Myrmidon posts philosophy things he likes/dislikes/finds excessively jargony

Odradek · 2012-09-12 22:55:47

" The ideal aim of philosophizing is to become reflectively at home in the full complexity of the multi-dimensional conceptual system in terms of which we suffer, think, and act. I say ‘reflectively’, because there is a sense in which, by the sheer fact of leading an unexamined, but conventionally satisfying life, we are at home in this complexity. It is not until we have eaten the apple with which the serpent philosopher tempts.us, that we begin to stumble on the familiar and to feel that haunting sense of alienation which is treasured by each new generation as its unique possession. This alienation, this gap between oneself and one’s world, can only be resolved by eating the apple to the core; for after the first bite there is no return to innocence. There are many anodynes, but only one cure. We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize"

I like this Wilfred Sellars quote. Sellars is a very engaging, interesting and original thinker, but I have some trouble with him sometimes because he's working at a level above my current one.

Also I have two books by Eugene Thacker. Am almost finished with the first one and will post my thought when I'm done.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-12 22:57:45

Hey, a statement made by a philosopher that isn't loaded entirely with jargon and that I can understand, I like this guy already.

Odradek · 2012-09-17 21:22:42

Eugene.

Level with me here.

How do you write an entire fucking book on the concept of life, and then BARELY MENTION EVOLUTION.

Like, I know you want to have a definition of life that doesn't fall into biology or theology(it wouldn't fall into theology if you didn't do the "take discussions of theology and replace god with life" thing) but you sure gave fucking Pseudo-Dionysius the time of day.

Christ.

Aliroz · 2012-09-17 21:26:43

Wait, Odradek is Myrmidon?

:D

I missed you!

I really don't mind jargon, why do you dislike it, Myrmidon?

Odradek · 2012-09-17 21:31:40

I don't dislike it. It definitely has it's place. I just think it's funny to quote jargony statements out of context and look at how strange they are that way.

Aliroz · 2012-09-17 22:08:22

To be reasonable is to reject all views that do not conform to one system of truth. A reasonable person will not accept an unreasonable view, though it may well be true.

A reasonable person will discern that a mountain is solid and hard because it is made of soil and rock. An unreasonable person will discern that a mountain is solid and hard because rocks cannot swim, and thus will congregate en masse to avoid lakes and oceans.

To truly see, one must accept even the irrational and illogical.

Even a faulty, flawed road can lead to truth.

Gelzo · 2012-09-18 17:59:15

Why would one be motivated to describe life in a way that doesn't involve biology? Isn't that just the scientific study of life?

Also, if I wanted to get into discussing philosophy, is there anything that I really ought to read?

^What?

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-18 18:01:11

The only thing I've ever read that even approaches a book on philosophy is that Jostein Gaarder's novel Sophie's World. I've been told it serves as an adequate introductory course, but I'm not sure how true that is.

Odradek · 2012-09-18 18:01:34

Gelzo said:
Why would one be motivated to describe life in a way that doesn't involve biology? Isn't that just the scientific study of life?

Also, if I wanted to get into discussing philosophy, is there anything that I really ought to read?

I have no idea, and just start by reading those beginners guide to philosophy texts you see at Barnes and Noble. If you're interested enough, then you can start reading primary texts.

Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy" is easy and readable, if slightly outdated now and occasionally inaccurate.

Oh, and what SL said.

Odradek · 2012-09-27 21:48:44

"I am not making the Heideggerian claim that Lovecraft writes stories about the essence of writing stories, the even more extreme claim that Lovecraft writes stories about the essence of philosophy"

Alright, that got my attention.

Reading Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy enjoying it so far.

Obā-san · 2012-09-27 21:50:59

Lovecraft writes stories about the essence of philosophy

My interest is piqued.

To me Lovecraft's stories seemed like shallow, neurotic spasms than anything with deeper meaning.

Not to say I didn't enjoy them.

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-09-27 22:24:05

Lovecraft's philosophy definitely shaped his work, but at the same time, part of that stems from his neurotic reaction to his own worldview.

splash · 2012-09-28 00:10:23

I'm not Myrmidon, but can I still post here? ;_;

My favorite philosopher of all time is a guy named Arthur Schopenhauer. He wrote a two volume book called The World as Will and Representation. It's a little bit difficult, but his writing's very clear. You're meant to read the four books followed by their supplements, if you're interested in it. These two books form an excellent introduction to it -- one before the next, again.

Schopenhauer basically argues a few things: firstly, the world as we understand it is only really the world as we understand it. Our reality is dependent on the human mind or consciousness, which gives form to our sense information. THE world would still exist without human minds, but OUR world which we live in and interact with in a comprehensible way is one of ideas. Simple enough, isn't it? This is the "representation" part of his "World as Will and Representation."

Another thing I think of as being one of his key points is that our human existence is necessarily one of suffering, and a lot of that suffering is the result of misunderstanding ourselves and the world. He's very famous for introducing the concepts of the unconscious/subconscious minds (inspiring Freud), and their will to life (inspiring Nietzsche's will to power). The primary force behind all ideas/representations (which manifests itself very strongly as his will to life) is what he calls the Will, in the sneaky philosophical tradition of having a god without using that name for it. The Will is essentially chaotic and evil, yet a necessary part of all things. By coming to be aware of the Will and living in peace with it, curbing urges and things like that, people become happy. For those of you interested in Buddhism, this should sound a little familiar.

His ideas are a little bit odd, but with these two ideas of the will and its representation, Schopenhauer very beautifully explores a bunch of different topics in philosophy and, in my eyes, does a fantastic job of revealing truth. Schopenhauer's not very well-known and he was very much overshadowed by his contemporary Georg Hegel, who he very publicly loathed and despised for writing and teaching a doctrine he felt to be a crime against philosophy and humanity. I'd definitely recommend giving him a read if you have the time and mental energy for reading him.

Obā-san · 2012-09-28 00:13:20

Schopenhauer is cool from what I've heard, haven't read any of his stuff though.

Obā-san · 2012-09-28 00:17:53

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/s#a3648

Do you know which of these would be a good place to start?

splash · 2012-09-28 00:18:21

He's written a bunch of shorter essays on a few interesting topics. I think they're very well-written, so if you're interested in him at all, reading one or two should give you a little food for thought.

What kinds of philosophers do you like? Ah, I'm sorry for derailing your thread Odradek...

Obā-san · 2012-09-28 00:24:32

Philosophy isn't generally my thing (*Repeated attempts to read Being and Nothingness put me off it for quite a while*), but I like Foucault quite a bit.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-28 00:29:49

Ain't that the guy with the pendulum.

Obā-san · 2012-09-28 00:35:54

Foucault's pendulum refers to a devise invented by Leon Foucault and has, if you believe Eco, nothing to do with Foucault the philosopher, despite the fact that Eco and Michel were friends.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-28 00:40:44

I refuse to believe that there's more than one person with the same name. Next you'll be telling me that Micheal Jackson and Micheal Jackson aren't the same guy.

splash · 2012-09-28 01:12:13

I really enjoy Foucalt. Sartre... for some reason, I can't really stand him or Heidegger that well. They write interestingly enough, but I can't enjoy them for whatever reason, I feel like I gotta invest too much effort in them to understand them.

Obā-san · 2012-09-28 01:15:15

Funny you should mention Heidegger, my mom just bought me What Is a Thing?

Haven't gotten around to it though.

splash · 2012-09-28 01:23:10

I haven't read that, maybe I should. His only work I've read was "Being and Time" but... it just felt mucky, in lack of a better term. Maybe it's just my translation.

Tell me how it goes when you get around to it. Cool mom you got!

Odradek · 2012-09-30 20:11:29

I'm just gonna leave this here

Alain Badiou’s translation of Plato’s Republic is both a work of literary transformation and, implicitly, a powerful and original commentary on Plato. Badiou stands virtually alone among major, modern-day philosophers as a self-proclaimed Platonist, the champion of what he calls a “Platonism of the multiple” rejecting anti-Platonism and most contemporary accounts of the thinker.

Some readers may be scandalized by Badiou’s liberties in this translation: his systematic modifications of Greek terms, occasional elimination of entire passages, pervasive anachronistic references (such as AIDS, IPods, and Euros), and other conspicuous transformations

Gelzo · 2012-10-01 11:04:49

The fuck?

lee4hmz · 2012-10-01 12:15:17

whywouldyoudothat.jpg

Obā-san · 2012-10-01 12:20:08

Odradek said:
I'm just gonna leave this here

Alain Badiou’s translation of Plato’s Republic is both a work of literary transformation and, implicitly, a powerful and original commentary on Plato. Badiou stands virtually alone among major, modern-day philosophers as a self-proclaimed Platonist, the champion of what he calls a “Platonism of the multiple” rejecting anti-Platonism and most contemporary accounts of the thinker.

Some readers may be scandalized by Badiou’s liberties in this translation: his systematic modifications of Greek terms, occasional elimination of entire passages, pervasive anachronistic references (such as AIDS, IPods, and Euros), and other conspicuous transformations

That sounds FUCKING. AWESOME. :D

Justice4243 · 2012-10-01 16:38:57

...Is it just me, or does modern philosophy seemed based around the idea to shoehorn as many huge words and metaphors as you can while discussing an idea in a way to tricking the reader into think it's a much deeper concept than it actually is.

At least, Myr's posts are leaving me with that impression.

Odradek · 2012-10-01 17:06:42

Odradek · 2012-10-01 17:07:05

Gelzo · 2012-10-01 17:33:21

It's hard to tell sometimes. In many fields, jargon is used appropriately to communicate concepts that aren't generally relevant in other walks of life. Other times it's not quite so justified.

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-10-01 23:36:56

Badiou was a pupil of Lacan, who is... interesting, if consciously a bit ridiculous.

Speaking of which, is anyone here familiar with Gilles Deleuze? I'm really interested in certain aspects of his work, but it's unspeakably dense.

Obā-san · 2012-10-01 23:37:30

Can't say that I am, sorry.

Odradek · 2012-10-02 09:37:19

Someone on SA posted something interesting about Deleuze.

"Deleuze's philosophy is part of the history of Western philosophy, and the only way to understand it is to become familiar with that history. Scientific analogies will only get you so far, and trying to make connections with people like Foucault and Badiou is a waste of time until you've understood the connections with history. And I don't just mean influences like Nietzsche and Bergson, but orthodox figures like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant and Hegel (and above all, Spinoza). These are the guys that Deleuze was intimately familiar with thanks to his incredibly intense education, and they provide the context for Deleuze's philosophy. Unfortunately, lots of people today tend to skip straight to Deleuze and ignore the history (this is what I did). Or, worst of all, they think that Deleuze's philosophy is a rejection of orthodox philosophy.

Basically I think a lot of people remain at the level of Deleuzian terminology and talk about intensive differences and pre-individual virtual singularities and so on, but they ignore the nitty gritty metaphysical details that this terminology is built upon. You've gotta suck it up and get involved with the technical questions, like how Duns Scotus' concept of formal distinction differs from Spinoza's concept of real distinction; or how Aquinas applies Aristotle's concept of analogy to the infinite nature of God; or how Kant's model of judgement shares features from Aristotle's model of specification. This is what Deleuze's philosophy is really about (and even though it's incredibly difficult it's also fucking awesome and really interesting once you get into it)."

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-10-02 18:21:29

That actually clarifies things immensely. Thank you, Odradek.

Odradek · 2012-10-03 12:17:16

"A better "image" of this sort of thought might be that which is found inautism. I say this on condition that we cease to regard autism pejoratively, as a failure to adhere to neurotypical norms, or as the medicalized incapacity to develop a "theory of mind." Instead, we must understand autism as an original mode of being in the world — as the neurodiversity movement has advocated, and as scholars in the field of disability studies are beginning to understand (Savarese & Savarese 2012, 1). In working through the consequences of this new understanding, Erin Manning suggests that, in point of fact, autistics are stigmatized for not approaching the world "according to standard human-centered expectations" (Manning 2013, 227). Instead, she says, autistics are in fact acutely sensitive beyond the human. They are responsive to "resonances across scales and registers of life, both organic and inorganic"; the testimony of autistics themselves indicates that, for them, "everything is somewhat alive," and therefore an object of empathy and concern (225-226). We might say that autistics are inherently non-correlationist; they do not focus their intentionality upon particular chosen objects, but exhibit a more diffuse and wide-bandwidth sort of sentience. While there are risks in any metaphorical extensions of aspects of human experience to entities in the world more generally, I would still suggest that autism offers us a more adequate "image of thought" than the one provided by phenomenology."

lee4hmz · 2012-10-03 14:00:40

-reads last post-

Obā-san · 2012-10-03 14:04:35

I would still suggest that autism offers us a more adequate "image of thought" than the one provided by phenomenology.

That is an... interesting idea.

Odradek · 2012-10-03 22:01:37

http://lesswrong.com/lw/fy/what_is_wrong_with_our_thoughts/

Fuck Less Wrong so hard

Stove made controversial arguments in some of his works,^[3] most notably in "The Intellectual Capacity of Women" and "Racial and Other Antagonisms" (both of which appear in Cricket versus Republicanismand Against the Idols of the Age). In the former he argued that women are "on the whole" intellectually inferior to men, while in "Racial and Other Antagonisms" Stove asserted that racism is not a form ofprejudice but common sense:

"Almost everyone unites in declaring 'racism' false and detestable. Yet absolutely everyone knows it is true".

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-03 22:03:29

I suddenly understand why people hate lesswrong.

Doesn't that Eliezer Yudkowsky guy post there, too?

Obā-san · 2012-10-03 22:09:31

White men can't jump, ergo black people are stupid

my logic is flawless bitches

lee4hmz · 2012-10-03 22:18:09

Lazuli: Because they put rationality ahead of common sense when it really ought not to be? Just making sure I'm on the same page, since that LW post and the paper it linked to were both kind of silly.

Unknown · 2012-10-03 22:31:11

The user and all related content has been deleted.

KJI · 2012-10-03 22:34:25

black people are worse than white people, guys. no shock there guys. racism owns so hard, you guys. kkk 4lyfe, 420 murder black people errday literally in real life actual factual

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-10-03 22:39:34

I would argue that while characterising autism and its relatives as "disorders" is a bit questionable, I also think that a lot of the people who lionise things like Asperger's Syndrome as "a higher form of thought" are being more than a little full of themselves, if not outright ridiculous. A lack of certain sensory filters is not brilliance; it is simply another way of thinking that is occasionally inconvenient. Nothing more, nothing less.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-03 22:51:56

The whole "Aspies are FUCKING GENIUSES" movement really disturbs me, because it takes what is certainly a condition of some sort and advocates it as some kind of catch-all transhumanist savior of humanity. It also tends to lend itself to people who use language like "normals" when referring to other people, or better yet, those folks who talk about humans like they're aren't one.

Unknown · 2012-10-03 23:22:57

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san · 2012-10-03 23:24:21

my being a genius has nothing to do with me having aspergers

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-03 23:27:45

Yeah, but what's "neurotypical" mean, then?

I mean, am I neurotypical? I'm socially awkward and often depressed, but there's technically nothing wrong with me.

lee4hmz · 2012-10-03 23:49:36

This is the problem with labels: Figuring out what the labels actually mean. :P And I don't buy the "fucking geniuses" thing, either; there are days when I can't get anything done at all because I'm either too tired or too confused to think straight. It takes me a while to switch projects or get back on something I've been neglecting.

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-10-03 23:59:54

While I agree, I should point out that the ability to focus and intelligence are two very different things.

Myrmidon posts philosophy things he likes/dislikes/finds excessively jargony

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories