Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: Latour, Kristeva, Derrida, Baudrillard, etc

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #9
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: Latour, Kristeva, Derrida, Baudrillard, etc

    Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
    Actually, this is the reason I've been reading these, Sarmatian. It first started when Latour was awarded the Ludwig Holberg-prize(major irony alert) earlier this year. Fast forward a couple of days, and the old and bitter professor Jon Elster publishes a chronicle in aftenposten, demanding the prize is shut down as it has disgraced itself by giving awards to charlatans(Kristeva, Jameson and Latour). This sparked several other chronicles, either attacking Elster or joining his attack on Latour.

    These were published on the net as well, with open commentaries. Now, these are usually cesspits of vulgarities from "the facebook-conservatives"(derogatory norwegian term for the right-wing nonsense manifesting itself on the net). On these articles, however, it was completely silent. I found this fact both interesting and hilarious. What we had was a high temperature debate between Marxists attacking each other for politically correct science. You'd think that would make any right-winger firing on all cylinders, yet it was completely silent. One of the chroniclers even joined the comment section, yet no right-winger reared its head, it was just a collection of various academics. Apparently, the debate was conducted at a level too intelligent for your average islamophobe, and they're all too uneducated to even know what the Marxists were talking about...

    Oh, and several of them were of the dangerous cultural-Marxist flavour as well...



    First of all: you have my deepest condolences.



    Well, as chronic vagueness seems to be a trademark of these writers, you'd think it was appropriate to ask them vague questions...

    But okay, I've got a question which is as concrete as it gets:

    Kristian Bjørkdahl attempted to defend Latour from Elster's criticism. As one example of Latour's worth, he attempted to explain that 2+2=4 is not necessarily true. Rather, 2+2=4 is just a convention that scientists agree on, and represents no fundamental truth(which doesn't seem to exist anyway, but that's another story). 2+2=4 s apparently only true because of the meaning given to "2", "+", etc.

    Now, as I see it, this sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of what mathematics actually are. So, my question is: is it possible to maintain that 2+2=4 does not represent a fundamental fact without having misunderstood the very basis of what mathematics are?
    what ive read of baudrillard, your condolences are much appreciated, Derrida is pretty interesting stuff tho.

    They no doubt would have no problem with answering your "vague" question :P but as a student, and im not really into that type of philosophy/sociology/post-structuralism, so i need some more stuff to work with

    As to your question, that is a good question and i dont know if i have sufficient knowledge of latours work to give the answer it deserves, but i will think about it a bit and read up a lil bit, and ill come back to you about it later. I assume i will be playing the devils advocate :P

    You are a math teacher right? Could you perhaps post or pm me in short (and in a comprehensible way for a theorethical math noob) what you think the basis of mathematics is? that would give me something to cling onto :P
    Last edited by The Stranger; 06-15-2013 at 21:00.

    We do not sow.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO