I'm sure it's a fine book, but as Tachyon said, my to-read list is quite long.
I mean, I've got probably 2,000 pages of material physically sitting on my bookshelf waiting for attention.
Yeah, you have other things to read, I understand.
Or, it could be that you don't have the heart to tell me that I hallucinated up that book and all references to it on the internet are fabricated so as to not make me feel bad. Either way.
I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content-Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Odradek, can you think of any philosophers or fields of philosophy or whatever that like focus on how the terminology used in framing a question and how people individually interpret that terminology affects how they see the question?
if that makes any sense.
because that's been something i have been curious about for some time
Odradek, can you think of any philosophers or fields of philosophy or whatever that like focus on how the terminology used in framing a question and how people individually interpret that terminology affects how they see the question?
if that makes any sense.
because that's been something i have been curious about for some time
Like, Rudolf Carnap said that most of the questions we talk about make sense in given linguistic framework and most of the answers we reach are just interpretation of sense data(Carnap thinks this is what science is) and internal questions that are just the rules of the framework being fleshed out(Carnap thinks this is what math is).
The big question of what framework to adopt is beyond truth and falsity and we should just pick a framework that works for us and we can broadly agree on.
This is lost by most of the modern day internet fans of logical empiricism, who just think Carnap's position boils down to "yay science, boo metaphysics"
ish? i've never heard it described that way, but you're not exactly wrong
in the loosest sense it's applied to the more technical and speculative side of the modern humanities, and doesn't really have any shared aim or methodology besides lexicon and body of reference
Like, Rudolf Carnap said that most of the questions we talk about make sense in given linguistic framework and most of the answers we reach are just interpretation of sense data(Carnap thinks this is what science is) and internal questions that are just the rules of the framework being fleshed out(Carnap thinks this is what math is).
The big question of what framework to adopt is beyond truth and falsity and we should just pick a framework that works for us and we can broadly agree on.
Auuuggh I accidentally looked at Duquette's twitter and he's talking to some lady whining about her racism ruining a documentary on detroit firefighters aaaaaaaaahhh
If it is alright to bring up a kind of related topic, how do people read stuff like the aforementioned philosophical texts and actually understand it enough to be interested and conversant in it? I suppose that may be a dumb question, but it is something about which I am sort of curious given that some people seem to enjoy philosophy a great deal while others find it impenetrable.
If it is alright to bring up a kind of related topic, how do people read stuff like the aforementioned philosophical texts and actually understand it enough to be interested and conversant in it? I suppose that may be a dumb question, but it is something about which I am sort of curious.
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.
this looks to be quoting somebody but google was no help
Comments
i am tempted to question whether you really had hold of it to begin with.
why didn't i know that?
cool
thanks!
though as Umberto Eco pointed out, reading one's personal library rather defeats the point of it.
Or, it could be that you don't have the heart to tell me that I hallucinated up that book and all references to it on the internet are fabricated so as to not make me feel bad. Either way.
i will do it, you'll see.
Good night.
on the Wii all the Hyrulian is written backwards (which stands out since it's based on English in that game)
i realize it would have taken a lot longer to create a right-handed character model but it still seems kinda silly
and y'know, i realize you're taking the piss, but not everyone is right handed; chances are 10% of gamers won't be
you might be talking to nobody
i rather think that it isn't
if that makes any sense.
because that's been something i have been curious about for some time
it's not really what you asked for
but i could be wrong there idk
Piderman
in the loosest sense it's applied to the more technical and speculative side of the modern humanities, and doesn't really have any shared aim or methodology besides lexicon and body of reference
this is what I strive for
leechblock maybe?
naff birds
I probably won't accidentally click for a while.
Just, Jesus, christ.
I mean they make jokes but they still travel in these circles and call the crazy hatemongers their friends.
here
this looks to be quoting somebody but google was no help