i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
In reality there are no objects for out reality there are no objects for reality knows nothing of obpothetical objects for reality needs nothings of hypothetical objects for what is object is an optical oblusion ablusion illusion of reality that objectifies that reality there that reality in there that reality out there that is alien to objectification to objectation so we must object to using the obsurd obstration object and in our body we know no object as out our body we know no object and we desire no object and no object desires us just as we now know that there is no subject and no subject of desire or desire of a subject so we must stop being so subjected to subjectivity and subjecthood as well as objectivity and objecthood for there are no objects no subjects
and later...
In being in the world I am aware that a chair is not a chair when there is no one sitting there but a chair becomes a chair when a being is sitting there in the world there a chair becoming a being there and a chair becomes what they wrongly nominate as an object if someone is sitting there or not sitting there but the chair is not an object but a being after a human being is sitting in the chair igniting the being in the chair being there where being is the chairing a human being chairing and the chair being becomes one with the human being when the human being becomes caring for the chairing when sitting in the chair bringing being to the chair being there chairing there the human there the chair there where the chair there is chairing being human being
Seriously, if the topic wasn't so heady and meta, this shit could easily be in a poetry book.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Initially every artwork is initiated and instigated as Identical with itself and knows nothing of outer externalised iedntities and knows nothing of objects and knows nothing of subjects for the artwork is being-in-itself that has its own infinite origin its own finite origin being the finite of the infinite and the infinite of the finite for what makes art eternal is its finity within infinity and its infinity within finity being both in time and out of time all the time which is why the human-being secretly hold a grudge and a malice towards the artwork knowing that the artwork will survive them for the artwork is aware of existing as a life before birth of existing as a life after death whilst the human-being knows-nothing of existing before birth or of existing after death
Why do people always bring up that Heidegger was a Nazi when bitching about some aspect of his philosophical views that has nothing to do with fascism? It's basically "Hitler was a vegetarian" with philosophy.
Heidegger's actually really interesting. He talks a lot about abstractions and how we relate to them, which I've always found pretty cool. Maybe it's just another facet to my fixation on the vague and ambiguous...
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Also, I find with philosophy you can pretty much brute force your way through even dense writing, but it tends to take tons of rereads until you grasp the lingo fully.
Stanford's article on Compatibilism was not the funnest experience for me, but I did learn a lot of interesting view points.
Relevant:But to play on Tolstoy’s famous saying about families, maybe it should be said that “lucid philosophers are all lucid in the same way, but difficult philosophers are each difficult for their own specific reasons.”
For instance, I would say that Bruno the Nolan is difficult because he doesn’t have a clear enough sense of the key principles of his system. Hegel is difficult because everything keeps flipping upside-down, and wherever you’re standing gets negated just as soon as you’ve figured out where you are. Derrida is difficult because he tries very hard to position himself beyond any definite statement about anything. Heidegger is difficult (at first) only because he’s dense. Husserl is difficult because his tone remains pedantic even when his subject matter is juicy. Aristotle is difficult because his style is too clipped (hence the old “his books are actually just his lecture notes” rumor, though count me with the party of scholars who don’t believe it). Sellars is difficult because he doesn’t write very well. Quine is difficult because he bores me and I don’t enjoy spending any more time in his company than is absolutely necessary. Bergson is difficult because about 90% of his ideas are new, when as Marshall McLuhan was told by his publisher a readable book should only be about 10% new (I’d rather an author be 90% new, of course, but it does make Bergson harder to read than the 10% new author). Whitehead is difficult because, as has been said (by Stengers, or was she just reporting it from someone else?), reading him is like whale watching– “thar she blows!”, a beautiful sentence surrounded by paragraphs of mumbling and the shuffling of papers.
Actually, I can give a better explanation of what makes Heidegger difficult. It’s not just that he’s dense, it’s that he creates too much alternate terminological apparatus for what is really a fairly simple philosophical position. It’s as if Parmenides had generated 60 or 70 pairs of terms to say “being is, and non-being is not”. I’ll admit that’s a slight exaggeration of Heidegger’s simplicity, but not by much.
Sorry, i guess i came off as incredulous? i wasn't questioning whether you actually read said authors, i believe you.
i meant, like, actually how.
How does one go about parsing such texts and deriving and comprehending a meaning.
expanding your vocabulary helps.
that said, Joyce's command of English is such that his books aren't really read in a traditional sense anyway. Most of the people who have tried to hammer out the plot for Finnegan's Wake are professors and the like.
i think i have a fairly large vocabulary? i dunno, though, because i forget things a lot.
This is a point of particular irritation for me because a lot of the time it feels like my classmates can cheerfully talk about Derrida (or Joyce) like it's no big deal, and it often goes over my head.
i guess if every philosopher is difficult in different ways then there is no one-size-fits-all approach, though.
Though, i guess it helps to know in what way specific philosophers are difficult, so thanks, Odradek.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I think philosophers often deal with words not used very often and, to make matters worse, often make up new words or phrases to describe what they're talking about. So it's some sort of triple whammy of hard to pierce density one must deal with when examining their work.
i think i have a fairly large vocabulary? i dunno, though, because i forget things a lot.
This is a point of particular irritation for me because a lot of the time it feels like my classmates can cheerfully talk about Derrida (or Joyce) like it's no big deal, and it often goes over my head.
i guess if every philosopher is difficult in different ways then there is no one-size-fits-all approach, though.
Though, i guess it helps to know in what way specific philosophers are difficult, so thanks, Odradek.
well if it makes you feel better I have never read a single book by a philosopher in my entire lifetime. I am told this makes me stupid and ignorant, and it very well may.
The Bible can be easy or difficult, depending on what version you're using.
New Living Translation is a piece of cake. New King James Version presents a small challenge. King James Version is probably on par with some philosophical texts (at least, in some points). And of course, Wycliffe's version is 100% hardcore.
well if it makes you feel better I have never read a single book by a philosopher in my entire lifetime. I am told this makes me stupid and ignorant, and it very well may.
You read Sophie's World. That's pretty much a philosophy text book.
Besides, you haven't taken a university literary theory module. i'm supposed to be to some degree familiar with this stuff.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I need to read more in general...though philosophy books aren't really at the top of the list. I'm reading the Qur'an, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and Sandman: Book of Dreams currently.
Sandman will be finished first since I read it on the bus.
i also need to read more. Although i don't read fast; i still haven't finished my required reading, nevermind reading around the subject.
Last book i finished was Gone, Baby, Gone, which was on the reading list for class. i didn't enjoy it and wouldn't recommend it, but apparently it's highly acclaimed.
The language isn't difficult, but i found the story itself exhausting.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Sooooo...I had a dream in which I started at a for-year university and wasn't prepared in the slightest
I think my subconscious is trying to tell me something ._.
Comments
Evidently this is not simply an academic question.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Lots of alliteration.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^ Yes, that puzzles me.
It probably uses words like Haecceity too.
the sequel is out and back for more.
Raocow 2.0, Day of the Charlieton. coming soon to a thaeter complex near you, (04,04,2044).
I downloaded an album by Pelican last night and I don't know why.
apparently they have the worst drummer.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Or Joyce, for that matter.
As in, read it and derive a meaning, not just a bunch of words?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Also, Nietzhe's favorite hobby was dressing up as bat and laying into the criminal underworld.
i meant, like, actually how.
How does one go about parsing such texts and deriving and comprehending a meaning.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
For instance, I would say that Bruno the Nolan is difficult because he doesn’t have a clear enough sense of the key principles of his system. Hegel is difficult because everything keeps flipping upside-down, and wherever you’re standing gets negated just as soon as you’ve figured out where you are. Derrida is difficult because he tries very hard to position himself beyond any definite statement about anything. Heidegger is difficult (at first) only because he’s dense. Husserl is difficult because his tone remains pedantic even when his subject matter is juicy. Aristotle is difficult because his style is too clipped (hence the old “his books are actually just his lecture notes” rumor, though count me with the party of scholars who don’t believe it). Sellars is difficult because he doesn’t write very well. Quine is difficult because he bores me and I don’t enjoy spending any more time in his company than is absolutely necessary. Bergson is difficult because about 90% of his ideas are new, when as Marshall McLuhan was told by his publisher a readable book should only be about 10% new (I’d rather an author be 90% new, of course, but it does make Bergson harder to read than the 10% new author). Whitehead is difficult because, as has been said (by Stengers, or was she just reporting it from someone else?), reading him is like whale watching– “thar she blows!”, a beautiful sentence surrounded by paragraphs of mumbling and the shuffling of papers.
Actually, I can give a better explanation of what makes Heidegger difficult. It’s not just that he’s dense, it’s that he creates too much alternate terminological apparatus for what is really a fairly simple philosophical position. It’s as if Parmenides had generated 60 or 70 pairs of terms to say “being is, and non-being is not”. I’ll admit that’s a slight exaggeration of Heidegger’s simplicity, but not by much.
expanding your vocabulary helps.
that said, Joyce's command of English is such that his books aren't really read in a traditional sense anyway. Most of the people who have tried to hammer out the plot for Finnegan's Wake are professors and the like.
did someone start posting footwork
dj rashad incoming
This is a point of particular irritation for me because a lot of the time it feels like my classmates can cheerfully talk about Derrida (or Joyce) like it's no big deal, and it often goes over my head.
i guess if every philosopher is difficult in different ways then there is no one-size-fits-all approach, though.
Though, i guess it helps to know in what way specific philosophers are difficult, so thanks, Odradek.
duum
duuuuum
DAH DAH
(bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom)
dum
duum
duuuuum
DA DAHH
(bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom)
dum
duum
duuuuum
DA DAAAAHHH
DAH DAH DAAAH
DAAAAH
DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA
DA DA DAHHH
DAAAAHHHHH
DAAAAHHHHH
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
New Living Translation is a piece of cake. New King James Version presents a small challenge. King James Version is probably on par with some philosophical texts (at least, in some points). And of course, Wycliffe's version is 100% hardcore.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
You read Sophie's World. That's pretty much a philosophy text book.
Besides, you haven't taken a university literary theory module. i'm supposed to be to some degree familiar with this stuff.
everything i knew is a lie
It's very easy to read, but from what i've heard it sacrifices accuracy in places.
LL Cool J is asking people to sign petitions on facebook.
he should get a tumblr for that.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Last book i finished was Gone, Baby, Gone, which was on the reading list for class. i didn't enjoy it and wouldn't recommend it, but apparently it's highly acclaimed.
The language isn't difficult, but i found the story itself exhausting.
I think my subconscious is trying to tell me something ._.