Archive for the 'meta' Category


A change of strategy

I am finding that I am reading much faster than I am able to find the time to write here. This makes my original plan for this blog–to begin with a thorough, linear exegesis of various philosophical notes–very unpractical. Updates have been too slow to be any sign of progress.

So I think I will table that method for now.

A more realistic and interesting (for me) way to use this space is to actively work on some ideas that past readings have already inspired. I will attempt to apply the same amount of rigor to these problems, but my coverage of any particular work will be more sporadic, and I expect that for some time topics will appear disjointed. I may resort to using this space for notes; if I do so, I will make an effort to elaborate on them later, or incorporate them into some larger statement.

I think that this sort of work will likely hold my interest better, and maybe ultimately be of more use.


What I am reading, and how I will read it

One purpose for this blog: it is a space where I can interrogate philosophical texts in a thorough, public, and disciplined way.

There are two books that I have begun recently that I intend to give special attention to here. The first is Jürgen Habermas’ The Theory of Communicative Action. I think I have a good idea about what to expect from this book, and I suspect that the positions Habermas expresses in his opus will be very compatible with many that I already have (partially because my own current views have been informed by some other works by Habermas, as well as some secondary readings). On the other hand, after reading just a little bit of the first chapter, I have some disagreements with some of Habermas’ basic presuppositions. Some time in the near future, I’ll explain those complaints.

At this point, I admire Habermas from afar, so to speak. I haven’t read much by him, but I hear that his theory is a grand synthesis of many other intellectual traditions–including Marxism, analytic philosophy of language, American pragmatism, sociology, and so on. I appreciate this interdisciplinary approach and humbly hope to work in a similarly open way here. I also hope to justify this methodology in some future post.

The second book is Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle. Whereas I’ve taken up Habermas expecting him to resonate, Debord is a wild card for me. I have picked him up hoping he will take a position that I will find very challenging.

In both cases, I intend to post responses to my recent reading in a systematic and, initially, linear way.



It hardly matters where this comes from; what matters is where it goes.  Better skip the introduction.