In the last few days I found out about three articles of mine coming out in Brazil. I like the one on queer ontology, which is called "Bodies in clinamina" and start out with speculative dermatology - skin against substance - and moves on to gender allagmatics to close with alliances beyond filiation and the ontological power of contamination. A second is on the ontology of doubts. The last is on a special issue celebrates twelve years of our philosophy and fiction colloquia. They were educational for all of us who were there from the beginning, I believe our philosophy got more and more entrenched within fiction. Not only in terms of writing (although I think this was an important part) but also in terms of topics and how they were thought through. I haven't read the last book of Meillassoux, but I like the title mentioning hors science, to qualify fiction; there is another fiction that is not informed by scientific input or gauged by scientific plausibility. To me, this intertwinement of philosophy and fiction has a lot to do with anarcheology - the creation of versions for philosophical purposes (well, this is the definition I would give now for this purposes). Philosophy very frequently has a kick out of origins - authenticity, archives, ancient texts. This is maybe because philosophers have a complicated relation to history - it fascinates and scares. I guess every philosopher has to find her way around history. It is a personal job that no belonging to a tradition can replace. Anarcheology is one of my ways, and it is a possibility: to let history be recreated, a history of the philosophy that could have been. Not to forget history neither to submit to it, but to increase it.
I´ve been wondering about whether we can formulate something about contingency along the lines of a principle of irreduction: aucune chose n´est par elle-même contingent ou necessaire . The principle asserts that necessity is always contingent on underlying fixed things: something is physically necessary (or contingent) given the fixed laws of nature, something is deontically contingent - allowed - or necessary - mandatory - given the fixed ethical rules (or laws of the land). Finally, something is logically necessary (or necessary simpliciter) given a fixed logic. The irreducible diversity of ethical rules, the absence of eternal laws of nature and the plurality of logical systems, if accepted, makes necessity relative to those parameters. An aggiornamento of Heraclitus would have that nothing is necessary comes what may. Surely, of couse, if there is no absolute necessity, there is no absolute contingency. We can then say that in a broader, more abstract level, things are up for grab...
Comments
Post a Comment