Dale DeBakcsy urges rigor in applying science allegorically to philosophical problems.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Ca ... _of_Brains
Catherine Malabou & The Continental Philosophy of Brains
-
Philosophy Now
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
-
marjoram_blues
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: Catherine Malabou & The Continental Philosophy of Brains
Dale Debakcsy picks on Catherine Malabou but ends with a rather grudging acceptance and 'enthusiastic forgiveness' of her contribution; her attempt to synthesise continental philosophy and neuroscience.
According to Debakcsy, the positive potential of Malabou's work is 'unfortunately balanced out' when her 'enthusiasm overtakes responsibility, allowing allegory to run away with itself...the old Continental flightiness grabs the wheel with often embarrassing results' (p18).
So, how does Malibou 'grab the wheel' ?
D, gives the example of her 2004 book 'What Should We Do With Our Brain?' where she considers neural plasticity in an 'over-allegorical way'.
Malkibou's idea that this plasticity 'provides the model for a new political order that emphasises active resistance...over merely flexible accommodation to it' (p18).
Quote: ' ... plastique is an explosive substance...plasticity is situated between two extremes: ...taking form (sculpture...), and...the annihilation of all form (explosion)...to talk about plasticity of the brain means to see in it not only the creator and receiver of form but also an agency of disobedience to every constituted form, a refusal to submit to a model' (pp5-6).
D, questions the use of the word 'plasticity'.
Does it mean that we can jump from one meaning: as in clay sculpture, or explosive to then 'automatically become part of the scientific idea of 'neural plasticity'.
His answer is No. We don't 'get to leapfrog from brain plasticity to explosivity to social revolution, and thereby say, in a weird twist of free-associative transivity,that neural plasticity implies social revolution...you can't force the brain, through a series of wishful associations, into something that it isn't in order to create the world that you would most like to see' (p19).
Reading that, I wonder if that is what Malabou is actually saying. I haven't read her works. However, I'm not sure that she is guilty of the charge meted out by D.
If we take the idea that societal change can start from within the self, a seed of an idea shared with others who then change as a result of experience - then I can see the usefulness of this concept of plasticity. And certainly do not consider it as being 'over-allegorical' or an embarrassment.
Shame that D. has to write so condescendingly about M's 'false starts and over-eager linguistic leaps' and so very kind of him to show enthusiastic forgiveness - given that she has 'somehow wrought from these first attempts at synthesis a few moments of genuine promise - to ideas not just theoretically interesting, but of immediate import to the improvement of our social lives - that is something remarkable' (p19).
An interesting and readable blend of positive and negative - but overall, I think, the tone is quite demeaning.
Having said that,if it gets my brain to re-form in response, all is good,no?
Boom !
According to Debakcsy, the positive potential of Malabou's work is 'unfortunately balanced out' when her 'enthusiasm overtakes responsibility, allowing allegory to run away with itself...the old Continental flightiness grabs the wheel with often embarrassing results' (p18).
So, how does Malibou 'grab the wheel' ?
D, gives the example of her 2004 book 'What Should We Do With Our Brain?' where she considers neural plasticity in an 'over-allegorical way'.
Malkibou's idea that this plasticity 'provides the model for a new political order that emphasises active resistance...over merely flexible accommodation to it' (p18).
Quote: ' ... plastique is an explosive substance...plasticity is situated between two extremes: ...taking form (sculpture...), and...the annihilation of all form (explosion)...to talk about plasticity of the brain means to see in it not only the creator and receiver of form but also an agency of disobedience to every constituted form, a refusal to submit to a model' (pp5-6).
D, questions the use of the word 'plasticity'.
Does it mean that we can jump from one meaning: as in clay sculpture, or explosive to then 'automatically become part of the scientific idea of 'neural plasticity'.
His answer is No. We don't 'get to leapfrog from brain plasticity to explosivity to social revolution, and thereby say, in a weird twist of free-associative transivity,that neural plasticity implies social revolution...you can't force the brain, through a series of wishful associations, into something that it isn't in order to create the world that you would most like to see' (p19).
Reading that, I wonder if that is what Malabou is actually saying. I haven't read her works. However, I'm not sure that she is guilty of the charge meted out by D.
If we take the idea that societal change can start from within the self, a seed of an idea shared with others who then change as a result of experience - then I can see the usefulness of this concept of plasticity. And certainly do not consider it as being 'over-allegorical' or an embarrassment.
Shame that D. has to write so condescendingly about M's 'false starts and over-eager linguistic leaps' and so very kind of him to show enthusiastic forgiveness - given that she has 'somehow wrought from these first attempts at synthesis a few moments of genuine promise - to ideas not just theoretically interesting, but of immediate import to the improvement of our social lives - that is something remarkable' (p19).
An interesting and readable blend of positive and negative - but overall, I think, the tone is quite demeaning.
Having said that,if it gets my brain to re-form in response, all is good,no?
Boom !