Новогодний Подарок: Андрей Синявский, Иван-Дурак

Нашел в сети файл замечательной книги Синявского – Иван-дурак: Очерк русской народной веры – файл по всей видимости сделан на основе оригинала, но без прямого сканирования страниц – читайте, с Новым годом всех русскоязычных читателей.

For the English-speaking readers, this Derrida/Cherif conversation – Islam and the West – can found here.

127 писем о любви (Андрей Синявский)

lettersСпешу сообщить о замечательной возможности преобрести все 3 тома писем Синявского за 1200 рублей (с пересылкой в США получается около 60-ти зелёных, то есть очень дешево, по моему скромному мнению – я книги через озон.ру покупал и очень рекомендую, дешевая пересылка занимает около 8-10 недель, но можно и побыстрее если у вас есть такая необходимость). Я давно хотел их преобрести, но всё никак не удавалось найти весь комплект и дёшево: 

Continue reading

Hägglund’s Radical Atheism: To Read Or Not To Read?

UPDATE II (1/12): For those who are possibly reading this trying to decide whether to read Hägglund’s book on Derrida (as is stated in the somewhat disingenuously existential title of this post) should regard this blog post and its subsequent comments as a certain singular perspective on the issue – this comment is, of course, always already arrogant and pretentious since it assumes that someone will be making a decision regarding a book based on this post. I have since finished reading the book, therefore it was ultimately “to be”; I found it seriously lacking at certain points and somewhat insightful at others. It is not purely derridalogical in that it does propose an interesting (even if almost entirely familiar) reading, it does not engage Derrida’s ideas very much, simply creatively restates them while mainly ignoring the large body of secondary literature on the issues discussed in the book. If you are interested in the issue of “time” and “temporality” in Derrida, I think that Joanna Hodge’s excellent study Derrida on Time would be a much better choice…

UPDATE I (12/27): Just started chapter 2 and already I am discovering things: the opening paragraph and a half from this chapter on Derrida and Husserl is a word for word the same as the opening two paragraphs of Hägglund’s essay on Nabokov mentioned below that I’ve read this afternoon. No, it’s not a self-citation, it’s the same text only in New Literary History Hägglund goes on to discuss Nabokov and in Radical Atheism the transition is to Derrida – can you do that? 

Just got Martin Hägglund’s book on Derrida – Radical Atheism:  Derrida and the Time of Life – several days ago and having finished the introduction and the first chapter on Derrida and Kant, I am having doubts about whether I should continue with the book. There are several reason I read as much as I did so far: Continue reading

New Book: What Is Talmud?

Sergey Dolgopolsky has a book out – What Is Talmud? The Art of Disagreement – Shahar and I saw his speak at a conference back last year about a similar topic, I think. The book is “out of stock” on Amazon.com, so either it is so good everyone got it for Hanukah or it was published in a very small (and rare) edition. Here’s a blurb from Fordham: Continue reading

Philosophers on God.

A great and entertaining overview of the past and present discussions of the existence of God in Boston Review – a holidays special post: 

God has had a lot of bad press recently. The four horsemen of atheism, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, have all published books sharply critical of belief in God: respectively, The God DelusionBreaking the SpellThe End of Faith, and God Is Not Great. Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens pile on the greatest amount of scorn, while Dennett takes the role of good cop. But despite differences of tone and detail, they all agree that belief in God is a kind of superstition. As Harris puts it, religion “is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance.”