This has to be a joke, right? Very funny, guys. This is just an elaborate attempt to provoke me to start posting again, isn't it? I mean, no one could actually take seriously someone who purports to understand the standpoint and wisdom of plants! And even if this book were published, it's not like it would ever be reviewed in a respected journal, right? 

... oh. Well, shit.

Fine. Whatever. If this is a thing that's happening, then I call dibs on writing a follow-up piece on rocks, beginning with Aristotle's use of a stone to make a point about human habituation in the NE. Why should we think that rocks are mere objects to be used to illustrate points about the nature of human beings? We ought not to ignore the fact that rocks have a time, wisdom, and freedom all their own. I look forward to filling this egregious gap in the literature on... things.

  EDIT: Apparently the link-as-title wasn't obvious enough. 

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/39002-plant-thinking-a-philosophy-of-vegetal-life/

"Sexual Difference" - 1984

Commenters keep telling me that my problem is just that I haven't read enough continental philosophy. While I am of the opinion that I have read more than enough drivel to last me a lifetime, (I'll sometimes encounter drivel in analytic philosophy, but it's reassuring to study in a field where ridiculousness is the exception rather than the rule,) I have decided to indulge the critics and read a definitive continental work. Maybe if I read more, I will “get it”! Maybe I will have a revelation, convert to the other side, and after the obligatory period of sackcloth, ashes and self-flagellation, I will awaken. Indeed, as a butterfly emerges from its chrysalis, I will emerge reborn as someone who non-sarcastically babbles on about biopower at the drop of a hat. Fingers crossed.

Sexual difference is important, I guess. But why do we only get one issue per age, and what the hell is an “age” anyway? A generation? A century? Some sort of period in which one school of thought is dominant? But omg, if it's the latter, we may have a tautology on our hands. If an age is defined as the period of time in which one school of thought is dominant then obviously we can, as a whole, only be preoccupied with one main issue or whatever, because once another school of thought gains prominence, the age is question is over. It's fallacious magic. But whatever. I'll be charitable. Clearly Irigaray is just trying to underscore the importance of sexual difference in as fluff-ridden a manner as possible. One should learn to avoid this sort of content-less and overly dramatic introduction by one's sophomore year in college. Shameful. Anyway, our “age” is preoccupied with sexual difference, and sexual difference is our salvation/baby Jesus for our minds. Got it.

Jesus Fucking Christ. Okay, so it's super difficult to find an answer to the question of sexual difference. It is unclear what this question even consists in, but perhaps that's what makes it so difficult, (or something). In fact, everything except fertility is totes destructive. But wait, fertility is not just sexytime, unless you are a (reproduction-capable) couple, but it is about the West itself pooping out, not babies, but a new poetics. (But what is the question of sexual difference? ANSWER ME THAT, ARISTOTLE.) We get it, okay. Sexual difference is SO. SUPER. IMPORTANT. It will revolutionize everything in the world, etc.

Um, I love literature, but I sure don't want philosophy to become it, and I feel like philosophy (personified somehow?) doesn't want to become it either. And does the author even understand what ontology is? I seriously doubt it. And... Politics! Ladies in politics! But these ladies don't build their own foundations, so they are just prostitution whores. Or something. Good job, lady mayor. You won the election, but you're still building your success on a foundation of male-dominance so it means nothing! Build your own gynocentric foundation or GTFO. Yeah yeah, Freud was a sexist dick. Everyone knows that. Also, sexytime takes place in gender-specific parallel worlds. (Wait, are we talking about masturbation? Mutual masturbation? Or does her fancy ontology make room for new possible worlds splitting off every time a sexytime act occurs?!) Also, untraditional fertility encounters are rare, but isn't that what sperm banks and whatnot are for? Oh wait, this is a metaphor-type thing, I guess.

Okay, okay. Language is sexually-normative. Gender roles are a thing. Yeah, okay. God is presented as masculine. Some role reversal is happening, largely related to class struggle. This all makes sense. This is a nice little patch of lucidity, but it's also a completely non-illuminating rehash of old and obvious tropes about gender roles. Every reasonable individual understands these things. Oh, what's this? “In order to live and think through this difference, we must reconsider the whole question of space and time”. Ahem,

I've read the Critique of Pure Reason cover to cover without a single suicidal thought, but I can't make it three pages into this paper without wanting to put a gun in my mouth. I don't ever want to have to go back and piece together how Irigaray is misunderstanding Kant, but I am absolutely sure that nothing in the CPR supports the claim that the “subject” is “the master of time”. But A+ for name-dropping, Luce. Ugh.

Okay, just a bit more. For science.

Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm out. There's not enough alcohol in the world. The end.

So, just to clarify, I can either love someone for "the things they are like their beauty or intelligence", or I can love them for their... haecceity?

...and we're back!

So, posting obviously hasn't happened for a few months. I apologize to anyone who may care about that. Stress/real life is a bitch. However, I have been super amused by the little flame wars which have cropped up in the comments while I've been away. They are hilarious and wonderful and I want to thank everyone who gave the trolls a massive middle finger. There is one comment in particular that is so profoundly dumb as to warrant something special in the way of mockery, so look forward to some amateurish animation (or something). In the meantime we'll return to your regularly-scheduled obscene commentary, of which Bertrand Russell would NOT approve! INDIGNATION!

In the above video, Timothy Williamson explains why he chose to do analytic rather than continental philosophy.

The Principle of Sufficient Philosophy

The following is from Francois Laruelle's A Summary of Non-Philosophy. This is as good a point as any to laugh derisively at the very idea of "non-philosophy" as a practice, getting as many giggles/guffaws as possible out of the way before the soul-crushing inanity of it all sinks in.

Capitalization for extra SUPER DUPER EMPHASIS? Check. Inability to pick one fucking word to describe a concept? Check. Liberal use of standard continental buzzwords? Check.

Thank you, Francois, for bringing to our attention the nasty dirty incestuous narcissistic masturbatory nature of philosophy. I know my main goal in life is to (at least co-)determine that REAL which is most RADICAL!!!111!!!11!!!!1!!!111!!!!!11!

Fuck REASON. Philosophy is a totally different and self-contained thing, in which we all suck our own dicks. The end.

I don't know who originally said this. I'm not sure if it's continental philosophy, eastern philosophy or some sort of theory, but bullshit is bullshit. 

STFU, pretentious facebook "friend". As if farmville requests and Lady Gaga lyrics weren't bad enough. Asshole.

I can't add much to a friend of mine's response to the post quoted above.

Exactly. Where is my black hole technology?! I demand it. Also "wisdom", but no groundwork to help us know what the fuck we're even talking about.

This is from Nelson Maldonado-Torres' "Post-continental Philosophy: Its Definition, Contours, and Fundamental Sources".

It's essentially 30 pages of difficult to parse wankery, but one fascinating revelation is that (continental-style) philosophy, when done in the Caribbean etc., is actually post-continental philosophy because it's not, y'know, done on the European continent. 

In fact, our idea of continents itself is a tricky tricky illusion. Because it's not like we divide up the world based on landmarks and topography and shit. It is all because of racism. Yes. 

North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia? Don't forget Australia, don't forget Antarctica? FUCK THAT. Your entire preschool education was a lie. Because of metageography.

STFU, Torres.

Honestly, I hope this works. I'm curious to see how Zizek's intentional attempts at humor measure up to the inadvertent comic genius of his philosophizing.