where Nietzsche clears up by way of the hammer, Spinoza makes clear by way of seeing through a polished glass lens.

.

The second is a critique of minds as the causes of their bodies’ actions. How can the mind that is non-material interact with the world, which is material?
Reading: PART II. & PART III.

Prop. II. Body cannot determine mind to think, neither can mind determine body to motion or rest or any state different from these, if such there be.

Proof.–All modes of thinking have for their cause God, by virtue of his being a thinking thing, and not by virtue of his being displayed under any other attribute (II. vi.). That, therefore, which determines the mind to thought is a mode of thought, and not a mode of extension; that is (II. Def. i.), it is not body. This was our first point. Again, the motion and rest of a body must arise from another body, which has also been determined to a state of motion or rest by a third body, and absolutely everything which takes place in a body must spring from God, in so far as he is regarded as affected by some mode of extension, and not by some mode of thought (II. vi.); that is, it cannot spring from the mind, which is a mode of thought. This was our second point. Therefore body cannot determine mind, &c. Q.E.D.

Notes on the Text: Translated from the Latin by R.H.M. Elwes (1883) This edition of the Ethics utilizes internal hypertext coding to faciilitate the logical analysis of Spinoza’s reasoning; because inferences and explications can be easily scrutinized via clickable links to the definitions, axioms, postulates, and theorems of the system. MTSU Philosophy WebWorks Hypertext Edition © 1997

.

I’ll look forward to seeing you all there! There is a lot of stuff going on in this reading not mentioned that is worth mentioning so please share your thoughts, ask your questions, submit your complaint and post your comment here.

Date: Thursday, 29 October 2009
Time: 6:30pm – 9:30pm
Location: On Campus, Room E&T A331

We felt that everyone here could benefit from experiencing a little more art with their philosophy, so we are presenting a series of open discussions about philosophy in film. Serving as our hors d’œuvre, a sort of sampler before moving on to heavier dishes, we begin with, Waking Life Directed by Richard Linklater.

Please come by and share your thoughts and post your comment here. Feel free to ask questions, suggest films, criticize a segment from the flick.
You should come. You’re in for a darned good show. You all should come!

At this party, we will spend some time discussing Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty.”  Although I recommend the entire paper, I think that the first ~9 pages (Introduction, Section 1, and Section 2) will be sufficient if you’re short on time!

Again, if you plan to attend, please RSVP to csulaphilosophyclub@gmail.com by Tuesday, May 26.

Hope to see you there!

According to Wikipedia, “Jesus Camp is a 2006 American documentary directed by Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing about a Pentecostal/charismatic summer camp for children who spend their summers learning and practicing their ‘prophetic gifts’ and being taught that they can ‘take back America for Christ.’ According to the distributor, it ‘doesn’t come with any prepackaged point of view’ and tries to be ‘an honest and impartial depiction of one faction of the evangelical Christian community’.”

Please come and share your thoughts and insight!

Theresa