New topic
PrintableCarrieMpls said: You know, I've never studied any philosophy. I'm sort of semi-interested, but when I've check out little bits and pieces I often found it infuriating cause I feel like it makes things way more complicated than they need to be. I prefer to think about things in the simplest terms possible. Partly cause I'm lazy (
 ) and partly cause it's more egalitarian.Read this novel...  a psychotic is someone who just figured out what's going on | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
Stax said: CarrieMpls said: You know, I've never studied any philosophy. I'm sort of semi-interested, but when I've check out little bits and pieces I often found it infuriating cause I feel like it makes things way more complicated than they need to be. I prefer to think about things in the simplest terms possible. Partly cause I'm lazy (
) and partly cause it's more egalitarian.Read this novel... 
I'll check it out. I'm in need of a new book (or I will be by tomorrow, anyway).  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
novabrkr said: Wait, why did you have to pass a foreign language test during the first week? Is that mandatory where you live? (USA I assume)... we really don't have to pass language translation tests over here until, like, our 6th year.
I mispoke, I should have posted, "My first WEEK of school I had to take a language translation test in two sections..." For my program, (art history) we had to pass it before we would be granted our diploma. (I don't know if all programs required language exams.) The art history department offered it at the beginning and end of each semester. We were encouraged to take it the first week though--to either get it out of the way, or at least find out if we were going to need to take a language course to help us pass it. (I only got my MA, so we only had 4 semesters/2 years to do it.) I passed on the first try, though. 
Heidegger's argument on the Peasant's shoes is crap, btw.
I should read that too. For starters they weren't even peasant's shoes. I know, I just read it a few months ago (I was tutoring someone who had to read it for class). Heidegger kept saying they were womens peasant shoes. Haven't read Shapiro's original essay--I should though. (He's an art historian, not a philosopher.) . [Edited 1/25/07 10:10am] The check. The string he dropped. The Mona Lisa. The musical notes taken out of a hat. The glass. The toy shotgun painting. The things he found. Therefore, everything seen–every object, that is, plus the process of looking at it–is a Duchamp. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thedribbler said: What no pictures of:
Oscar wilde Krishna murti Henry miller Gurdjieff Shakespear Carlos castenada Philosophers make a fruity bunch of party guests. Nice thread. So why don't you post the pics yourself with a three sentence summation of each?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GeorgeWBush said: minneapolisgenius said: this and that
can we have your liver then? 
And yes, be my guest. It's not good for anything anymore anyway. "I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jone70 said: heartbeatocean said: I come from the semiotic school of theory, however, that factors in cultural relativity, subjectivity, and ideology, which steps on the toes of logic and analytical philosophy -- implying that it is outdated and elite. (But then Derrida was criticised for being elite too)
But I guess from the standpoint of analytical philosophy, anything that appears ideological is considered pseudophilosophy. But the semioticians would say everything is ideological.  Derrida gives me a little bit of a  . He, Sasseure, and Lacan were very popular with the art history professors where I went to grad school. (Rosalind Krauss loves her some post-modern deconstructivism...lol) My first WEEK of school I had to pass a language translation test in two sections: with dictionary & without. I was taking mine in French and the passage we were given to translate sans dictionaire was Derrida! The whole time I was thinking, his whole point is to deconstruct language so how could I possibly translate it from French to English and have it make any sense?!? Luckily it was an essay that I was somewhat familiar with--him discussing Meyer Shapiro & Heidegger's argument on Van Gogh painting of peasant shoes--so I was able to figure out the parts I couldn't translate. whew!
 forgot Sasseure edit
[Edited 1/25/07 6:48am] Derrida is my favorite.  I've studied Saussure & Lacan too. Lacan is the one who gave me a headache. My other favorite is Jean Baudrillard. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: thedribbler said: What no pictures of:
Oscar wilde Krishna murti Henry miller Gurdjieff Shakespear Carlos castenada Philosophers make a fruity bunch of party guests. Nice thread. I don't have the pictures and commentating is too much work. I must say, I haven't read that much of the more conventional classics. I hope to get around to it 1 day. So why don't you post the pics yourself with a three sentence summation of each? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
  Wanted: Virtual Sugar Daddy to help me buy stuff on Farmville and move up the ranks. Use of Viagra not authorized. Get your two minutes and go! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HamsterHuey said:  oh noes, prince is gonna soo me!!1! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: My dad had a giant poster of Bertrand Russell hanging in our basement.
I thought all families had a poster of Bertrand Russell hanging in their basement  He's great.
My fav: Immanuel Kant  oh noes, prince is gonna soo me!!1! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jone70 said: I'm kind of fond of Soren Kierkegaard
He is considered the father of existentialism. And from wikipedia: Two of his popular ideas are "subjectivity" and the "leap to faith," popularly referred to as the "leap of faith." The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. Kierkegaard also stressed the importance of the self, and the self's relation to the world as being grounded in self-reflection and introspection. http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ierkegaard And look what quote I found when I googled to find a pic of him: "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." 
That was Cat's 'quote' from the Lovesexy tourbook! I wonder if Prince read Kierkegaard...  Lovesexy does kind of fit the idea of the individual's belief in God or in love...
my obsession with the man borders on a sickness. , hence my orgname.Welcome to the New World Odor and
the Mythmaking Moonbattery of Obamanation. Chains We Can Bereave In LIBERALISM IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
novabrkr said: coolcat said: Does this mean that life has already happened? It only means that language and meaning comes to us from the direction of death (the end of your personal time). The only thing we are able to understand (the end of existence) forms the basis of all understanding and enables conceptual reflection, for the end of your personal time is the only singular plural imaginable and the only thing that can be satisfyingly subsumed in understanding. However because this thing is indeed "satisfyingly" understood it is hidden from lingual conceptual capacities (i.e. the main reason why the system of formal logic doesn't work in the end, for it attempts formalization from the wrong direction), because within language we live, or attempt to live, as the common man (das man). And whilst every being has to face with their deaths as ultimately their own, death as shared among all human beings (daseins) forms our communal understanging and enables the denotative system. If time would move indeed "forwards" as strictly as commonly thought, there would be no way to draw concepts from phenomenons (it would require endless regression towards birth, and even if you were to attribute the symbolic order as biologically inherited it would still seek out its direction from death as a rule for subsumation). Time doesn't really move in either direction, but if it were to move in either direction Heideggerians would say it rather moves backwards. The concept of time moving forward is based on so-called "vulgar time" where people place events on a timeline, and recall them as events of their personal history. This is why subjectivy is not really present within us all the time, and you don't need to reflect on your personal history to perform everyday chores. However because we speak we must not fully understand what we are trying to communicate, because we are separate entities, therefore we have to "live it forwards" when we are with the presence of other people. We are in the presence of the others within language - as Derrida would say you "read the others". And reading, and an attempt to understand, is something that happens "forwards" in a linear fashion. Hidden understanding happens "backwards" in the sense that you have to hide yourself actively your understanding of Things in order to remain alive. ... in short. Hey, you asked 
[too stupid to be alive -edit] [Edited 1/25/07 3:53am] Wow! Thanks for that reply. I don't understand yet, but I'll reread a couple of times to see if I can absorb it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
coolcat said: Wow! Thanks for that reply. I don't understand yet, but I'll reread a couple of times to see if I can absorb it.
Hah. Well I don't think I gave the best ever summary here, Sein und Zeit is a really complex book and that's some of the points of my own interpretation using a bit different vocabulary. Basically Heideggerians are against seeing time as linear experience where life events form "spots" on the timeline, and refer to is "vulgar" concept of time instead. However, in the end it's inevitable that we people will constantly slip into thinking in this fashion in order to be... well people. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Stax said: heartbeatocean said: A bit more about Deconstructionism:
At its core, if it can be said to have one, deconstruction is an attempt to open a text (literary, philosophical, or otherwise) to several meanings and interpretations. Its method is usually based on binary oppositions within a text — for example inside and outside or subject and object, or male and female. 'Deconstruction' then argues that such oppositions are culturally and historically defined, even reliant upon one another, and seeks to demonstrate that they are not as clear-cut or as stable as it would at first seem. On the basis that the two opposed concepts are fluid, this ambiguity is used to show that the text's meaning is fluid as well. This fluidity stands against a legacy of traditional metaphysics (that is, Platonist thought) founded on oppositions, that seeks to establish a stability of meaning through conceptual absolutes. And this is kind of interesting: No "meaning" is stable: Derrida called the "metaphysics of presence" the thing that keeps the sense of unity within a text; where presence was granted the privilege of truth. I always consider Derrida a mystic.
I'm a total geek.  Wittgenstein would agree with Dirrida, to a point. He would not say that no meaning is stable. Math is pretty stable, after all. Is math always stable? Can "meaning" in mathematics ever be loosely circumscribed? What about a theory of relativity? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Carristotle because her theory on not givin' a pigeon's balls what people think is quite relevant | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HiinEnkelte said: jone70 said: I'm kind of fond of Soren Kierkegaard
He is considered the father of existentialism. And from wikipedia: Two of his popular ideas are "subjectivity" and the "leap to faith," popularly referred to as the "leap of faith." The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. Kierkegaard also stressed the importance of the self, and the self's relation to the world as being grounded in self-reflection and introspection. http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ierkegaard And look what quote I found when I googled to find a pic of him: "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
That was Cat's 'quote' from the Lovesexy tourbook! I wonder if Prince read Kierkegaard... Lovesexy does kind of fit the idea of the individual's belief in God or in love...
my obsession with the man borders on a sickness. , hence my orgname.what does your orgname mean? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jean Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard is a social theorist best known for his analyses of modes of mediation and technological communication, although the scope of his writing spreads across more diverse subjects — from consumerism, to gender relations, to the social understanding of history through to more journalistic commentaries on AIDS, cloning, the Rushdie affair, the (first) Gulf War and the attacks on the World Trade Center. He has affinities with post-structuralism in that his arguments consistently draw on the notion that systems of signification and meaning are only understandable in terms of their interrelation. In contrast to Foucault however, of whom he is sharply critical, Baudrillard has developed theories based, not on power and knowledge, but around the notions of seduction, simulation, and, the term with which he is most associated, hyperreality. These notions all share the common principle that signification, and therefore meaning, is self-referential (construed, following structuralist semiotics, in terms of absence — so 'dog' means 'dog' not because of what the word says but because it does not say: 'cat', 'goat', 'tree' etc.). Baudrillard uses this principle to argue that in our present 'global' society, wherein technological communication has created an excessive proliferation of meaning, meaning's self-referentiality has prompted, not a McLuhan-style 'global village', but a world where meaning has been effaced and society has been reduced to an opaque mass, where the 'real' has been reduced to the self-referential signs of its existence. yummy yummy yummy I take his theories with a grain of salt, but he puts it all together so well. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |