Odradek's dumping grounds for philosophical thinkings and bricolage

Odradek · 2014-02-26 12:36:31

There are no known historical records of Socrates owning an armchair, which has caused some to theorize that all his philosophy was actually done by his wife in the bath. He would then listen in, in secret, and repeat what he had heard in the town square, as if it were his own ideas.

Odradek · 2014-02-26 12:36:38

More to come.

Aliroz · 2014-02-26 12:40:03

Ah, so it's the bathtub.

Odradek · 2014-02-28 11:15:01

Poor Schopenhauer: The analytics think he's continental and the continentals don't care about him.

Klinotaxis · 2014-02-28 11:22:09

bath sounds better overall, tbh

Previous Calica · 2014-03-01 02:20:57

Odradek said:
Poor Schopenhauer: The analytics think he's continental and the continentals don't care about him.

though his philosophy did get an appearance in neon genesis evangelion so there's that

Klinotaxis · 2014-03-01 02:47:58

i hear eva 4.0 ends with zizek talking sodomy

Previous Calica · 2014-03-01 03:13:54

kaworu already died though

Imipolex G · 2014-03-01 10:20:15

Borges liked Schopenhauer, it doesn't get much better than that

Sredni Vashtar · 2014-03-01 20:23:09

Schopenhauer was a very interesting jackass, much like Heidegger.

Previous Calica · 2014-03-02 03:07:47

was Schopenhauer a Nazi though, that's the main thing I know about Heidegger

Klinotaxis · 2014-03-02 03:13:12

no but he pushed an old lady down stairs

Obā-san · 2014-03-02 03:16:33

Schopenhauer was dead for almost a solid century before the nazis showed up IIRC (*though i do vaguely recall something about him being anti-semitic and apparently Wagner and Nietzsche were both big fans so...*)

he was, however, an antinatalist

in fact, his ugly mug is the first thing you see on the wikipedia page for Antinatalism

Obā-san · 2014-03-02 03:18:37

Schopenhauer, who hated noise (and wrote an amusing essay [1851; translated, 1890] on the topic), had been enraged by her loud chattering on the landing outside his room; in the ensuing altercation he pushed her, and she fell down a flight of stairs. He lost the case and was obliged to pay her a monthly allowance until her death. (When she finally died, twenty years later, he commented, "Obit anus, abit onus" [The old woman dies, the burden is lifted]). The experience served only to make him more misanthropic and misogynous--his diatribe "Über die Weiber" (1851; translated as "On Women," 1890) is notorious.

what a charming man.

Klinotaxis · 2014-03-02 04:34:31

oy, nietzsche weren't no anti-semite, kind of wacked but he hated anti-semitism

Tachyon · 2014-03-02 10:24:25

Didn't he start out anti-semitic and move away from it later in life?

Previous Calica · 2014-03-02 13:48:40

his sister was anti-semitic and edited some collection of his books to make him seem so

Tachyon · 2014-03-02 21:22:13

The Will to Power, right?

but iirc he was initially an admirer of Wagner but went off him, and one reason for that was that he no longer found Wagner's antisemitism tolerable

Klinotaxis · 2014-03-02 22:29:17

sounds right to me. i don't know nietzsche over time, i've just read a few of his awesomely angry letters about it

Odradek · 2014-03-23 10:52:22

http://www.euppublishing.com/series/specr Oh hey, Johnston, Bryant, and Garcia's books are all coming out in English on the same day.

Bryant is a little silly, and kind of a weirdo, but Johnston is very interesting if jargony and I'm interested in seeing what the deal with Garcia's treatise on metaphysics is.

Odradek · 2014-03-26 19:22:53

One way to locate a philosopher’s deepest commitments is to identify where the “table-pounding” moments occur. Look for the passages where a philosopher simply makes emotional assertions in the guise of rigorous argument, and you often have the key to their deepest unargued commitments. In Husserl’s case, the arguments against a realistic conception of the thing-in-itself are among his most assertoric passages, and also among the least compelling. In Logical Investigations VI (or maybe it’s V, I’m too tired to be sure) there’s a whole section talking about how “absurd” it is and what a dangerous trap it is to speak of an in-itself in the old sense. But scratch the surface of his warnings, and the arguments just aren’t very convincing. They mainly amount to this: “If the intentional objects were doubled up with real ones, then absolute knowledge would be impossible.” But who says absolute knowledge is possible?

Odradek's dumping grounds for philosophical thinkings and bricolage

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories