This is Michael Mirer's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Michael Mirer's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Michael Mirer
Recent Activity
As someone looking at this conversation from outside the bounds of institutional philosophy, I have to wonder how much this conversation gains from the idea that doing the history of philosophy is distinct from other areas of historical inquiry in more than just subject matter. That is to say,should those interested in working in the history of philosophy look at the work and methods of people working in, say, the history of ideas, or intellectual history,(apparently distinct modes of inquiry) or even literary and cultural history? To be clear, I don't think any of the above conversation dismisses such pluralism, but the lack of cross-pollination between these circles does seem curious to me (but again, I may simply be ignorant). Also, Peter Gordon's essay introducing students to Intellectual History (here: although clearly addressed towards undergrads and grad students, might be of interest at least insofar as it offers some insight into the different critical assumptions of different schools.
I know it's not where Santorum's objection comes from,but I'm surprised you haven't dealt with the problem of consent. Presumably that's at least one reason we ought to be suspicious of bestiality, at least.
If you're going to the Van Gogh Museum you should really walk down the road (it's a nice walk if the weather cooperates) to the Rjiks Museum and check out the Rembrandts...whose house you can also visit, although I don't remember the location.
Peter Singer actually has an essay about this--or a more modern version of this--in the latest issue of Harper's. It's called "Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets." Here's a link, which is sadly subscriber's only: . To My Fifties I should say something to you Now that you have departed over the mountains Leaving me to my sixties and seventies, not hopeful of your return, O you, who seemed to mark the end of life, who ever would have thought that you would burn With such sexual fires as you did? I wound up in you Some work I had started long before. You were A time for completion and for destruction. My Marriage had ended. In you I sensed trying to find A way out of you actually that wasn’t toward non-existence. I thought, “All over.” You cried, “I’m here!” You were like traveling In this sense, but on one’s own With no tour guide or even the train schedule. As a “Prime of Life” I missed you. You seemed an incompletion made up of completions Unacquainted with each other. How could this be happening? I thought. Or What should it mean, exactly, that I am fifty-seven? I wanted to be always feeling desire. Now you’re a young age to me. And, in you, as at every other time I thought that one year would last forever. “I did the best possible. I lasted my full ten years. Now I’m responsible For someone else’s decade and haven’t time to talk to you, which is a shame Since I can never come back.” My Fifties! Answer me one question! Were you the culmination or a phase? “Neither and both.” Explain! “No time. Farewell!” Kenneth Koch
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2011 on Nothing to report at I cite
I have to admit that I find both of these arguments breathtakingly banal. Admittedly, the author is summarizing, but neither philosopher seems to have really studied the situation in Libya, and both fall back on old, tired tropes to carry their points. Furthermore, Badiou's claim that there is "no trace of documents and flags of protest of the same character as those employed in Egypt and Tunisia, and no women are to be found among Libyan rebels" seems demonstrably false from any viewing of Al Jazerra, or other sources. We should expect better from philosophers.
Michael Mirer is now following The Typepad Team
Apr 12, 2011