Philosphical Fragments

A Rummy’s Ruminations

Hanes is going to select a few philosophical articles from his days as a practicing philosopher and put them here for posterity. It has to be for posterity since anyone associated with the humanities knows that 99.9% of the books and articles written get read by like three people, tops! Four, if you count your aunt in Topeka but she didn’t get past the second paragraph anyway. Too much written in the world, too little time to read and absorb but the most minute fraction of it. Chalk it up to human finitude. Humans, hate the bastards! No wonder Hanes junked philosophy for wine…

Waaaaay before all of today’s Johnny-Come-Latelies, Hanes was into the theoretical work of the French thinker Paul Virilio. He used to talk him up in grad school all the time. Not that anyone ever listened. They just don’t listen! So, Hanes had to force them to listen. This article was published in the journal Human Studies in April 1996, Volume 19 Number 2. Although let the historical record show that it was written in the fall of 1994. Virilio’s “dromology” is a cool theoretical construct and I think his ideas remain pertinent today. But judge for yourself.

Paul Virilio and the Articulation of Post-Reality

This swell paper was presented in abbreviated form at the 33rd Annual Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy Conference in 1994 in Seattle. The paper contrasts the concept of intentionality in the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and Edmund Husserl, in order to outline some of their similarities and dissimilarities, and then use Schopenhauerian concepts to critique the Husserlian position. The paper then provisionally points toward locating a space in contemporary philosophical discussions for the Schopenhauerian critique, especially relative to the existent critiques of Husserlian phenomenology offered by Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. So there.

Schopenhauer and Husserl: Critiquing the 20th Century Phenomenological Tradition

Hanes made a big splash with this bit of philosophical whimsy, getting it accepted for presentation (in abbreviated form) at the 32nd Annual Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy Conference in 1993 in New Orleans. “SPEP” is the big annual conference for Continental philosophers in the United States, where all the biggies deliver their wares to the thinking public. Acceptances are by blind review and a few graduate students get their stuff accepted as a result, the committees not knowing they are graduate students. Shucks, Hanes did not even have his Masters yet when he wrote this. Ahh, the promise of youth. In case you were wondering, this paper first discusses Jacques Derrida’s critique of intentionality, particularly in relation to Edmund Husserl. Second, it moves to his conception of the relation between intentionality and language. Third, it builds off this foundation to outline Derrida’s derivation of an ethics and assess current criticisms of his ethics from such figures as Richard Rorty and Emmanuel Levinas. Fourth, it presents current defenses of this effort, especially that of John Caputo. It concludes in a reevaluation of Derrida’s stated position on the possibility and the limits of an ethics.

Towards an Ethics of Inclusion

Back in tha day, Hanes belonged to not one but two Nietzsche societies. Nietzsche gets a bad rap because he is popular with angst-ridden 18 year olds. As well as, err, angst-ridden 40 year olds. But this isn’t Freddy’s fault. He deservedly remains one of history’s greatest philosophers, no matter how misunderstood. But what does it mean to misunderstand Nietzsche? That’s what I wrote about here. (Got an A on it even through the professor said to me he didn’t understand half of what I wrote. Sweet.)

To Misunderstand Nietzsche: On The Third Face

Back to top