Product Of Philosophy Research Articles

Parasitic Jedi

The article clarifies the status of philosophy’s “dark turn.” The dark is positioned as a kind of principle of what is “non-” - as non-environmental (Timothy Morton), non-joyous (Andrew Culp), non-affirmative (Benjamin Noys) etc. - and is deprived of a dark model for its own production and regarded as a “distortion” of existing types of philosophical endeavor such as the production of concepts (Gilles Deleuze). The article develops a dark method for production of philosophy by focusing on techniques that permit switching between the light and the dark rather than invoking the conflict between them. Philosophy’s crossing over to the dark side indicates an economy of the meme incorporated into it, which leads to a reiteration in philosophy of the theme of confrontation between the dark and light sides. To deal with this, philosophy must attend to the meme itself and make a choice not between the light and dark side, but between various memes about the dark and the light. Diverse memes dedicated to the confrontation between the dark and the light refer to distinct ways of arranging the two sides. The demarcation is based on different attitudes toward thought and the external. The author argues that the main memological tension in philosophy is centered on a “Jedi” version of the confrontation, on the one hand, and a reflexive model of thought derived from it, on the other. The reflexive model is grounded in a harmonious (transcendental) relationship between Jedi and the Force that exists in the Star Wars universe. The author presents the possibility that the Jedi version of light may be superseded by a dark model for the meme about the two sides which makes reference to the “Night Watch” and “Day Watch” books and movies franchise, as well as to parasitic, more sub-reflexive than non-reflexive relations with the Twilight.

Le sens-sans-signe: Pour une éthique de la création

The meaning-without-sign: For an ethics of creationThe following article is the result of a collaboration between a painter and a woman philosopher. They worked previously on an experimental documentary film about objects and art objects, which was realized at Palais de Tokyo. The painter had illustrated in black and white fictions of philosophy, written during a festival on lost films organized by UNdocumenta in South Korea, and then he made photographs of oil paintings of the English translation. This article about painting and philosophical ethics is their first common text. It aims to show that there is no interdiscipline or passage known between the philosophical work and the painting. The philosopher can not imitate the recognition of the painter nor the painter to repair the philosophical non-encounter. The question then is: What can ethics in this non-symmetrical space? Rather than being a product of philosophy, it is what organizes this space between recognition and non-encounter. It is an ethics for philosophy, rather than the other way around. Ethics force to greet the other philosophers without the grudge of the loss necessary to the invention and allows the painter to know the distances that make him feel the recognition. This ethical space is unknown and can not be covered by the artist's philosophy of access or pre-nomination by indexes. Ethics is this unknown, i.e. it is a sense-without-sign, it is without rules-said but process of indexation and acceptance of the loss.

The Intimacy of Thought: Philosophy as the Labor of Friendship

ABSTRACT This article considers Kant's polemic against Plato, the letter writer, in order to investigate the role of letters in the production of philosophy. It begins with a close reading of Kant's essay against Johann George Schlosser, then takes up Derrida's engagement with Kant's concept of the tone of philosophy, and then turns to a discussion of three female philosophers who used the letter, whether real or fictitious, to engage in the production of philosophy. Something even stronger is argued, namely, that in the genre of the philosophical letter there is something sui generis that renders it, as a locus of the material production of philosophy, vitally humanizing, individualizing, and generously inviting. Many who were traditionally excluded from the calling of philosophy, because of their gender, found in the genre of the letter a way both to discover their philosophical voice and to share in the joy of thinking with another.

Philosophy's Paralipomena: Diaries, Notebooks, and Letters

ABSTRACT This article considers the role of diaries, notebooks, letters, and, in general, what we assume to be personal, peripheral, and disposable autobiographical texts as indispensable to the very production of philosophy and the development of a literary style that will become the philosophical physiognomy of a philosopher's distinct thinking. This is argued by looking at the works of Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Sloterdijk, with the help of Arthur Schopenhauer and Amélie Oksenberg Rorty.

Philosophy's Paralipomena: Diaries, Notebooks, and Letters

This article considers the role of diaries, notebooks, letters, and, in general, what we assume to be personal, peripheral, and disposable autobiographical texts as indispensable to the very production of philosophy and the development of a literary style that will become the philosophical physiognomy of a philosopher's distinct thinking. This is argued by looking at the works of Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Sloterdijk, with the help of Arthur Schopenhauer and Amelie Oksenberg Rorty.

O professor de filosofia: o ensino de filosofia no ensino médio como experiência filosófica

O ensino de filosofia para jovens na escola justifica-se se esse for o ensino de criação de conceitos que dêem conta de seus problemas. Não há cisão entre filosofia e filosofar. O ensino de filosofia deve ser produção de filosofia como o fazem os filósofos, portanto o professor de filosofia deve ser filósofo. O ensino da disciplina filosófica no pensamento leva à criação de parâmetros filosóficos para o jovem criar a si e ao mundo de forma original e autônoma.

Policy Versus the Market: Transportation’s Battleground

The American transportation system is large, pervasive, decentralized, and an enormously important part of the economy. The public demands that it be efficient, available, reliable, and safe, and expects the government to ensure that these demands are met. For more than two decades we have also sought to reduce its highway dominance, reduce its consumption of energy, and reduce its negative environmental impacts. The fact that many of these efforts have failed raises the question of why the system seems so resistant to policy intervention. Americans believe that industry, including transportation, should be left to the private sector, subject to market principles, and competitive economics. Despite this, transportation has some special characteristics that have resulted in government's ownership of most of the fixed infrastructure, while the manufacture, ownership, and operation of vehicles (the big expense) are left in private hands. Government charges the private sector for the use of its facilities to maximize productivity and deal fairly with users. But determining these charges is complex and is necessarily the product of philosophy as well as sophisticated costing. It is the source of endless squabbling between modes and special interests. This tension-combined with the huge size of the system, the dominance of the private sector, its decentralization, and other factors-makes government intervention into the system on behalf of societal goals often challenging and sometimes unsuccessful.

Technology and Knowledge

Introduction Man is a restless animal. Apart from the appetites common to other animals — food, sex and a snooze — man conceives of innumerable things to do with his time which never occur to other species. If you ask 'Why?', you are embarking on philosophical enquiry. Activity and change require the expenditure of energy, an expenditure known as work when undertaken with reluctance, but as fun when embraced with enthusiasm. Inactivity, lack of change or snoozing need no work, but do not create fun. People like fun and put forth energy hoping to enjoy life. On many occasions they find only work, but with eternal hope, they will try again. These two sentences exemplify the product of philosophy: an explanation, a theory, an answer to the question 'Why?'. A different question you could ask is 'What is energy?'. I doubt that anyone can answer this. Answering 'What . . . ? ' questions will take the steam out of most people, even philosophers, because you never need stop. What . . . ? ' questions are answered by substitution of another word or phrase, which can always be countered by another 'What. . .? ' . When human animals are less than five years old, they drive their parents to desperation by asking penetrating chains of 'What's?'. Parents retaliate by switching their ears, or some other handy part in which exquisite pain may be induced. By age 5 the tendency to question is inhibited, a phenomenon which saves teachers enormous wear and tear. During centuries past philosophers have struggled to stem the endless regression of questions, by postulating concepts such as 'the First Cause', or 'Prime Mover', beyond which all questions are forbidden. A first cause would produce one pole of a satisfying symmetry. President Harry Truman of the USA provided the other with his justly famous phrase 'The Buck stops here'; the First Cause would answer the question 'But where did the Buck start?'. The unsatisfactory results of logical searches for a First Cause caused the concept to be abandoned in favour of things being uncaused, and to attempts to abandon causality completely, as discussed at length by Bunge. But the intellectual challenge of the First Cause persists, and its well-being has passed to the care of cosmology, where it is known as 'The Big Bang'.