Euromaniac

First rejection

There were acceptances over three days last year, it seems. Fingers crossed...

Ahh not me either

I applied to Georgetown and didn't receive this eMail.

Ha! I'm with you regarding refreshing TGC 2304532742934923 times a day. I have been trying to read as much as possible. I just read Simon Crichley's Ethics of Deconstruction and I thought it was fantastic, so I might read more Levinas/his commentary on B&T.

I had submitted all of my apps (except MA stuff, which I will do... soon...) I was just curious and interested!

Whoops! I'll be sure to PM people in the future. TL;DR: I agree, but have the suspicion my people (the Frenchies!) are wrong, and yours are right.

Grats yo!

Cool! Thanks man, appreciate it!

I should have used Chicago; I used MLA :*(

I really enjoyed reading this, as it's on a familiar topic but approached very differently. The Hegel interpreters I tend to read (or read about, which is more accurate in some of these cases) are more along the lines of Kojeve, Hyppolite, Agamben, Butler, Zizek, etc., so my comments may not be at all useful for you (although you do briefly mention Kojeve in a footnote!). Forgive me if I am misrepresenting your position, here's how I interpret it: The lord and bondsman chapter of the Phenomenology demonstrates that both the lord and the bondsman have dependent and independent components to their existence. This section demonstrates a critical point in the Phenomenology, namely, the moment where Hegel analyzes the necessary relationship between individuality and sociality, and so interpretations which analyze only one of these components either cannot demonstrate the logical necessity of this section in regard to the previous sections on consciousness (the social interpretation) or cannot demonstrate the logical progression into the community (the individual interpretation). If that's the case, I would question reading the earlier section of the chapter (the independence of the lord, the dependence of the bondsman) as being on equal footing as the latter parts of the chapter (the dependence of the lord, the independence of the latter). In my own paper I focus on the chapter on sense-certainty, and the conclusion that I come to is that Hegel is attempting to reverse the "common-sense" interpretation of sense-certainty as immediate knowledge by showing its emptiness and its mediation. When I read the Phenomenology, and admittedly I haven't read the lord and bondsmen chapter in some time, I read this section in a similar light: the original, common-sense interpretation of the relationship is intentionally reversed. In other words, rather than both self-consciousnesses being dependent on one another, it demonstrates the real independence of the bondsman (of course, this is not the end, this proves to be dissatisfying) and dependence of the lord, in contrast the apparent relationship of dependence of the bondsman and independence of the lord. This isn't to say your interpretation is wrong, it's merely a hunch I have, given that I haven't read the chapter in quite some time, I would need to re-read it to give a rigorous argument here. If this were true, would this privilege a social reading of the chapter? I'm not sure, but again I have a hunch that it would. Post-colonial authors like Buck-Morss have gone to lengths to demonstrate that Hegel was (likely) responding to the Haitian Revolution when he wrote this section, providing perhaps some empirical reasons for a social reading of the chapter. But then again, there's no reason why Hegel couldn't use these insights to write about the development of an individual self-consciousness. The hunch remains only a hunch! I wish my comments were more useful, but I'm afraid I would have to reread Hegel. In this case, we should read afraid literally... I would appreciate your comments on my Hegel section, as I feel you might have a very different reading!

Wow, you guys are really great writers. Makes me feel nervous about the competition!

That's interesting! I'd be excited to read it. I remember once asking the professor who I was working with about this very question, and her answer was basically "idk, either? both?" I also haven't read as much secondary lit on Hegel, so it'd be a question I'd be interested in reading more about (and especially who you cite!). Mine, as you might have seen, is about the chapter on sense-certainty. I feel like my confidence with my understanding of the phenomenology basically diminishes the longer the book goes on, so I thought the first chapter would be appropriate!

Here's my own: https://www.academia.edu/9931181/Language_and_the_Death_of_God_Between_Hegel_Nietzsche_and_Deleuze I'm excited to read yours!

19th and 20th century continental, esp. in relation to modern philosophy is my thing.

I also have a Hegel section which is dreadfully short in a paper which is dreadfully long. What's your writing sample about, if you don't mind me asking?

Hello everyone, I'm new here and applying in the 2015 Fall cycle. I was wondering if anyone would be interested in starting a writing sample exchange while we await results. Is that sort of thing kosher? I know (via lurking) last year people were posting their writing samples online in one of the threads, and I think it would be neat to do that again.