![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've made a start to this but there are some blank spaces in 'Key Concepts' and I also haven't had time to do the Bibliography. Can anyone fill in some of the concepts? Suggest others? -- bookgirl 12:36, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My feeling is that this article has been written by a group of feminists and no one else read it. I've learned about Paul Virilio in the book Fashionable Nonsense. He sounds really ridiculous, and I think it is absolutely necessary in Wikipedia to include the discussion of criticisms of Paul Virilio, and a link to the famous book by Sokal and Bricmont where he's criticized. -- Lumidek 12:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this underway. The Integral accident as documented in Virilio's book seems to me to be an explanatory concept of enormous potency and predictive worth. He uses Chernobyl as his key example, but it would apply to BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD); the serious and widespread outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease, etc. I do not believe there is any serious question of Virilio's general importance. Jeffrey Newman 10:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the integral accident has enormous potential. And the predictive value of his ideas (and the integral accident in particular) places Virilio on a special plateau, in my mind. However, his ideas are difficult and sometimes the way he expresses them does not make them any more accessible. Might it help to include a list of people who have been influenced by Virilio? The breadth of his ideas, the way they cut through many disciplines, and cultures of knowledge, in a coherent and insightful way places him on some shortlist somewhere I feel sure.
Sokal and Bricmont, do deserve coverage, perhaps in article on anti-intellectualism? I wouldn't be against describing Virilio as a sometime target of such folks, perhaps with a link to their article from this article. I don't want to censure other views, but I think we can all agree that this article is about Virilio, and I really want it to exude clarity. The ideas are powerful, all they need is clarity to make this article sing. It isn't there yet. enigma_foundry 05:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
hi, could anyone be able to tell where i can contac paul virilo, adrees, e-mail, phone the information would be for educational porpouses. any information pleas send me an e-nmail at: sniff01@hotmail.com
thanks.
Whether or not one finds Sokal and Bricmont's arguments persuasive or relevant to Virilio's work, a mention of the debate itself is certainly relevant to an encyclopedia article on Virilio.-- Birdmessenger 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The ‘Sokal’ affair was an opportunity for an exchange of views, between alternate academic traditions, about the nature of knowledge and the nature of method to support said knowledge. It proved that great minds don't think alike (sic). ‘Sokal’s’ science and objectivity approach is distinct to the more interpretative approach symbolised by feminism, ‘writing culture’(anthropology), and writers such as Paul Virilio, Bruno Latour, Gilles Deleuze and Rosi Bradotti. Allan Sokal stated his goal as a defence of the scientific worldview, “defined broadly as a respect for evidence and logic”. He is worried about "the displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives". To put it crudely Sokal argues that scientific results are usually objective discoveries about our world and as such hold independently of society. Or in Sokal’s words; “I confess that I’m an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I’m a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them”.
Sokal’s bone of contention lies with “the tacit assumption that nature and reality are little more (perhaps nothing more) than human fabrications”. This assumption he believes lies at the core of postmodernism and disciplines such as cultural studies and science studies. He sees these disciplines and schools of thought as espousing a doctrine of intense ‘epistemic’ relativism and irrationalism which leads to the idea that all truths are subjective and hence equally defendable. Many believe, including myself, he is mislead and does not fully understand the point being made by these critiques.
Sandra Harding provides an good example of this when she shows how the Sokal camp “often accuses the new science studies of relativism, but it is wrong about just what it is to which the new science studies ‘relativizes’ sciences. Science studies does not claim that sciences are epistemologically relative to each and every culture’s beliefs such that they are equally defensible as true. Rather, the point is that they are historically relative to different cultures’ projects — to cultures’ questions about the natural and social orders”. Rumagin 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I find the style of this article unduly flowery, over the top, and obtuse if not verging on the pretentious. Is the line about the fractal meteorite with an impact prepared in the propitious darkness from his work? It's really not something that lends to a greater understanding of the subject. If it's a quote, can we have the reference, otherwise, I'd prefer it if the writing style was toned down a little in favour of actually explaining the meat of what is going on.
157.161.173.24 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you. I would argue that a careful reading of the article provides a thorough and concise overview of PV's work. It is complex because these issues are complex, not because it isn't there. Do you know anything about phenomenology, for example? This article allows you to build that context if you don't have it, because you couldn't really understand this article without a sense of the phenomenological tradition. Philosophy, like mathematics, can get rather complex. I think the authors/editors/readers have done an admiral job with a conceptually difficult topic. Sorry, but that is my two cents. Cheers. 129.21.198.113 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The style needs to be fixed. If we recontextualize the article's articulation of his ideas as his positions amongst many and as his position (even going as far as articulating and linking to other scholarly positions) instead of obscuring this relationship through not attributing his ideas to himself, we can make his ideas more accessible because this creates room in the readers mind to conceptualize as it exist among many.
I am not sure if there are official wikipedia guidelines on how to address this issue, but I am doing this by qualifying the statements he makes as aspects of his performance in his theorization (using verbs like arguing, appropriating, suggesting, believe, etc) so that the reader knows who is doing what and what is happening. Also doing this, i think, would also open up the possibility to allow other contributors to explain his actions which is, ideally, something we should attempt to strive for in order to better understand Virilio. 24.246.57.253 ( talk) 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the user who finds the text both over the top and uninformative. I have read it through carefully, and it really should be rewritten. It is poorly written and provides no good insights or overviews (assuming there is any content in Virilio's writings). This is not because "phenomenology" is complex, but because the article is poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.251 ( talk) 18:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a list of ideas that should be added to the article in some sense. They are perhaps important theoretical notions, paradigms, or frameworks that Virilio has created in his work and have entered into disciplines' bodies of theory (i.e. there exist references and uses of such ideas).
Knowledge is power. ( talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsenate ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
While one might need to refer to a specific edition and translation in notes to the article, the bibliography would be much more useful the books were in order of publication and had the original date of publication. The current version misleadingly suggests that works produced years apart were more or less contemporaneous, suggests early works were much later than they in fact were - and contrary to WP convention (policy?) the chronology is backwards. Anyone disagree? (If it's worth preserving the publication information, we could keep it under a subheading like "English Language Editions") KD Tries Again ( talk) 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
The quotation at the end of the "Integral Accident" section on Hurricane Katrina is not cited and I cannot find it anywhere. Also, I doubt that it is from an article given the informal character of the French and the "rough" translation. I think that someone should either cite this or it should be removed. -- Climagiste ( talk) 17:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
For the time being, until the source is found, the quote is being placed here:
The large number of titles by this author makes hunting for the source challenging. — Rgdboer ( talk) 02:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Virilio claims multiple times not to be a philosopher, and indeed distances himself from the label in interviews with Lotringer (collected in English in "The Accident of Art"). Is it still valuable to call him one? He's often called a "philosopher", however, is this an appropriate label for him? He's never held any positions relating to the teaching of philosophy. "Essayist", as used in the opening line of the French version of the article seems a more appropriate way of describing him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure-impure ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph be
included in this article to replace copyrighted images in order to better comply with our
policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at
Wikimedia Commons, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may
request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license.
Wikipedians in France may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
For the infobox — Rgdboer ( talk) 20:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)