October 9, 2013 § 46 Comments
[Photo: Casey Cripe]
Alva Noë recently posted a short commentary on the entanglement of science and values. I think readers will be interested in it. At first blush Noë’s point is fairly straight forward: Science and values are always entangled because the very characteristics science depends on — reason, consistency, coherence, plausibility, and replicability — are themselves values. Without some kind of agreement that these are the values that best serve the creation of scientific facts there would be no foundation upon which the sciences could maintain consistency. Science depends on a set of extra-scientific decisions, and we need to pursue and cultivate these decisions in order for the possibility of science to emerge in the first place. Simple enough. « Read the rest of this entry »
September 17, 2013 § 3 Comments
Cognitive ethology is the study of animal minds, and it provides essential insights into the ontology of ecosystems—most recently in regards to the relation between ecology and time. Throughout history, human beings have been captivated by animal minds. We have, for example, writings from Plutarch, Hippocrates, and Pythagoras musing on the nature and status of animals. In the case of Pythagoras, many of these writings date back to c. 530 BCE; however, given that we know humans have lived in deliberate multispecies societies for at least 100,000 years (as is the case with human-canine relations, which have existed for almost as long as the human species itself has), it is uncontroversial to claim that humans have been speculating on the nature of nonhumans for at least as long, and certainly much longer than the philosophers of ancient Greece. « Read the rest of this entry »
May 21, 2013 § 5 Comments
May 21, 2013 § 7 Comments
Cosmopolitics and reconstituting worlds; Concrete political clashes between worlds; 1995 majority of French population believes the future of their children to be worse than their own; the end of the trust in progress; Globalization; sacrifice for competition; Political Ontology; civilizing modern practices
What are concepts good for? Science wars—scientists and critical thinkers—rationality, universality; modern hegemony—knowledge cannot be about representation only
Concepts have a power; the self-confirming power of representationalism; the concept of practice is introduced to divide scientists (to break “Science” up); open up a space for thought in which the monolithic figure of objective knowledge is broken
Reformulating the claims of the sciences rather than directly denying them—situating objectivity as a rare achievement. The particular and exceptional nature of objective interpretation; the general reduction. « Read the rest of this entry »
October 16, 2012 § 4 Comments
I will be giving a talk this Thursday (10-18-12) on Isabelle Stengers’ book Thinking with Whitehead. My lecture is part of a 15-week graduate seminar on Bergson, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Stengers being taught at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco.
My talk will focus on (briefly) situating Whitehead within the contemporary philosophical landscape, and will then move on to discuss Whitehead’s critique of the bifurcation of nature as articulated in his work The Concept of Nature (which takes up the first 100 or so pages of Stengers’ book). There will of course be plenty of input from Stengers included as well.
It’s been quite a lot of fun re-reading Stengers’ book with an eye to explaining the concepts she covers to students unfamiliar with them. On my first read of the book I remember feeling that this book is best suited for more advanced students of Whitehead — a work best enjoyed after reading many of Whitehead’s primary texts. This time around, however, I found Stengers much more accesible, but maybe that’s just my increased familiarity with her style.
For those interested a draft of the paper I will be working from is available HERE.