What happens, or what does not happen, should be what concerns us: philosophers sometimes pride themselves on their ignorance of world affairs, again like watered-down Heideggarians, no matter how hostile they think they are to him, pretending that all that history and politics stuff is so, like, ontic, we’re working on something much more important here.
Nina over at IT writes on what she calls the dialectic of nature, which I read as a critique of the recent internet-based philosophical movement towards some kind of realism.
Of course the ontological precedes the political, but philosophers can never have a properly ‘ontological’ discourse. Badiou is kidding himself with maths. I don’t understand why apparently intelligent people with some understanding of what they are talking about actually want to return to some sort of bullshit ‘realism’ with the implicit goal of being ‘ontologically democratic’.
Most of the discussions are frightfully self-referential and pedantic, as if describing exactly what someone else says with a slight variation to agree or disagree with one’s own position is an activity that can be described in anyway approaching philosophy.
Show me what it does, otherwise it is like any other hype-event alienating me from my precious reading time.