Myrmidon posts philosophy things he likes/dislikes/finds excessively jargony
" 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.
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.
Tagged:
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Level with me here.
How do you write an entire fucking book on the concept of life, and then BARELY MENTION EVOLUTION.
Christ.
:D
I missed you!
I really don't mind jargon, why do you dislike it, Myrmidon?
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.
Also, if I wanted to get into discussing philosophy, is there anything that I really ought to read?
^What?
Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy" is easy and readable, if slightly outdated now and occasionally inaccurate.
Alright, that got my attention.
Reading Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy enjoying it so far.
To me Lovecraft's stories seemed like shallow, neurotic spasms than anything with deeper meaning.
Not to say I didn't enjoy them.
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.
Do you know which of these would be a good place to start?
What kinds of philosophers do you like? Ah, I'm sorry for derailing your thread Odradek...
Haven't gotten around to it though.
Tell me how it goes when you get around to it. Cool mom you got!
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
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
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)."
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:
I suddenly understand why people hate lesswrong.
Doesn't that Eliezer Yudkowsky guy post there, too?
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.