Writing a review


I am writing a review of a book.  IMHO – the best reviews are reviews that use a book as a starting off point for a discussion of ideas. It is a discussion between the author of the review and the author of the book. I am not even sure we should call this a review then.  Most recently, I read (and blogged) about Ray Brassier’s The Hermeneutics of Suspicion, 

I am writing a review on Spinal Catastrophism.  First I was thinking why do I want to write a review on it? It is messy.  In form, it is part lit crit, theory fiction, philosophy, analysis. But also I am viewing it through my own lens of the edifice of mega metaphysics crumbling – think Kant and Hegel and in place of ideologies – the concept of worlding. What is the philosophical status of worlding, what is the role of justification in philosophy? What is the difference between philosophy and art (theory fiction)?  What is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy is like the marble of the Roman Empire left in Rome. It was all used by other people for other purposes until there was nothing left of the original. Is there nothing left of philosophy? Perhaps. But if so, why? What need did it fill, and what is it now replaced by.