Talk:Cornelius Castoriadis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Cornelius Castoriadis is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. | ||||||||
| If you would like to participate, you can improve Cornelius Castoriadis, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | |||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as a Low priority article | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Much as some of Castoriadis' texts and activities have interested me, I feel that "Castoriadis wrote ground-breaking and trail-blazing essays on physics, ..." contains too much of the hyperbole of a publisher's blurb. If a trail has been blazed, at the very least it needs citation of who has followed onto that new ground and in what way? Until then, I've toned-down that assertion. AllyD 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Jargonistic passage
"One of Castoriadis's many important contributions to social theory was the idea that social change involves radical discontinuities that cannot be understood in terms of any determinate causes or presented as a sequence of events. Change emerges through the social imaginary without determinations, but in order to be socially recognized must be instituted as revolution. Any knowledge of society and social change “can exist only by referring to, or by positing singular entities ... which figure and presentify social imaginary significations.”
This paragraph is extremely difficult for the general reader to interpret - it is in strong need of revision so that a general reader can better understand the ideas of this author. Peter G Werner 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm wondering if the paragraph really amount to much more than is encapsulated in the phrase "History as Creation"? (Which was the title of one of the Solidarity (UK) translation pamphlets) AllyD 11:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Interest in Creating Entries on His Thought?
I'm curious how many wikipedia users would be interested in working collectively on entries devoted to Castoriadis' thought and concepts. I've added a list of concepts, but no definitions yet. I'd be more likely to begin this work if I knew that there were others out there who would also be interested in participating, and more likely to simply delete the list without such interest. Responses?--Erik.w.davis 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Imaginary
I'm extremely new to Castoriadis and have only read "Marxism and Revolutionary Theory." The use of the term 'imaginary' in "M. & R. T." seems quite different from the one presented in the entry here. In "M. & R. T." the imaginary is a component of institutions, etc. that sustains their existence and gives them meaning beyond their purely "functional-economic" components. The imaginary is the creative force that allows this sort of meaning to come into being and to cohere in an institution. The entry here seems to simply say that institutions, etc. are themselves 'imaginaries', which seems kind of backwards. Did Castoriadis also use the term in this way? And/or is the entry here in need of clarification? (Perhaps I just haven't read enough)
I think this is an example of why I was calling for others interested in expanding the section on his concepts and thought, rather than trying to pack it all into the 'works' section. Castoriadis does indeed use 'imaginary' in a number of different ways. Offhand and without attempting to be complete, we can talk about a 'radical imaginary,' which is the truly fundamental imaginary of the human being, and to the 'instituted imaginary,' which are those things which have been 'imagined' into being by individuals and society and brought into a reproducing form (with greater or lesser forms of autonomy). You will certainly need to read more than MRT to get a full idea of Castoriadis' thought on this matter. I would recommend finishing the Imaginary Institution of Society (IIS), and then perhaps reading the short essay "Imaginary and Imagination at the crossroads," in Figures of the thinkable, including Passion and Knowledge., pp. 123-152. which is available at http://www.notbored.org: samizdat . Cheers.--Erik.w.davis 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Influential in Anthropology?
As a professional anthropologist, with a Ph.D. in the field, I have to question the phrase that "some of Castoriadis' greatest impact in the anglophone world has been in cultural anthropology." Indeed, I would cite a recent (2004) dissertation which argues that he has been somewhat overlooked by anthropology: (_Fields of inclusion and exclusion in the configuration of anthropology: The case of Cornelius Castoriadis._ by Tovar, Marcela.) I also did a quick journal search of the field and found very little impact in anglophone anthropology. I wish this weren't so, but in the meantime I have to dispute the contention. Perhaps the claim ought be deleted?
[edit] Born in Constantinople, not Istanbul
Let's keep the Constantinople birthplace, y'all. It's just a fact. No offense to Istanbul, but it wasn't so-named until 1930. --Dylanfly 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- This edit keeps happening. Perhaps it's somebody with big POV issues about Constantinople's old Roman name, vs. Istanbul's modern Turkish name. I agree that Constantinople wasn't the best name, but it's just an historical fact. --Dylanfly 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prospective POV editing
Parts on his thought are needing balance adjustment. Some problem points:
- "Sociologist Han Joas attempted in the early 1980s to bring Castoriadis' work and thought to an anglophone audience, as have others, with little success." But Castodiadis had substantial English-language presence: Pierre Chaulieu / Paul Cardan articles translated in the 50s-70s; articles and chapters by Dick Howard in the 70s; Contributing editor to Telos in the early 80s; articles in Philosphy & Social Criticism in the 90s.
- "Part of the problem which may prevent people from engaging with his thought lies in the great specificity he uses to redefine his terms. While he uses traditional terms as much as possible (this may be the result of a desire to avoid overwhelming the reader with neologisms), he consistently redefines these terms and invests them with very specific content." Much of the criticism of Castoriadis (whether by Debord in the 60s, d'Amico or Gonzales in the 80s) has taken a contrary position - that his terminology is neologistic, vague and lacking in the specific.
I'll probably make a start on trying to reduce the viewpoint but thought it better to bring the text in question to the Talk page with a rationale for its subsequent editing. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dear AllyD (talk), I think you're good to go. I think the original intent might have been to show that C.C. didn't make as wide of an impact in the anglophone world as he did in continental Europe. It's not a bad point, but then again, (as you imply) do we really need someone speculating as to why? So I think your points are ready to be implemented. That's my POV anyway! :) Smilo Don (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
