Is this a worth and interesting read?
>>9694529
Read Poetics of space instead.
>>9694529
I like Bachelard quite a bit. When you read up on his larger outlook, there are things I wouldn't agree with, but I like his aesthetic / poetics musings. Not as like THE way to see things, but as more enjoyable and inspired than a lot of theory out there.
Poetics of Space is good. I like Poetics of Reverie, Psychoanalisis of Fire, and Air and Dreams. All might be worthwhile.
He's probably most useful if you're an artist. I feel like writers like him, who I do like... it's not that I see it like they're showing the "right" hermeneutics.... it's that they might have a more allusive approach to reality that is creatively useful. Like something that works in a stimulating feedback with what I'm working through myself, without my having to reduce anything I do to it.
I'd rather read Heidegger, Husserl, Lefebvre and Merleau-Ponty first. Bachelard is just the trendy son of all of these.
>>9694580
>it's not that I see it like they're *using the "right" hermeneutics
Correcting that.
But that sentence is key. Really appreciate a thinker where I feel like they're opening up things and their strange life rather than closing them down as if they're a mere plot device in some other hermeneutic narrative on Capital or Class or something.
>>9694582
Why not all? (and I have use for those others)
It's not like the others riff on the same things exactly.
I'll reiterate that I think Bachelard is useful as like a toolset of interesting thoughts for an artist.
>>9694582
poetics of reverie reads like absolutely none of those other philosophers.
OP: poetics of reverie is a great and prescient book. it doesn't require any expertise in philosophy and i think anyone who takes its problems seriously will really enjoy it. every chapter is great, especially the chapter on sleep and dreaming.
http://www.michiganquarterlyreview.com/2013/09/the-poetics-of-reverie-2/
I did not expect thought out non-meme answers! Thanks!