I get extremely suspicious of people when I discover that there's some guy whose work they're super into and have made the foundation of their personal philosophy. I do this even if the guy is someone whose work I like, and even if they're someone I like personally.
Hm. Actually if I'm very unconvinced/suspicious of something I guess I do critique first. But in general I find less effective, because I have to artificially jam the thing into an existing framework instead of just seeing what it can do.
-
-
Ofc if it's something unfamiliar *enough* I have to do the jamming thing. Like every time I try and read Derrida I spend the whole time trying to reinterpret him as something I actually understand
-
I don't think it's necessarily jamming so much as... analogising, looking at things from different angles, trying things from different perspectives, and using conflicts to highlight points of confusion, etc. I don't expect things to fit so much as illuminate each other.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.