Intensive Thinking commenting on Metzinger

Some interesting thoughts from Jon, HERE.

The strength of Metzinger lies in reminding us of the possibly stunning complexity of the self, which is too often viewed as a simple and unique ontological pole utterly different from everything else. But then Metzinger ruins it by advancing into a baseless ontological darkness that in no way follows from his philosophical points (actually, he already ruins it in the introduction, so the reader isn’t misled for long). The motto “There is no self!” has the ring of  shattering intellectual revolution about it, but in no way does it follow from anything Metzinger says.

The strange unstated premise of Metzinger’s mammoth tome is this: “If something is made of components, then it cannot be real.” Why not? And he doesn’t even bother making the case. Instead, he just makes dismissive remarks about anyone who doesn’t immediately take this point for obvious.

I’m also glad that Jon mentions DeLanda, because he’s a great mood tonic for Metzinger. DeLanda takes science every bit as seriously as Metzinger does, and for this reason I’ve often wondered why some of the more scientistically inclined Deleuzians aren’t bigger DeLanda fans than they are. But the reason is ultimately quite simple: DeLanda isn’t dark enough for some people. He doesn’t like smashing stuff. Instead, he likes showing how things are created (thunderstorms, for instance). And if your entire temperamental commitment to philosophy is a commitment to smashing stuff, and if in addition you have no real argument that composite or generated things cannot be real, then your only option is to walk around proclaiming your opponents to be idiots while affecting an extremely grim and ultra-serious demeanor that henceforth replaces argument as proof of your supposed philosophical incisiveness.

I spent a good long time with Metzinger’s gigantopiece a couple of years ago, and in case you missed my long review of the book, it can be read HERE.