After much consideration, I have decided that I am too feeble and produce too little to blog on my own. I will be ceasing all production at this blog in favor of a new, semi-collaborative project I have started with three others. If you have any interest, please feel free to follow me over to of 1000 forms.
Thanks everyone.
A few days ago, Graham Harman suggested listing those one considers to be the 20 greatest Western philosophers of all time. I think such lists would prove to be very interesting, if we could get a number of people to make them, because the relatively small number of slots would force us to make choices and assessments that are in all likelihood very telling of our personal and philosophical quirks. In fact, stating a methodology for choosing would surely be provocative, even without a list. The list itself, however, can be fun to make—and even more fun to read.
I will be making two lists. The first will be my nominees for the 20 Greatest Western Philosophers of All Time, with a brief explanation of the rationale for my choices following the list. My second list will simply include 10 authors I absolutely loathe, which I think is rather self-explanatory (and probably totally unsurprising for those of you who follow my Twitter-based ravings). I hope you enjoy them both, and I’d be interested in your comments (and lists) should you be so kind as to provide them.
This post is kind of embarrassing. My wife assures me that it isn’t wrong, though, so I’m going to go ahead and do it.
My 21st birthday is coming up in about a week and a half (10 days, in fact), and I am poor as dirt. If you love me—or if you would simply like to assuage my pitiful ignorance—please consider sending me one of the 21 books on my Amazon Wishlist. It would definitely brighten my year.
Thanks.
Organism:
The name for the object in my vitalist ontology. It is a complex of forces organized according to a morphogen, which is the force or forces responsible for the object’s genesis. It is not static, but a growth, a becoming—or, rather, many growths, many becomings participating in a collective vitality.
The observant reader will have noticed that “Leibniz, Raised by Wolves” was categorized under “Anti-Humanism”, amongst other things. This anti-humanism is not explicit in the post, but I think it follows quite naturally—especially in light of the fledgling comments on logos and telos at the post’s tail end. The distinction between logos and telos is a subtle one, I think, but its delineation (or lack thereof) has important consequences for ontology. Therefore, I would like to expand along that line of thought.
