well, when i asked people not to say 'loli' or 'shota' it was because on communities where people use these words jokingly/ironically/flippantly a lot, you get other people coming along who will figure it's ok to use them sincerely, and that the underlying sentiment is acceptable
same thing as happens with slurs that get used ironically a lot
Audio normalization is the application of a constant amount of gain to an audio recording to bring the average or peak amplitude to a target level (the norm). Because the same amount of gain is applied across the given range, the signal-to-noise ratio and relative dynamics are generally unchanged. Normalization differs from dynamic range compression, which applies varying levels of gain over a recording to fit the level within a minimum and maximum range. Normalization is one of the functions commonly provided by a digital audio workstation.
i don't actually want this argument, i just brought it up because i figured if i didn't someone would probably say that, since i had complained about people saying something i don't like, i had no right to object to people telling me not to say things they didn't like
So i have a book, Time and Philosophy by John McCumber.
It's a history of continental philosophy, and during his introduction McCumber takes pains to argue that continental philosophy is a real tradition, not merely a collection of associated ideas or a kitchen-sink category for Western philosophy outside the analytic tradition (which i honestly suspect it of being).
But he does this by basically establishing a canon, which includes philosophers who i guess could be considered Hegelian, Marxists and Existentialists and those influenced by them. He contrasts this with traditional philosophy. Traditional philosophy is atemporal, continental philosophy is temporal; it reminds me of the synchronic/diachronic distinction de Saussure made, though McCumber hasn't made that comparison (as far as i've read, anyway).
So Habermas is out, of no interest, as he is a traditional philosopher whose ideas did not provoke a temporalizing reaction, according to McCumber. Kant and Husserl are in, but only because of their influence on continental thinkers; they are themselves traditional philosophers. Sartre is accused of traditional sympathies, as is Badiou with the caveat that he limits the scope of traditional philosophy sharply (science, art, love and politics are all temporal processes for Badiou).
Thoughts on this, @Odradek? It seems to me like he is narrowing the definition of continental philosophy a lot here (and that many analytics probably would not agree that they are merely following in Plato's footsteps where continental philosophers are not).
I feel like it's a legitimate argument to make, but a better word is needed than "Continental" I think.
"The term "Continental" is something of a grab-bag, but within it there is a distinct philosophical lineage and tradition which I shall now call whatever" might be a better way to phrase it.
But I have not read the book, so I don't know for sure.
Kant and Husserl are definitely more interested in the things that interest analytic philosophers, than most of the philosophers considered "continental" though.
seriously though this outing with my dad for his birthday has been fucking awful because my sister keeps on trying to make it "special" while its pretty obvious that like he just wants to chill
Basically it means those times where my mind starts wandering in the direction of "fuck fuck fuck everything is meaningless because meaning doesn't exist nothing I do matters because the idea of mattering doesn't exist fuck I am the sum total of predetermined tendencies and my environment and free will if it exists it only consists of completely arbitrary, weightless actions fuck shit fuck"
And then of course I start thinking about religion and dying.
And because of how my mind works I actively resist NOT thinking about those things because, hey, not thinking is just allowing yourself to be in denial, you fucking intellectually lazy sheeple
So i have a book, Time and Philosophy by John McCumber.
It's a history of continental philosophy, and during his introduction McCumber takes pains to argue that continental philosophy is a real tradition, not merely a collection of associated ideas or a kitchen-sink category for Western philosophy outside the analytic tradition (which i honestly suspect it of being).
But he does this by basically establishing a canon, which includes philosophers who i guess could be considered Hegelian, Marxists and Existentialists and those influenced by them. He contrasts this with traditional philosophy. Traditional philosophy is atemporal, continental philosophy is temporal; it reminds me of the synchronic/diachronic distinction de Saussure made, though McCumber hasn't made that comparison (as far as i've read, anyway).
So Habermas is out, of no interest, as he is a traditional philosopher whose ideas did not provoke a temporalizing reaction, according to McCumber. Kant and Husserl are in, but only because of their influence on continental thinkers; they are themselves traditional philosophers. Sartre is accused of traditional sympathies, as is Badiou with the caveat that he limits the scope of traditional philosophy sharply (science, art, love and politics are all temporal processes for Badiou).
Thoughts on this, @Odradek? It seems to me like he is narrowing the definition of continental philosophy a lot here (and that many analytics probably would not agree that they are merely following in Plato's footsteps where continental philosophers are not).
I feel like it's a legitimate argument to make, but a better word is needed than "Continental" I think.
"The term "Continental" is something of a grab-bag, but within it there is a distinct philosophical lineage and tradition which I shall now call whatever" might be a better way to phrase it.
But I have not read the book, so I don't know for sure.
Kant and Husserl are definitely more interested in the things that interest analytic philosophers, than most of the philosophers considered "continental" though.
i never responded to this.
The book was quite favorably reviewed on NDPR, though they noted that the chapters on Marx and Sartre were weak.
Interesting to hear you say that, about Kant and Husserl.
Comments
you don't care, whatever
i mean i could explain my reasoning but i don't think you actually want to hear it
idk
same thing as happens with slurs that get used ironically a lot
for a case in point see 4chan
i could go do something productive
or i could get myself some food and watch cartoons
obviously it will be the latter
But I have not read the book, so I don't know for sure.
um
should i delete that?
but you were joking so it's cool
I guess I have tread upon dangerous ground
you might say
im in
the danger zone
But clearly this resentment means I'm stupid and in denial of everything being meaningless
And this feeling of emotional dishonesty is why I continue getting existential
I presume it does not involve moping about a Parisian café
And then of course I start thinking about religion and dying.
in which case it wouldn't be denial and there's no reason to dwell on unpleasant thoughts
The book was quite favorably reviewed on NDPR, though they noted that the chapters on Marx and Sartre were weak.
Interesting to hear you say that, about Kant and Husserl.
(i'm going to be annoying Odradek so much with this, i bet.)
Like I still feel weightless
And I'm still afraid of nonexistence
*offers hug*