“Against this background, we can see the import of philosopher’s like Deleuze and Rorty (and even Zizek despite his assertion that “the truth is out there” (in that they represent the diametrical opposite of Plato’s assertion that philosophy is a matter of gravitating towards the realm of ideal forms. They, rather, embrace the creative potential of language in the face of a reality that can never be ideal. They establish themselves as an endgame in the ancient dichotomy between making (the side they’re on (and finding.”
I would first of all, apologize for the personal and anecdotal soul searching the following postcard will indulge in (at this point, as I write it, I am as unclear as to what will follow as you are (as I am sure there are the elitist purists among us who consider such a thing below the sanctity of philosophical inquiry. Still, it is something I must express given the various Facebook boards I am straddling and sometimes burden with off topic posts that don’t exactly fit within the subject matter they have chosen to focus on.
As much emphasis as I tend to put on “my process”, that which works in the overlaps of my different readings, I find that process primarily under the influence of 3 primary thinkers (the subjects of my buggering to put it in Deleuzian terms: Deleuze, Zizek, and Rorty. And given the point I am at in that process (my age (and the time I have left: I see the three of them pretty much finishing out that process with all other readings being pretty much absorbed by the center they represent. Of course, I could include Marx –that is given my cynicism towards Capitalism. But I have recently realized that Marx has been almost rendered unnecessary given the vast amount of literature that has been created (both Marxist and non-Marxist (and including my 3 influences (that confronts the failures of Capitalism in more contemporary and relevant ways. I have a great respect for the man. But if I do read him, it will likely be in the sense of secondary text (the di’fferance: the deferred meaning (to my understanding of the 3 that I have found or who have found me.
In Deleuze, I see the very thing I was always looking for as an artist (I started out as a musician, then spread out through poetry, fiction, and art: depth, intensity, and lightness of touch. Hence my tolerance for his propensity towards poetic exposition (free indirect discourse is something quite different (in that there are times when the only thing carrying me through his prose (w/ and w/out Guattarri (is the poetry of it: the feel of it and the images it presents. He pulls me (as if to drown me (into the water of abstraction –yet an abstraction based on pure experience before the linguistic order we impose on it. He, perhaps, more than the other 2, fulfills one of the main reasons I have turned to philosophy in my later years: to recreate the psychedelic experiences (in a less physically demanding way (of my youth in the 70’s.
Zizek, more than anything, appeals to my desire to make philosophy rock and roll. Of course, to the elitist/purists, this would delegate him to the same second rate level of philosophy as say Ayn Rand or any other pop philosopher –that is even though he isn’t really that accessible: especially given his references to Lacan. But he, more than anyone, has expanded my understanding of Jouissance into issues well outside of sex and mental pathologies. Plus that, he (more so than Deleuze (has made it alright to explore philosophical concepts in the context of engagement and popular culture. Like Deleuze, he has engaged in the Promethean heroics of defying elitism: of carrying fire to the people.
Rorty reminds me a little of Karl Jaspers in that he is like a kindly old professor who chooses to put it to you as straight as he can. And while he might seem radical in his alienation of his philosophical peers (he had to abandon the philosophy department and take refuge in humanities (he is perhaps the least radical of my 3. And that is the import of him in that he provides a kind pragmatic antidote to the natural appeal of the radical purely for the sake of the radical. One of the problems with philosophers like Deleuze and Zizek (and continental thinkers in general (is that they are writers of books that they have to sell. And in order to do that, you have to appeal to the novel. This can lead to the temptation to explain things in ways that are way more subtle and complex than they really need to be. At some point, you have to take the pragmatic stance of asking if it works because it resonates with reality, or is it working because it seems complex enough to make you feel like you know something that most people don’t. From a pragmatic perspective: it’s not enough to just ask if something works; you have to ask why it works which goes to the effect of it actually working.
Plus that, at this point in my life, Rorty’s description of himself as an old school Bourgeoisie liberal appeals to me. It’s who I am. I have no problem with it. But, wanting more than being able to save the environment by buying Starbucks coffee (and being honest enough to recognize my distaste for violence and desire for revisionist solutions to the problem of global Capitalism (while being willing to admit, humbly, that I am disposed to “revolution de-caffeinated” , I can, in Rorty’s sense of irony and in a self deprecating way, chuckle at a quote from Deleuze and Guattarri’s What is Philosophy?:
“Dinner and conversation [discourse] at the Rorty’s.”