Monthly Archives: May 2012

Jung’s first question, concerning what administrative means Feyerabend could recommend to promote new ideas, is a philosophical solecism. This is not the sort of question that Feyerabend wishes to address, and Jung admits that in reply to his very first … Continue reading →

On Feyerabend’s view of an immanent reason, the problem with rationalism is that it is not rational enough, because it ignores or impoverishes both our humanity and the natural world. Disconnected from the constraints imposed by the real, rationalism taken … Continue reading →

Continuing the list of points of convergence between Feyerabend’s LAST INTERVIEW (FLI) and Deleuze’s PERICLES ET VERDI (P&V) 2) dealing with Joachim Jung uses the expression in his questions to Feyerabend, and Feyerabend lets it pass. As he has no … Continue reading →

Methodological Preamble: Deleuze remarked on several occasions that an important  difference between Continental philosophy and anglophone analytic philosophy lay in their respective attitudes to the creation of concepts. Of course, Deleuze maintained that all good philosophy, both continental and analytic, … Continue reading →

Feyerabend’s dialogue with Joachim Jung is given a particular importance and solemnity by the circumstances in which it took place: Feyerabend in hospital with an inoperable brain tumor, half his body paralysed, discussing what? Certainly not life after death as … Continue reading →

I want to talk about a short dialogue between Joachim Jung and Paul Feyerabend that was published in the memorial volume “THE WORST ENEMY OF SCIENCE?: Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend”. The dialogue took place in Feyerabend’s last days, … Continue reading →

Graham Harman in THE THIRD TABLE accomplishes an exploit that if it proved viable would merit the felicitations of pluralists everywhere: he has augmented the number of tables that we can “encounter” in the world. The scare-quotes are unfortunately necessary … Continue reading →