To have Lew and Filip in conversation-what a wonderful treat. I loved the point that philosophical concepts can “overlap” (they don’t always “freshly-break” between thinkers), and also the idea that we never start at “ground zero” with philosophy: we always come in already with some of its material. Also, philosophy can seem “useless” in the same way that jazz can seem like it isn’t music: to “get it,” you have to be willing to enter and “do it.” Jazz improvisation isn’t random, though it can seem like “it has no structure,” but really the structure of improvisation can only be known and understood in the act of being part of the improvisation. It seems like “any note would do,” but the pianist knows that the F# is needed here and now. How? Well, you’d have to be part of the improvisation to understand “the order,” but “the order” is certainly there… I think it’s true that philosophers who spill a lot of ink on “method” tend to be sources of unique insight when they switch to “particular subjects,” and I never thought to think of universe-ities as being focused on finding “the single principle behind the universe” (“The Whole,” per se)-what a great connection. Universe-ities “study the universe” to determine what makes it “uni”-excellent. I also agree with the point that, even if its ultimately impossible to “learn The Whole,” someone is still going to be managing “The Whole” anyway, and the question is if we’ll just hand it over to them or do something about it? This point makes me think of AI and the pressing question of who will control those systems…hmm… What a great point that, in the past, they had to eat and sleep too, and yet they somehow found time to cultivate culture. I also agree with the point that philosophy is extremely helpful with “big picture stuff” like trauma, but normally we aren’t dealing with that, so it can make philosophy seem “useless” versus something like “business” which we use more regularly. And yet if we don’t have philosophy when we need it, the consequences can be utterly dire and systemic. In this way, favoring “the expedient” can get us into a place where we can’t move forward…I nearly applauded at the point that philosophy doesn’t “show you how to reach the good life, but shows you that you are already in the good life.” I should get a tattoo…Well done, gentlemen, well done.
Our industrial network is creating surplus, that is possibilities, for the sake of having surplus/possibilities. The goal is to enhance the capacity to enhance and to keep enhancing, without any notion of that for which and toward which we keep enhancing. There is no sense of limit that would create the horizon of any meaningful teleology.
Semi-serious point on that comment at 24:25 that someone who tried to learn everything would look crazy; what would it look like if someone was to design a curriculum giving someone a really robust knowledge of at least the basics of the sum-total of human knowledge?
To have Lew and Filip in conversation-what a wonderful treat. I loved the point that philosophical concepts can “overlap” (they don’t always “freshly-break” between thinkers), and also the idea that we never start at “ground zero” with philosophy: we always come in already with some of its material. Also, philosophy can seem “useless” in the same way that jazz can seem like it isn’t music: to “get it,” you have to be willing to enter and “do it.” Jazz improvisation isn’t random, though it can seem like “it has no structure,” but really the structure of improvisation can only be known and understood in the act of being part of the improvisation. It seems like “any note would do,” but the pianist knows that the F# is needed here and now. How? Well, you’d have to be part of the improvisation to understand “the order,” but “the order” is certainly there…
I think it’s true that philosophers who spill a lot of ink on “method” tend to be sources of unique insight when they switch to “particular subjects,” and I never thought to think of universe-ities as being focused on finding “the single principle behind the universe” (“The Whole,” per se)-what a great connection. Universe-ities “study the universe” to determine what makes it “uni”-excellent. I also agree with the point that, even if its ultimately impossible to “learn The Whole,” someone is still going to be managing “The Whole” anyway, and the question is if we’ll just hand it over to them or do something about it? This point makes me think of AI and the pressing question of who will control those systems…hmm…
What a great point that, in the past, they had to eat and sleep too, and yet they somehow found time to cultivate culture. I also agree with the point that philosophy is extremely helpful with “big picture stuff” like trauma, but normally we aren’t dealing with that, so it can make philosophy seem “useless” versus something like “business” which we use more regularly. And yet if we don’t have philosophy when we need it, the consequences can be utterly dire and systemic. In this way, favoring “the expedient” can get us into a place where we can’t move forward…I nearly applauded at the point that philosophy doesn’t “show you how to reach the good life, but shows you that you are already in the good life.” I should get a tattoo…Well done, gentlemen, well done.
Great to see you both in discussion.
Our industrial network is creating surplus, that is possibilities, for the sake of having surplus/possibilities. The goal is to enhance the capacity to enhance and to keep enhancing, without any notion of that for which and toward which we keep enhancing. There is no sense of limit that would create the horizon of any meaningful teleology.
Semi-serious point on that comment at 24:25 that someone who tried to learn everything would look crazy; what would it look like if someone was to design a curriculum giving someone a really robust knowledge of at least the basics of the sum-total of human knowledge?