Institutionalization of thought

Meh. He's using a sucky translation of Derrida and getting stuff all wrong.

Read Nietzsche instead; he at least knows etymology . . .

Well, what he is saying about the Heidegger quote is not incorrect, imo anyway. But he's saying it in a most convoluted and somewhat silly way, again imo. And that's problematic, since Heidegger isn't exactly an easy read. Also, strung together words, like ontology-as-pragmatism, may be reminiscent of Heidegger, but the terms don't necessarily have any relationship to Heidegger's ideas.

But moving forward to chapter one, re introductions, I'd say that he's not saying much of anything, at all. I assume there is supposed to be some humor or cleverness in this chapter, but it's pretty weak.

As to the concept "institutionalization of thought," it would seem, from the limited bit available, that it is descriptive of how thought occurs in identifiable patterns. But supposing that this "institutionalization" can be avoided/overcome seems to be largely nonsensical, insofar as the human mind does operate in identifiable ways and no amount of critical theory is going to break through those ways. Tabula Rasa, as a theory, is as dead as Derrida--which is to say that it should be dead, but fools keep digging it up (imo, of course).

I would never buy this book, Spooky, fwiw. It seems much more like an essay, unnecessarily expanded to book length.

robeiae said:

But supposing that this "institutionalization" can be avoided/overcome seems to be largely nonsensical

Click to expand...

i'm not familiar with the subject, but this is particularly interesting. while i agree with your following criticism of the tabula rossa, it also seems apparent that thought can be "institutionalized" by certain daily routines, particularly those in childhood, and that the mind can also recognize these patterns and begin to make decisions against them, "deinstitutionalize" itself. something like a will.

or maybe i'm misunderstanding.