Tsung-Ju Lii
Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx
Some of the authors, e.g. Eagleton, Ahmed, I think probably didn't even bother to read beyond the introduction of Specters of Marx? No wonder why Derrida's so mad about them in the essay at the end of the book. Personally I find Jamesons' article very enlightening, literally bought several of his books after reading that.
這本書字很大不會看得很累，而且也算好懂，推。整本書拆成三個部分：過去 / 現在 / 未來，前兩部分主要是分析一些哲學家對於環境變遷的洞見，最後一部分則是提供了一些猜測跟想像給人類可能的未來。我是覺得他的分析都做得還蠻好懂的，當然也是有把一些以看不懂聞名於世的像是海德格德希達之類的用比較簡單的描述來講就是了。第三部份我個人認為是這本書的精華部分，但也是我意見最多的。他的想像最終還是建基於所謂人類作為一個集體所擁有的善意這類型的前提之上，但這種話從來自加拿大的人口中來，至少我是會覺得有點不是滋味啦 XD
喜歡這本書的可以去看 Murray Bookchin 的 Post-scarcity Anarchism，或是喜歡 Bookchin 的也可以看這本書。另外這本書圖很多看很快...
Don't waste your time on this book. Meillassoux claims victory over correlationism, yet the correlationists he discusses do not exist outside of his imaginations. Also it is quite intriguing to see him quote, praise and blindly follow his doctoral advisor's philosophical methods. There are a lot of interesting fields in mathematics that offer alternatives as a foundation of mathematics to set theory, like homotopy type theory and category theory, the former being a field currently under active research. The fact that these philosophers chose to use a theory that is older than 100 years, offered no reinforcement or rectification to it and just treat it as a given starting point for their philosophical research completely baffles me.
