The most interesting questions to address when a prominent figure fails, as Heidegger or Paul de Man did, are not whether they’re guilty or whether we should never ever read these peoples’ works again, but which new pathways those failings expose in the big questions.
Imagine, for a moment, that you’re Beowulf. At the end of his life: old and grey, yes, but with a quiet dignity and wizened strength, cutting a still-formidable still-authoritative shadow […]
An apropos moment recently: I felt dread at the prospect of reading things that weren’t Infinite Jest. This is a problem for a whole bunch of reasons, but one of […]
I’m not sure why I keep writing about suicide in the artistic community, either directly or indirectly. On the one hand it’s the least intelligible thing in the world—how could anyone […]
On the bus home from DC yesterday I overheard part of a long conversation between two people who hadn’t met before. They were talking about their mutual admiration of Ernest […]
What’s it to haunt? There are the two main interlinked definitions, obviously, one the verb and the other a noun: (a) to linger in a place, like a spirit, and […]
1.) Building a pure phenomenology, in Husserl’s estimation, isn’t just a metaphysical project centered on the nature of object existence as such; it’s also a call for a radical shift […]