Perhaps everything changes in the nature of our philosophical questions, in the nature of the aims and ends that might animate us, when the future dies. We need not think this extinction of the future in terms of Brassier’s crushing thought of the extinction of the universe due to heat death as the outcome of the second law of thermodynamics, for with the anthropocene the extinction of the future is here in the form of climate change and the collapse that it will bring. Heidegger taught us that we are ek-static, that we form ourselves by projecting ourselves into a future. The present is presenting arising from this projection before ourselves where we find ourselves now by anticipating ourselves. Yet what happens to this ekstasis when the future becomes extinct or foreclosed?
Hitherto all philosophy has unfolded under a premise so close to us, so proximal, that it didn’t even…
View original post 209 more words
“Theorist Wendy Chun joins post-secondary students and faculty to discuss her forthcoming book Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media (16), in which she argues that technologies matter most not when they are new, but when they have become obsolete – when their use becomes habitual. In this public lecture, Chun will explore how the slow, “creepy” accretion of habits – both conscious and unconscious – relate to distinctions between public and private, memory and storage, and individual actions and social systems.”
” Kim Sang Ong-Van-Cung responds to criticisms that Spinoza cannot account for vulnerability since he does not have a strong enough conception of negativity that could account for loss and mourning (Butler). This lecture argues that affects, as with the social in Spinoza, support the conception of relational individuals, and that elements of negativity both in Spinoza and in Deleuze’s conception of death can help us redefine social vulnerability”