Annemarie Mol’s take on empirical philosophy; I saw this talk, or a nearly identical one, when she later gave it at Københavns Universitet this fall. There is a thread to be curious about, however, and that is a comment she made during the Q&A of the session I attend. I asked: “I have read much of your work and recall words like “ontology,” “multiplicity,” and so on, which are now missing in your new work — why?” Mol’s answer, roughly paraphrased: “I like to keep things fresh so now I use “onto-norms”…” I thought: that’s a little odd, but perhaps new concepts for every new project has some appeal, but the “I don’t like them anymore” or “I prefer fresh concepts” just strikes me as more of an aesthetic decision than anything else, not that I dislike aesthetic decisions, but it just struck me as odd in a talk about empirical philosophy.
Annemarie Mol’s take on empirical philosophy.
yes thanks even us trolls need love
just guessing having corresponded with her some about related matters but certainly differences of emphasis is one possibility, also people taking her too literally (c’mon ya gotta chuckle at multiple ontologies), and wanting to avoid misplaced-concreteness/reification.
seem to have lost my spellchecker sorry for the typing these days
It was, admittedly, half written for your sensibilities!
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Installing (Social) Order wrote:
now this way of talking experimental/empirical research i can relate to…