Philosophy

[Mitch]

I am sure this thread has been done before, but I can't find it using the search function.

What are some philosophical books that I should check out?

And should I read The Communist Manifesto?

[loveisdead]

I am sure this thread has been done before, but I can't find it using the search function.

What are some philosophical books that I should check out?

And should I read The Communist Manifesto?
Yeah definitely read the manifesto. I thought Sartre's No Exit was pretty interesting. It's technically a play, but I really enjoyed it.

[boykosaurus]

I suggest anything by Michele Foucault.

[atticus1492]

Read fucking Schopenhauer.

You haven't read philosophy until you have read that German prick.

[x togepi x]

i think a lot of foucault gets redundant, but if you're definitely thinking about philosophy in a political sense, then you should read his Disclipline and Punish.

[cantnokdahustle]

The Brothers Karamazov and Calvin and Hobbes (3 Volumes) are the only Philosophical books you need to read. Sarte, Mill and Hume are good for a read, but the above get the point across much more painlessly.

[Jason Tate]

Kant, Sartre, Nietzsche, Foucalt, Bertolacci, Aristotle, Voltaire.

Probably the order I'd put my favorites in ...

[concernedparent]

Since this is Philosophy, and in the education section, I was wondering if anyone's here taken an intro to Philosophy college course, and what it was like. I'm signed up for one right now however I think I might drop and take a theater class instead. That is, unless you guys have very positive things to say about the Philosophy class.

[loveisdead]

Kant, Sartre, Nietzsche, Foucalt, Bertolacci, Aristotle, Voltaire.

Probably the order I'd put my favorites in ...
The thing I don't get about Sartre is that if he found life to be so meaningless, why wouldn't he kill himself?

[loveisdead]

Since this is Philosophy, and in the education section, I was wondering if anyone's here taken an intro to Philosophy college course, and what it was like. I'm signed up for one right now however I think I might drop and take a theater class instead. That is, unless you guys have very positive things to say about the Philosophy class.
I absolutely loved my Philosophy course this semester. It was an intro but it was one of my favorite classes I've ever taken. I definitely recommend staying in it.

[boykosaurus]

Since this is Philosophy, and in the education section, I was wondering if anyone's here taken an intro to Philosophy college course, and what it was like. I'm signed up for one right now however I think I might drop and take a theater class instead. That is, unless you guys have very positive things to say about the Philosophy class.

Generally depends on the professor and TA's. I was fortunate to have a good prof and even better TA.

[oddwithoutend]

Since this is Philosophy, and in the education section, I was wondering if anyone's here taken an intro to Philosophy college course, and what it was like. I'm signed up for one right now however I think I might drop and take a theater class instead. That is, unless you guys have very positive things to say about the Philosophy class.

Philosophy is really not for everyone. I reccomend switching courses unless philosophy is genuinely interesting to you, and not to pick it just because. If you are choosing philosophy merely because you didn't think you had anything better to choose, you may really regret it. The fact that you chose it with pessimism leads me to believe that the course is not for you.

[x togepi x]

Since this is Philosophy, and in the education section, I was wondering if anyone's here taken an intro to Philosophy college course, and what it was like. I'm signed up for one right now however I think I might drop and take a theater class instead. That is, unless you guys have very positive things to say about the Philosophy class.

well, even if you don't end up liking philosophy, chances are Intro to Philosophy will be really easy, since the material is going to have to be dumbed down so that you can fit a bunch of different subjects that really require their own classes into one. If you do end up liking it, well you'll have a bunch of books to check out. If you don't, well easy class out of the way.

[Jason Tate]

The thing I don't get about Sartre is that if he found life to be so meaningless, why wouldn't he kill himself?
Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal.

[x togepi x]

The thing I don't get about Sartre is that if he found life to be so meaningless, why wouldn't he kill himself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

sartre didn't write it, but it covers that question.

[Nevuk]

Whatever you do, avoid Hardt and Negri's Empire. Worthless book.

[Jason Tate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

sartre didn't write it, but it covers that question.
Camus. I haven't read anything from him in a long time.

[loveisdead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

sartre didn't write it, but it covers that question.
Thanks a lot.

[x togepi x]

Survival instinct.

i think an existentialist is going to claim that acting on instinct is bad faith.

[x togepi x]

I tend to think most of what we do is hugely driven by instinct on a base level.

eh...i might have agreed with you, but after taking a philosophy of mind class i've begun to think that we really have no idea what mental states that guide human behavior are, so i don't know how to reduce things down to their base level.

i mean i'm not entirely sure how me starting a noise band can be instinctual in anyway.

[cantnokdahustle]

eh...i might have agreed with you, but after taking a philosophy of mind class i've begun to think that we really have no idea what mental states that guide human behavior are, so i don't know how to reduce things down to their base level.

i mean i'm not entirely sure how me starting a noise band can be instinctual in anyway.

why speak as if reductionism is an axiom?

[Nevuk]

Durkheim's Suicide would probably say it was because Sartre was at an appropriate level of social interaction. Besides, just because life is meaningless doesn't mean it's not amusing.

[x togepi x]

why speak as if reductionism is an axiom?

because that's what he was prescribing.

[Thomas Balkcom]

Read fucking Schopenhauer.

You haven't read philosophy until you have read that German prick.

Schopenhauer drove me insane this semester

[Thomas Balkcom]

Kant, Sartre, Nietzsche, Foucalt, Bertolacci, Aristotle, Voltaire.

Probably the order I'd put my favorites in ...

Kant is your favorite?

[Thomas Balkcom]

my personal recommendation is Nietszche's Twilight of the Idol and Beyond Good and Evil and one of my personal favorites is Epictetus' Enchiridion

[Jason Tate]

Kant is your favorite?
Yes.

[wroteurname]

I am sure this thread has been done before, but I can't find it using the search function.

What are some philosophical books that I should check out?

And should I read The Communist Manifesto?
Read the Manifesto, and if you like that read Rousseau's The Social Contract, and if you hate that read Hobbes's The Leviathan.

[Nevuk]

Hume is always good for a laugh

[x togepi x]

Yes.


why? that blows my mind. his writing style is so terrible.

[Jason Tate]

why? that blows my mind. his writing style is so terrible.
His writing style isn't what I like.

[cantnokdahustle]

Hume is always good for a laugh

Hume is like the Joker. He just wanted us all to run around screaming. He wasn't the All Destroyer, but he was as close as we'll get.

[patpratt]

I have to write a paper later. Someone want to give me an argument as to why the human person is a non-essentialist?

[cantnokdahustle]

I have to write a paper later. Someone want to give me an argument as to why the human person is a non-essentialist?

Sarte's Existence before Essence is the first that comes to mind.

[oldwirehands]

Slavoj Žižek I don't think has been mentioned yet. My friend and some other people have been recommending Alan Watts to me. I haven't been in the mood to really read anything philosophy/psychology related in a long time. Freud has fucked me up this year.

Read fucking Schopenhauer.

You haven't read philosophy until you have read that German prick.

lol His take on women and noise is hilarious.

Kant, Sartre, Nietzsche, Foucalt, Bertolacci, Aristotle, Voltaire.

Probably the order I'd put my favorites in ...

One of my favorite for sure. If you haven't seen the BBC series Human All Too Human yet, you should check it out. Look it up on google vids.

[patpratt]

Sarte's Existence before Essence is the first that comes to mind.

If you were to put that in argument form, how would that go?

P1:
P2:
C:

[Nevuk]

Isn't Slavoj Zizek also known as Hakim Bey?

[Nevuk]

Hume is like the Joker. He just wanted us all to run around screaming. He wan't the All Destroyer, but he was as close as we'll get.
Haha, even Hume didn't come close to touching the outlines of pyrrhonism as far as self-destroying everything.

[cantnokdahustle]

If you were to put that in argument form, how would that go?

P1:
P2:
C:

I first should have asked you to clarify your question. Are you asking if there is no essential quality to being a human person? I.E. That all qualities that make up a human being are contingent. If so, then I would have to ask if you are speaking entirely in terms of metaphysics? Vis-a-vis a the utilitarian arguments of Marginal Cases. Though, I think it is quite clear that if you bring material matter into the conversation, it's a damned near impossible task.

So, please clarify. Also, What year are you? I can't imagine too many professors asking non majors to provide a logical proof in their paper. I mean, not so many philosophical works include logical proofs, unless of course they are just a ridiculous beast like Quine.

[x togepi x]

i don't know, i've had some professors who expect arguments ground in formal logic, even if they don't have to throw out a specific proof, it might be helpful to see the premises and the conclusion so that you could write a paper.


fucking pain in the ass writing a paper in ecrite feminine style and worrying about the teacher complaining about the lack of logic.

[cantnokdahustle]

i don't know, i've had some professors who expect arguments ground in formal logic, even if they don't have to throw out a specific proof, it might be helpful to see the premises and the conclusion so that you could write a paper.

Agreed it is nice, but is he seriously asking for a proof of Sarte's Existence before Essence?

I mean, I can think of a syllogism, but it is going to be ridiculously question begging.

[x togepi x]

i interpreted his asking for a proof as another way of asking why rather than expecting it to be used as a proof, but maybe i'm off.

[humanafterall]

Camus. I haven't read anything from him in a long time.
Titus Andronicus actually named a song after him. It's the last song on their debut. I'd recommend the whole album to anyone.

[patpratt]

I first should have asked you to clarify your question. Are you asking if there is no essential quality to being a human person? I.E. That all qualities that make up a human being are contingent. If so, then I would have to ask if you are speaking entirely in terms of metaphysics? Vis-a-vis a the utilitarian arguments of Marginal Cases. Though, I think it is quite clear that if you bring material matter into the conversation, it's a damned near impossible task.

So, please clarify. Also, What year are you? I can't imagine too many professors asking non majors to provide a logical proof in their paper. I mean, not so many philosophical works include logical proofs, unless of course they are just a ridiculous beast like Quine.

Shit. haha I'm so bad at philosophy man, that all completely flew over my head. You lost me in the bolded section haha

This is my first semester in college. He wants us to have an argument in the paper and the conclusion has to be that either the HP (human person) has an essence or it doesn't. I have chosen to argue for non-essence.

[patpratt]

I think an argument for essentialism was something like:

p1: all life forms have essential properties
p2: all essential properties have an essence
c: all life forms have an essence

edit

and i'm looking for one that argues for non essentialism

[cantnokdahustle]

I think an argument for essentialism was something like:

p1: all life forms have essential properties Biological or otherwise?
p2: all essential properties have an essence
c: all life forms have an essence

edit

and i'm looking for one that argues for non essentialism

Unless you are hitting this from a solipsistic standpoint (very Cartesian) then I really don't see how you can argue that human beings do not have essential physical properties. Now, honestly are you talking about essence of being or are you talking about essential physical properties? These are two very different things. You can approach them both, but one is entirely easier than the other.


Suggestion: If you read Quine on the subject, you will never again be able to form a cogent conversation with another human being. Linguistic philosophers will royally screw your thought process.

Sorry, I am mostly into Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion, and I am more scientifically inclined, so Metaphysics really kind of irritating, but necessary.

[patpratt]

Unless you are hitting this from a solipsistic standpoint (very Cartesian) then I really don't see how you can argue that human beings do not have essential physical properties. Now, honestly are you talking about essence of being or are you talking about essential physical properties? These are two very different things. You can approach them both, but one is entirely easier than the other.


Suggestion: If you read Quine on the subject, you will never again be able to form a cogent conversation with another human being. Linguistic philosophers will royally screw your thought process.

Sorry, I am mostly into Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion, and I am more scientifically inclined, so Metaphysics really kind of irritating, but necessary.

I'm not really sure. But I was talking to my prof and said that I agree mostly with Existentialism, etc. He said that that is a non-essence view. So now I need a fucking argument. haha its so annoying!

[Thomas Balkcom]

Unless you are hitting this from a solipsistic standpoint (very Cartesian) then I really don't see how you can argue that human beings do not have essential physical properties. Now, honestly are you talking about essence of being or are you talking about essential physical properties? These are two very different things. You can approach them both, but one is entirely easier than the other.


Suggestion: If you read Quine on the subject, you will never again be able to form a cogent conversation with another human being. Linguistic philosophers will royally screw your thought process.

Sorry, I am mostly into Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion, and I am more scientifically inclined, so Metaphysics really kind of irritating, but necessary.

Philosophy of Language has been by far the hardest/ most frustrating course I've taken thus far.

[cantnokdahustle]

I'm not really sure. But I was talking to my prof and said that I agree mostly with Existentialism, etc. He said that that is a non-essence view. So now I need a fucking argument. haha its so annoying!

Alright. Then you are not dealing with necessary and contingent properties, though the two are linked. It doesn't seem like there would be much time left in the semester; when is this paper due? If you have time you need to read Sarte on existentialism. Again, Existence before Essence is, in a general statement, the idea that we exist and it is fundamentally up to the individual to create a reason ('purpose' more zealously) for that existence.

[cantnokdahustle]

Philosophy of Language has been by far the hardest/ most frustrating course I've taken thus far.


whom have you been reading. we were introduced slowly/ beginning with G.E. Moore moving on to Russell, then to Austin and Ayer, and then the All Killer W.V.O. Quine.

Had Logical Positivism been true, everything would have been so simple, but then came "Two Dogma's of Empiricism."

Keep with it and you'll do fine, but the word 'concise' will leave your vocabulary.

[Mitch]

Glad this thread finally got some replies. I just got back from Italy yesterday and I'm home for three weeks, so I'm going to be taking advantage of having a Borders around me!

I've been interested in Kant ever since learning a little bit about him last year in a bioethics course. I have a Nietzsche book from a couple of years ago but I was too retarded to understand his writing at the time (although I may still be). I'll go through this thread and decide what to get.

[patpratt]

Alright. Then you are not dealing with necessary and contingent properties, though the two are linked. It doesn't seem like there would be much time left in the semester; when is this paper due? If you have time you need to read Sarte on existentialism. Again, Existence before Essence is, in a general statement, the idea that we exist and it is fundamentally up to the individual to create a reason ('purpose' more zealously) for that existence.

What about this for an argument?

p1- if we could perceive (find) it then it exists
p2- we cant find it
c: therefore it doesnt exist

it=essense

EDIT

Also, can you help me prove how those two premises are true?

[neo506]

Since this is Philosophy, and in the education section, I was wondering if anyone's here taken an intro to Philosophy college course, and what it was like. I'm signed up for one right now however I think I might drop and take a theater class instead. That is, unless you guys have very positive things to say about the Philosophy class.I took 2 (one was like an introduction and the other was Ethics) I absolutely loved them both

[bowl of oranges]

I bought a collection of Nietzsche stuff a while ago and I have yet to read it. Oh well.

[PlacesToGo]

most philosophy related to economics produced in history, until recently, are bullshit.

[patpratt]

Unless you are hitting this from a solipsistic standpoint (very Cartesian) then I really don't see how you can argue that human beings do not have essential physical properties. Now, honestly are you talking about essence of being or are you talking about essential physical properties? These are two very different things. You can approach them both, but one is entirely easier than the other.


Suggestion: If you read Quine on the subject, you will never again be able to form a cogent conversation with another human being. Linguistic philosophers will royally screw your thought process.

Sorry, I am mostly into Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion, and I am more scientifically inclined, so Metaphysics really kind of irritating, but necessary.

I'm talking about essence of being, fyi.

[cantnokdahustle]

I'm talking about essence of being, fyi.

Great. Any argument you put together will not be sound, but can still hold up to logical structure. Your premises will be debated ad nauseum. Synthetic statements can never be logically verifiable.

[IAmNietzche]

whom have you been reading. we were introduced slowly/ beginning with G.E. Moore moving on to Russell, then to Auden and Ayer, and then the All Killer W.V.O. Quine.

Had Logical Positivism been true, everything would have been so simple, but then came "Two Dogma's of Empiricism."

Keep with it and you'll do fine, but the word 'concise' will leave your vocabulary.
Quine's "Two Dogma's..." hinges on semantic holism which, taken to it's logical conclusion says that it is impossible to learn a language. Semantic holism has other notable flaws but based on the aforementioned alone, Quine is no all killer of the Philosophy of Language.

[cantnokdahustle]

Quine's "Two Dogma's..." hinges on semantic holism which, taken to it's logical conclusion says that it is impossible to learn a language. Semantic holism has other notable flaws but based on the aforementioned alone, Quine is no all killer of the Philosophy of Language.

He certainly caused me problems. However, I approach semantic holism as I do determinism. I recognize its probability of truth, but ultimately you have to ignore it, even though that may be difficult.

[IAmNietzche]

He certainly caused me problems. However, I approach semantic holism as I do determinism. I recognize its probability of truth, but ultimately you have to ignore it, even though that may be difficult.
I can't accept its probability of truth. I have trouble reconciling the problem that semantic holism arrives at when you look at the use of the same language by different people. I don't want to get into a debate on Quine's thought (cause we could be here until this time next year), but semantic holism seems to want to say that no one can have a conversation of any relevance with another person because they cannot mean the same thing when using the same words, because their "whole" knowledge of language is different on account of them having mastered different parts of the language.

[cantnokdahustle]

I am doing this while my kids are taking a test, so I can't do much, but I disagree with the assertion that "Two Dogmas..." reaches the conclusion that no one can understand what another is saying and that one cannot possibly learn a language. It merely states that words only gain meaning when given the context of other words (in itself as part of an entire language). That merely means you must have a sufficient knowledge of both formal and colloquial semantics in order to get even the most general of idea of meaning. You cannot understand words in isolation of context.

I also do not want to argue this til next year, for the philosophical community has been doing so for fifty some odd years.

[Nevuk]

most philosophy related to economics produced in history, until recently, are bullshit.
....the recent ones being?

[Nevuk]

I am doing this while my kids are taking a test, so I can't do much, but I disagree with the assertion that "Two Dogmas..." reaches the conclusion that no one can understand what another is saying and that one cannot possibly learn a language. It merely states that words only gain meaning when given the context of other words (in itself as part of an entire language). That merely means you must have a sufficient knowledge of both formal and colloquial semantics in order to get even the most general of idea of meaning. You cannot understand words in isolation of context.

I also do not want to argue this til next year, for the philosophical community has been doing so for fifty some odd years.
Isn't that the point of structural linguistics?

[IAmNietzche]

Isn't that the point of structural linguistics?
In my opinion he understated the meaning of semantic holism and, you're right, his explanation does seem to simply parallel structural linguistics. However, after reading "Two Dogmas..." it was my impression that Quine was proposing that words can only be understood in relation to some preexisting relationship with another segment of language.

However, the point that I can't get past is that Quine seems to want to say that this aforementioned "segment" of language is the totality of language itself; "the unit of measure of empirical meaning is all of science in its globality". Therefore, Quine proposes that one cannot understand words without a preexisting knowledge of the entirety of, for arguments sake, the English language... which I believe to be impossible.

[wroteurname]

most philosophy related to economics produced in history, until recently, are bullshit.
Keynesian is the only economic philosophy that makes sense, IMO.

[IAmNietzche]

If you have never read a philosophical text or are beginning a philosophy course and want to read something that will undoubtedly complement your assigned texts, I would suggest Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. I wish I had read it as my first philosophy text.

[cantnokdahustle]

If you have never read a philosophical text or are beginning a philosophy course and want to read something that will undoubtedly complement your assigned texts, I would suggest Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. I wish I had read it as my first philosophy text.

Seconded. We are experimenting here in Austin with teaching Philosophy to Middle Schoolers. I used his chapter on the Atomists as a reading assignment and my kids were not bored to tears over it.

[cantnokdahustle]

However, the point that I can't get past is that Quine seems to want to say that this aforementioned "segment" of language is the totality of language itself; "the unit of measure of empirical meaning is all of science in its globality". Therefore, Quine proposes that one cannot understand words without a preexisting knowledge of the entirety of, for arguments sake, the English language... which I believe to be impossible.

But is there not something to this? Youdo have to understand a great deal (probably not all) of the nuances of a language to be able to make any sense of what is going on. I agree that it is impossible to to understand a language in all of its completeness, but I think this is where synonymy rears its head (Via J.L. Austin).

This conversation will very soon be at a point, in which, my ignorance outweighs my ability to B.S.

Do you believe that there is a demarcation between Analytic and Synthetic statements? I do, unfortunately I can't see a way past what seems like many good arguments for circularity by Quine on the subject.
.

[x togepi x]

ugh. i hate having to write an essay on kant's solving the problem of subjectivity in the arts. dude just talks and talks and talks and none of it is worthwhile.

[IAmNietzche]

ugh. i hate having to write an essay on kant's solving the problem of subjectivity in the arts. dude just talks and talks and talks and none of it is worthwhile.
Pretty good characterization of Kant.

[IAmNietzche]

But is there not something to this? Youdo have to understand a great deal (probably not all) of the nuances of a language to be able to make any sense of what is going on. I agree that it is impossible to to understand a language in all of its completeness, but I think this is where synonymy rears its head (Via J.L. Austin).

This conversation will very soon be at a point, in which, my ignorance outweighs my ability to B.S.

Do you believe that there is a demarcation between Analytic and Synthetic statements? I do, unfortunately I can't see a way past what seems like many good arguments for circularity by Quine on the subject.
.
Quine's discussion of syonymy is what ruined "Two Dogmas..." for me. He gets into a discussion of synonymy to prove his point and then gets bogged down in it and ultimately stumbles across a circular reasoning... and then decides to abandon it.

Quine's biggest strength is his demarcation betweeen the analytic and the synthetic which I find almost impossible not to find at least some merit in.

[x togepi x]

Pretty good characterization of Kant.

that's how i feel about him. did he really need to write an entire book showing that judgments of taste are subjective but we might be able to a common universal judgment of taste to solve disputes? No. he could have just written an essay. I mean, he's wrong, but it didn't need to be dragged out over an entire book.

[Jason Tate]

that's how i feel about him. did he really need to write an entire book showing that judgments of taste are subjective but we might be able to a common universal judgment of taste to solve disputes? No. he could have just written an essay. I mean, he's wrong, but it didn't need to be dragged out over an entire book.
He's right.

[x togepi x]

He's right.

no he's not. the entire basis he uses for solving disputes of taste rely on a universal human nature which i don't think exists. and he implies that it's possible to feel disinterested pleasure (ie: nonbodily pleasure) which i don't think exists either.

[Jason Tate]

no he's not. the entire basis he uses for solving disputes of taste rely on a universal human nature which i don't think exists. and he implies that it's possible to feel disinterested pleasure (ie: nonbodily pleasure) which i don't think exists either.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/#1

[DarkOne]

what is philosophy?

[x togepi x]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/#1

i've read this article three times and i'm not seeing how it says anything that isn't already found in The Critique of Judgment, which I already read and was criticizing I understand how these types of aesthetic judgments fit into Kant's metaphysics, but I don't see how he can say things such as beauty is disinterested because it doesn't cause desire.

[loveisdead]

Bumping because I enjoy philsophy based discussion, the I'm admittedly not nearly as well read and I should be on it.

With all the talk about religion going on around here, I came up with a thought. Religion itself isn't a problem. At all. It's simply a philosophy. It's silly to bash all these religions as it's just a person's ideas. I think it's wrong to try and jump on a person for having ideas.

[Love As Arson]

I thought I'd dislike Wittgenstein more than I actually did.

[loveisdead]

What was his general point of view? I'll pull up his wikipedia page now but you can probably give an equally accurate summary.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm reading Thomas More's Utopia. Such an interesting book.

[My Broken Fever]

Reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra, very good.

[saysmydoctor]

Don't know if anybody has mentioned economic philosophical texts, but I plan to read Adam Smith, Friemdan and Keynes in the future.

[loveisdead]

Don't know if anybody has mentioned economic philosophical texts, but I plan to read Adam Smith, Friemdan and Keynes in the future.
All extremely interesting. As you know, Keynes is my favorite.

[x togepi x]

just read adorno.

[loveisdead]

just read adorno.
Probably the most appropriate to be discussed on this forum.

[Love As Arson]

What was his general point of view? I'll pull up his wikipedia page now but you can probably give an equally accurate summary.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

[kwsqd]

just read adorno.
I just finished writing a paper on Adorno & Horkheimer, Arendt, and Marcuse. It's amazing how their work applies even more today than it did 50 years ago.

[Thomas Balkcom]

I just finished writing a paper on Adorno & Horkheimer, Arendt, and Marcuse. It's amazing how their work applies even more today than it did 50 years ago.

haven't read the others but I completely agree about Arendt. my school offered a class on her over the summer but it conflicted with a class I had to take; I really wanted to take it after reading On Violence.

[Thomas Balkcom]

Glad this thread finally got some replies. I just got back from Italy yesterday and I'm home for three weeks, so I'm going to be taking advantage of having a Borders around me!

I've been interested in Kant ever since learning a little bit about him last year in a bioethics course. I have a Nietzsche book from a couple of years ago but I was too retarded to understand his writing at the time (although I may still be). I'll go through this thread and decide what to get.

what book of Nietzsche's is it? And did you ever end up reading it?

[kwsqd]

haven't read the others but I completely agree about Arendt. my school offered a class on her over the summer but it conflicted with a class I had to take; I really wanted to take it after reading On Violence.
Out of the three I've read, I dislike Arendt the most, but I'd definitely be willing to read more of her work.

[Mitch]

what book of Nietzsche's is it? And did you ever end up reading it?

http://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsche-Modern-Library-Classics/dp/0679783393

And no, I did not end up reading it. I will someday though.

[Thomas Balkcom]

Out of the three I've read, I dislike Arendt the most, but I'd definitely be willing to read more of her work.

If I had read that on my own I would have most likely not have enjoyed it as much. Fortunately, it was in a classroom setting (a survey of 20th century philosophy) and had a professor who was passionate about it. It's amazing how much influence a professor can have over a student liking or disliking a particular philosopher.

[Thomas Balkcom]

http://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsche-Modern-Library-Classics/dp/0679783393

And no, I did not end up reading it. I will someday though.

hope you do, he may not be my favorite philosopher but he is one of my favorites to read

[kwsqd]

If I had read that on my own I would have most likely not have enjoyed it as much. Fortunately, it was in a classroom setting (a survey of 20th century philosophy) and had a professor who was passionate about it. It's amazing how much influence a professor can have over a student liking or disliking a particular philosopher.
That's exactly my setting and the professor loves Arendt. I just feel like she's conservative to the point of being annoying. (I only read the Human Condition.)

[Poe-tryGirl]

I've read parts of the Communist Manifesto. I'm also in Contemporary Moral Problems which is also called Philosophy 121. I'm loving it.

[Thomas Balkcom]

I've read parts of the Communist Manifesto. I'm also in Contemporary Moral Problems which is also called Philosophy 121. I'm loving it.

you get to take a Contemporary Moral Problems class at age 16?

[Thomas Balkcom]

That's exactly my setting and the professor loves Arendt. I just feel like she's conservative to the point of being annoying. (I only read the Human Condition.)

what class is it and what else do you have to read?

[kwsqd]

what class is it and what else do you have to read?
20th Century Philosophy. We're reading a wide sample of stuff. First section of the course was on Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud. Now we're heading into feminism.

[Poe-tryGirl]

you get to take a Contemporary Moral Problems class at age 16?
Yes. It's via the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, and you get college and high school credit.

[saysmydoctor]

Currently reading Locke's Second Treatise for Poli Theory and Kant's Perpetual Peace in my spare time.

[kwsqd]

Currently reading Locke's Second Treatise for Poli Theory and Kant's Perpetual Peace in my spare time.
I used to love Locke but I haven't read anything of his in a long time.

[Thomas Balkcom]

20th Century Philosophy. We're reading a wide sample of stuff. First section of the course was on Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud. Now we're heading into feminism.

are you a Phil major? I never got to read Freud in a philosophy classroom setting (only in film theory), one of the bigger regrets of my undergrad.

Yes. It's via the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, and you get college and high school credit.

that's badass.

[Poe-tryGirl]

that's badass.
I think so. I have a high B in it right now.

[Thomas Balkcom]

this is pretty pertinent to the thread http://www.askphilosophers.org/

I've been using that site to kill time in-between classes at school

[kwsqd]

are you a Phil major? I never got to read Freud in a philosophy classroom setting (only in film theory), one of the bigger regrets of my undergrad.



that's badass.
I'm tempted to switch to it. Last semester I took an American Radicalism class which was down-right amazing. I read Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle... I'd suggest checking that out. It's not very long but it is an incredibly interesting read.

[Thomas Balkcom]

I'm tempted to switch to it. Last semester I took an American Radicalism class which was down-right amazing. I read Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle... I'd suggest checking that out. It's not very long but it is an incredibly interesting read.

I jotted that down on my short-list of books to read -- appreciate the recommendation.

[kwsqd]

I jotted that down on my short-list of books to read -- appreciate the recommendation.
If I could suggest only one thing to you, it'd be this: http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Reader-Documentary-American-Tradition/dp/1565848276

[Thomas Balkcom]

If I could suggest only one thing to you, it'd be this: http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Reader-Documentary-American-Tradition/dp/1565848276

if my school's library does not have a copy of it, then I will try and buy a used version in the next few months. I graduate in December and am looking for texts to keep me occupied, so again, thank you.

[vodyanoj]

Since this is Philosophy, and in the education section, I was wondering if anyone's here taken an intro to Philosophy college course, and what it was like. I'm signed up for one right now however I think I might drop and take a theater class instead. That is, unless you guys have very positive things to say about the Philosophy class.

An intro to Philosophy is an excellent thing as long as you don't take it too seriously. At most, it will make you aware of the major currents of thought and give you guidelines on what to read next.

In general, I'd say that any decent overview of philosophy on a junior college level is the place to start. if any particular thinker interests you, go from there.

For massive overviews, I recommend Nozick's "Philosophical Explanations". For specific areas of philosophy, my favourites are Hume, Mill, Russell (and Frege), Poincare, McKie (ethics), Martin (atheism), Dennett (evolutionary theory and consciousness). For philosophy of biology, try Sterelny's "Sex and Death". For philosophy of science in general, read Kuhn and logical positivists (Carnap, Hempel), but do not take them too seriously: the questions are valid but the conclusions are often full of shit. Giere's "Science without Laws" is another one definitely worth a look. For philosophy of the mind, Churchland's "Neurophilosophy" is a fascinating read. Some publishers, notably Routledge and Blackwell have a series of volumes overviewing major branches of thought. For political thought, Rawls is one othe best, and Walzer's "Just and Unjust War" and "Spheres of Justice" are both well worth it. Other favourites of mine are Santayana and Peirce, and while some of both of them is necessary you should decide for yourself whether you want to get into them at any depth.

What not to read: most post-modernism and epistemic relativism, all apologetics. I am not so fond of the Continental school in general; Merleau-Ponty and such are worth a look, but I disagree with him on pretty much everything. Foucault was certainly a major thinker but repeats himself too often and can be reduced in general to a twenty-page overview. Sartre and Camus are awesome but your mileage may very.

[vodyanoj]

I first should have asked you to clarify your question. Are you asking if there is no essential quality to being a human person? I.E. That all qualities that make up a human being are contingent. If so, then I would have to ask if you are speaking entirely in terms of metaphysics? Vis-a-vis a the utilitarian arguments of Marginal Cases. Though, I think it is quite clear that if you bring material matter into the conversation, it's a damned near impossible task.

So, please clarify. Also, What year are you? I can't imagine too many professors asking non majors to provide a logical proof in their paper. I mean, not so many philosophical works include logical proofs, unless of course they are just a ridiculous beast like Quine.

I love Quine...:)

[Love As Arson]

I always recommend Husserl. He was a very underrated thinker.

[x togepi x]

I just finished writing a paper on Adorno & Horkheimer, Arendt, and Marcuse. It's amazing how their work applies even more today than it did 50 years ago.

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous.

[theguy77]

the one philosopher i know two cents' worth of knowledge about is Nietzche. his theories are fun to wrap your head around and something i subscribe to when im looking at the big picture, but if you feel content participating in life and taking your life seriously its probably not something you want to live by.

[kwsqd]

An intro to Philosophy is an excellent thing as long as you don't take it too seriously. At most, it will make you aware of the major currents of thought and give you guidelines on what to read next.

In general, I'd say that any decent overview of philosophy on a junior college level is the place to start. if any particular thinker interests you, go from there.

For massive overviews, I recommend Nozick's "Philosophical Explanations". For specific areas of philosophy, my favourites are Hume, Mill, Russell (and Frege), Poincare, McKie (ethics), Martin (atheism), Dennett (evolutionary theory and consciousness). For philosophy of biology, try Sterelny's "Sex and Death". For philosophy of science in general, read Kuhn and logical positivists (Carnap, Hempel), but do not take them too seriously: the questions are valid but the conclusions are often full of shit. Giere's "Science without Laws" is another one definitely worth a look. For philosophy of the mind, Churchland's "Neurophilosophy" is a fascinating read. Some publishers, notably Routledge and Blackwell have a series of volumes overviewing major branches of thought. For political thought, Rawls is one othe best, and Walzer's "Just and Unjust War" and "Spheres of Justice" are both well worth it. Other favourites of mine are Santayana and Peirce, and while some of both of them is necessary you should decide for yourself whether you want to get into them at any depth.

What not to read: most post-modernism and epistemic relativism, all apologetics. I am not so fond of the Continental school in general; Merleau-Ponty and such are worth a look, but I disagree with him on pretty much everything. Foucault was certainly a major thinker but repeats himself too often and can be reduced in general to a twenty-page overview. Sartre and Camus are awesome but your mileage may very.

I disagree with your "what not to read" entirely. Couldn't disagree more.

[vodyanoj]

I disagree with your "what not to read" entirely. Couldn't disagree more.

Apologetics, PoMo or relativism? some kind of a case may be made for some pomo philosophers (although the majority of them are charlatans or close to veering into charlatanry). The other two are utterly useless, of course, and no case for their usefulness that is not dependent on a particular political or religious agenda can be made at all.

[vodyanoj]

I always recommend Husserl. He was a very underrated thinker.

I am only barely familiar with him, and he does sound somewhat interesting, even though too close to Hegelian thought for my tastes (but then, that is also the problem I have with Marxian metaphysics (but not his economics!))

[kwsqd]

Apologetics, PoMo or relativism? some kind of a case may be made for some pomo philosophers (although the majority of them are charlatans or close to veering into charlatanry). The other two are utterly useless, of course, and no case for their usefulness that is not dependent on a particular political or religious agenda can be made at all.
Your statement about not being fond of continental philosophy in general.

[perceptrons]

Taking Computers and Philosophy next term, I couldn't be more excited for it.

[Love As Arson]

Picked up:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41m7uvYtz8L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[Wake Up]

Picked up:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41m7uvYtz8L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Christ. What a picture.

[circasuicide]

Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal.

having had some discussions with you, i gather that life is very meaningful to you, so i then assume by this quote that you think you are eternal? if so in what way? or are you unsure?

[caveBEAR]

having had some discussions with you, i gather that life is very meaningful to you, so i then assume by this quote that you think you are eternal? if so in what way? or are you unsure?

He means life isn't eternal, i.e., he doesn't believe in an afterlife. Based off that he (and many other like-minded thinkers in this forum) believes that worrying about 'the afterlife' is pointless, as you are wasting your fleeting moments in reality, i.e., life.

[Jason Tate]

having had some discussions with you, i gather that life is very meaningful to you, so i then assume by this quote that you think you are eternal? if so in what way? or are you unsure?
It's a quote from Sartre. In response to a question about why Sartre doesn't kill himself.

[circasuicide]

It's a quote from Sartre. In response to a question about why Sartre doesn't kill himself.

my mistake.

[loveisdead]

It's a quote from Sartre. In response to a question about why Sartre doesn't kill himself.

I love Sartre.

[dtrzcin]

Currently reading Beyond Good and Evil.

[Thomas Balkcom]

Currently reading Beyond Good and Evil.

what do you think so far?

[dtrzcin]

what do you think so far?

It pretty much dumbfounds me, haha. He challenges all preconceived notions about everything. More than once I had to stop reading and just laugh and shake my head. The translation I have really brings to light his sardonic tendencies. I can't put it down!

[Love As Arson]

Oh, and fuck Kant.

[loveisdead]

Oh, and fuck Kant.

I can get on board with this.

[lfdfforever]

Christ. What a picture. lol

[lfdfforever]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/philosophy-guide-to-happiness/

[Thomas Balkcom]

Oh, and fuck Kant.

haha.

[caveBEAR]

What's the deal with Kant?

[Love As Arson]

What's the deal with Kant?
Transcendatal idealism.

[caveBEAR]

Transcendatal idealism.

:lol: You could have never answered and I'd still know what I know now. You guies iz smartr then me.

[loveisdead]

:lol: You could have never answered and I'd still know what I know now. You guies iz smartr then me.

Wikipedia is your friend.

[caveBEAR]

Wikipedia is your friend.

Ha ha ha, indeed. Once this poker tournament ends I plan on looking into it. Ha ha ha, I wasn't whining for an explanation, just musing the fact that many of the regulars are far and away much (at least book) smarter than I am.

[paper halo]

What's the deal with Kant?

He's a complete Kant :shrug:

(Imagine it in a London accent.)

[Love As Arson]

:lol: You could have never answered and I'd still know what I know now. You guies iz smartr then me.
His thought is circular. Phenomena is presented, abstracted and schemata is created which refers to the original phenomena, then is treated as transcendental rules to explain the phenomena. Nothing is explained, the phenomena that is to be explained is being used to explain its existence. Processes and historical conditions are treated as completely irrelevant.

[circasuicide]

can anyone sum up their personally philosophy on life in a couple sentences?

[Love As Arson]

can anyone sum up their personally philosophy on life in a couple sentences?

Shit happens. Like class conflict, so be on the right side.

[saysmydoctor]

It pretty much dumbfounds me, haha. He challenges all preconceived notions about everything. More than once I had to stop reading and just laugh and shake my head. The translation I have really brings to light his sardonic tendencies. I can't put it down!
I have a really hard time enjoying Nietzsche, because I feel he articulates several good points and then I consider his personal life and how miserable he was--I don't know, I feel he must have been wrong somewhere.

That being said, I've owned Beyond Good and Evil for a while and have yet to tackle it, it's on the to do list after Camus.

[caveBEAR]

His thought is circular. Phenomena is presented, abstracted and schemata is created which refers to the original phenomena, then is treated as transcendental rules to explain the phenomena. Nothing is explained, the phenomena that is to be explained is being used to explain its existence. Processes and historical conditions are treated as completely irrelevant.

I've been reading up on it...X-)

Time and space are real, but only in the sense of our own perception of time and space, which seems exactly like the real physical time and space Newton discusses, but in actuality isn't like that outside of our minds, but we'll never know what it's really like because we can't get outside our minds, and our mathematics on the physicalities of the universe are thrown off by our perceptions...
:explode:

Smells like bullshit.

[saysmydoctor]

And a little bit like teen spirit.

[caveBEAR]

And a little bit like teen spirit.

Which, I recently found out, does not smell like five plastic buttons. Who knew?

[dtrzcin]

I have a really hard time enjoying Nietzsche, because I feel he articulates several good points and then I consider his personal life and how miserable he was--I don't know, I feel he must have been wrong somewhere.

That being said, I've owned Beyond Good and Evil for a while and have yet to tackle it, it's on the to do list after Camus.

I feel like it's best to take everything he says with a grain of salt. That said, I still enjoy his perspective most of the time.

[saysmydoctor]

can anyone sum up their personally philosophy on life in a couple sentences?
What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

[Love As Arson]

I have a really hard time enjoying Nietzsche, because I feel he articulates several good points and then I consider his personal life and how miserable he was--I don't know, I feel he must have been wrong somewhere.

That being said, I've owned Beyond Good and Evil for a while and have yet to tackle it, it's on the to do list after Camus.
He did say some good things:

"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer."

[~maxwell]

I am sure this thread has been done before, but I can't find it using the search function.

What are some philosophical books that I should check out?

And should I read The Communist Manifesto?
if you don't read the communist manifesto it can hurt you. many dirty nurds who go to protests have not read the CM but they echo it in their behavior. If you DO read the Communist Manifesto it can hurt you, because it is simply a Guide to Take Over The World And Enslave Everyone While Tricking Them Into Thinking That They Have A "Workers' Paradise". That's what it is. I'm glad I read it because i know a whole lot of b. s. fake-ass dirt kids who call themselves anarchocommunists. The whole point is to depopulate anarchy, make anarchism appear stupid and self-contradictory. I hate those weak fvckers and hope the cops put pepperspray lovingly up their asses...communism and socialism are INCAPABLE of being anarchy. They are good hiding places for Nazis, fascists and Statist bullies who will lie to get control in general. If you are bothered to disgusted by the current batch of fanatic Christian Fascist Republicans now turgid in the United States, you should read it.

A good way to counteract the poison effect that the Communist Manifesto is would be to ALSO read

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.


...because 1984 is about totalitarianism and what a BAD thing it is. Orwell famously renounced socialism and it shows in 1984

and just remember: it was not called "Union of Soviet Socialist Democracies" for a reason.

[~maxwell]

What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?



i just heard snoop dog in my head saying 'THIS SITE IS NOT PUNK AT ALL.'
i think i am going crazy and/or need to smoke more weed.

[Love As Arson]

if you don't read the communist manifesto it can hurt you. many dirty nurds who go to protests have not read the CM but they echo it in their behavior. If you DO read the Communist Manifesto it can hurt you, because it is simply a Guide to Take Over The World And Enslave Everyone While Tricking Them Into Thinking That They Have A "Workers' Paradise". That's what it is. I'm glad I read it because i know a whole lot of b. s. fake-ass dirt kids who call themselves anarchocommunists. The whole point is to depopulate anarchy, make anarchism appear stupid and self-contradictory. I hate those weak fvckers and hope the cops put pepperspray lovingly up their asses...communism and socialism are INCAPABLE of being anarchy. They are good hiding places for Nazis, fascists and Statist bullies who will lie to get control in general. If you are bothered to disgusted by the current batch of fanatic Christian Fascist Republicans now turgid in the United States, you should read it.

A good way to counteract the poison effect that the Communist Manifesto is would be to ALSO read

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.


...because 1984 is about totalitarianism and what a BAD thing it is. Orwell famously renounced socialism and it shows in 1984

and just remember: it was not called "Union of Soviet Socialist Democracies" for a reason.

I guess that explains why the Nazis when to great lengths to kill Communist/socialist organizers. Also, Orwell was a democratic socialist towards the end of his life, I believe.

[mcm1610]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png

Because being in different corners of the spectrum is pretty close, right?

[crackedthesky]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png

Because being in different corners of the spectrum is pretty close, right?

I have a lot of issues with this chart. Such as libertarians being progressive. And I think fascism and anarchism should switch places.

[mcm1610]

What? I could see your first issue, but the second one, no way. Fascism builds off extreme conservative sentiment consolidated into a totalitarian type government. To put it in the opposite corner is the exact opposite of that. Conversely (is that the right logic word?) anarchism is a complete lack of government, which is the complete opposite of totalitarianism.

[caveBEAR]

What? I could see your first issue, but the second one, no way. Fascism builds off extreme conservative sentiment consolidated into a totalitarian type government. To put it in the opposite corner is the exact opposite of that. Conversely (is that the right logic word?) anarchism is a complete lack of government, which is the complete opposite of totalitarianism.

Conservative thought leads to less government, the end result of that being anarchism. Fascism is government imposing it's will, and that's pretty much the antithesis of conservative thought.

[x togepi x]

if you don't read the communist manifesto it can hurt you. many dirty nurds who go to protests have not read the CM but they echo it in their behavior. If you DO read the Communist Manifesto it can hurt you, because it is simply a Guide to Take Over The World And Enslave Everyone While Tricking Them Into Thinking That They Have A "Workers' Paradise". That's what it is. I'm glad I read it because i know a whole lot of b. s. fake-ass dirt kids who call themselves anarchocommunists. The whole point is to depopulate anarchy, make anarchism appear stupid and self-contradictory. I hate those weak fvckers and hope the cops put pepperspray lovingly up their asses...communism and socialism are INCAPABLE of being anarchy. They are good hiding places for Nazis, fascists and Statist bullies who will lie to get control in general. If you are bothered to disgusted by the current batch of fanatic Christian Fascist Republicans now turgid in the United States, you should read it.

A good way to counteract the poison effect that the Communist Manifesto is would be to ALSO read

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.


...because 1984 is about totalitarianism and what a BAD thing it is. Orwell famously renounced socialism and it shows in 1984

and just remember: it was not called "Union of Soviet Socialist Democracies" for a reason.

Orwell never renounced Socialism. He renounced support of those who hijacked the movement.

anarchy w/o socialism is boring junk libertarianism.

[x togepi x]

Oh, and fuck Kant.

This all day long.

[crackedthesky]

What? I could see your first issue, but the second one, no way. Fascism builds off extreme conservative sentiment consolidated into a totalitarian type government. To put it in the opposite corner is the exact opposite of that. Conversely (is that the right logic word?) anarchism is a complete lack of government, which is the complete opposite of totalitarianism.

I could, but this is easier:

Conservative thought leads to less government, the end result of that being anarchism. Fascism is government imposing it's will, and that's pretty much the antithesis of conservative thought.

Basically, anarchism is total lack of government. The left doesn't complain that government is "too big" or "too involved" or "there at all," the right does.
Fascism is total control by the government. That couldn't be further from the right.

In all actuality, that chart would differ depending on the issue. When it comes to health care for all, the right is incredibly anarchistic.
When in comes to Terry Shiavo or stem cell research, suddenly fascism starts to be a lot further to the right.

[Love As Arson]

Fascism:

“The gigantic growth of National Socialism is an expression of two factors: a deep social crisis, throwing the petty-bourgeois masses off balance, and the lack of a revolutionary party that would be regarded by the masses of the people as an acknowledged revolutionary leader. If the Communist Party is the party of revolutionary hope, then fascism, as a mass movement, is the party of counterrevolutionary despair”

"Fascism has opened up the depths of society for politics. Today, not only in peasant homes but also in city skyscrapers, there lives alongside of the twentieth century the tenth or the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic power of signs and exorcisms. The Pope of Rome broadcasts over the radio about the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man’s genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery! Despair has raised them to their feet fascism has given them a banner. Everything that should have been eliminated from the national organism in the form of cultural excrement in the course of the normal development of society has now come gushing out from the throat; capitalist society is puking up the undigested barbarism. Such is the physiology of National Socialism.

German fascism, like Italian fascism, raised itself to power on the backs of the petty bourgeoisie, which it turned into a battering ram against the organizations of the working class and the institutions of democracy. But fascism in power is least of all the rule of the petty bourgeoisie. On the contrary, it is the most ruthless dictatorship of monopoly capital. Mussolini is right: the middle classes are incapable of independent policies. During periods of great crisis they are called upon to reduce to absurdity the policies of one of the two basic classes. Fascism succeeded in putting them at the service of capital Such slogans as state control of trusts and the elimination of unearned income were thrown overboard immediately upon the assumption of power. Instead, the particularism of German “lands” leaning upon the peculiarities of the petty bourgeoisie gave way to capitalist-police centralism. Every success of the internal and foreign policies of National Socialism will inevitably mean the further crushing of small capital by large."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

[saysmydoctor]

Someone here once described fascism as the extreme center and made a pretty good case for it.

[Love As Arson]

I could, but this is easier:



Basically, anarchism is total lack of government. The left doesn't complain that government is "too big" or "too involved" or "there at all," the right does.
Fascism is total control by the government. That couldn't be further from the right.

In all actuality, that chart would differ depending on the issue. When it comes to health care for all, the right is incredibly anarchistic.
When in comes to Terry Shiavo or stem cell research, suddenly fascism starts to be a lot further to the right.
There are conservative tendencies within anarchism. However, anarchists in general have little in common with the right. The question of unjustified authority applies to the free market as well, so that would be a point of contention with conservatives who view the market as inherently justified. A society based on anarchism would be much the same as communism, insofar as no one would have the right to erect institutions which oppress or deprive people of the means to live freely. Along with living freely, access to the things necessary to live, like water or heat, would be given freely in freely associated municipality, as having to pay for those would mean there is a center of power.

[Love As Arson]

For anyone interested in anarchism:

Anarchism:
The name given to a principle or theory of life
and conduct under which society is conceived
without government—harmony in such a society
being obtained, not by submission to law, or by
obedience to any authority, but by free agreements
concluded between the various groups, territorial
and professional, freely constituted for the sake of
production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction
of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations
of a civilized being.
Peter Kropotkin


http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm14.PDF

[macabre]

Someone here once described fascism as the extreme center and made a pretty good case for it.

This is ancient!

It's tough to place fascism on either end of the spectrum because the ideology itself doesn't neatly resemble capitalism or socialism. Seymour Lipset once referred to fascism as the extremism of the center. The argument goes as follows: fascism sees democracy as a tug of war between special interests on the left and the right. According to fascism, democracy has stifled the will of the people because special interests on the left and the right have hijacked the system for their own benefit. In order to represent the will of the people, fascism removes the interests of labor and capital from the political system and places them in their own distinct sphere through the economic system of corporatism. Corporatism is an economic system where the collective bargaining process between labor and capital occurs outside of the government and the state merely acts as a mediator enforcing reconciliation. By removing both extremes from influencing government, the state is now able to represent the will of the people without the influence of special interests. Thus, fascism is not extremism of the right or left but extremism of the center.

[mcm1610]

I guess I left out a huge portion of the discussion in the last post, but when I said fascism builds off conservative sentiment, I mainly meant in terms of social ideas, not necessarily government. It is always attached to a reaching-back of some previous "paradise" in a people's history, completely showing disdain for outsiders and those that are different. It's beyond conservative in that it's actively reaching back into the past when "we were great" - Fascist Italy reaching back to Rome, Nazi Germany reaching back to the Holy Roman Empire.

Politcally, it just needs a leader to centralize around, an emphasis on machismo and military, and boom.

If you had to move anarchism to a different corner, it would certainly not be on the bottom half because there's no way it resembles totalitarianism at all. I wouldn't agree still, but you could make an argument for the top right corner based on "small gov't" taken to the extreme, but it's much more in line with socialism. Anarcho-syndicalism is in that family tree over there already anyway, and libertarian branches off in another direction. The more I look at this chart, the more I'm perfectly content with it. Except I don't think it needs to have "progressive" in it up there.

Waylateedit:
If you were going "small government" for your conservative ideal, wouldn't that just kinda put you up at Libertarian? Conservative in the sense of this chart is more the opposition of dramatic change in society. The belief in small government is a fusion of conservatism with classical liberalism, which puts conservative liberalism on the chart there as what American Conservatism is today, the conservatism you guys seem to be thinking of.

[Pwnz0rs]

Not sure if this counts as philosophy but i read it in philosophy class..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God

[Love As Arson]

Good books on religion:

http://www.amazon.com/Monstrosity-Christ-Paradox-Dialectic-Circuits/dp/0262012715/ref=pd_sim_b_14
http://www.amazon.com/After-Religion-Postmodernism-Mark-Taylor/dp/0226791718/ref=pd_sim_b_5
http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Paul-Foundation-Universalism-Cultural/dp/0804744718
http://www.amazon.com/Fragile-Absolute-Christian-Fighting-Essential/dp/1844673022/ref=pd_sim_b_20
http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Jew-Politics-Identity-Contraversions/dp/0520212142/ref=pd_sim_b_42

[shamebuckets]

if you don't read the communist manifesto it can hurt you. many dirty nurds who go to protests have not read the CM but they echo it in their behavior. If you DO read the Communist Manifesto it can hurt you, because it is simply a Guide to Take Over The World And Enslave Everyone While Tricking Them Into Thinking That They Have A "Workers' Paradise". That's what it is. I'm glad I read it because i know a whole lot of b. s. fake-ass dirt kids who call themselves anarchocommunists. The whole point is to depopulate anarchy, make anarchism appear stupid and self-contradictory. I hate those weak fvckers and hope the cops put pepperspray lovingly up their asses...communism and socialism are INCAPABLE of being anarchy. They are good hiding places for Nazis, fascists and Statist bullies who will lie to get control in general. If you are bothered to disgusted by the current batch of fanatic Christian Fascist Republicans now turgid in the United States, you should read it.

A good way to counteract the poison effect that the Communist Manifesto is would be to ALSO read

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.


...because 1984 is about totalitarianism and what a BAD thing it is. Orwell famously renounced socialism and it shows in 1984

and just remember: it was not called "Union of Soviet Socialist Democracies" for a reason.
homage to catalonia

[x togepi x]

even though he was a nazi, i can't wait to start Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.

[Love As Arson]

even though he was a nazi, i can't wait to start Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.
It's pretty interesting.

[Nevuk]

I have a lot of issues with this chart. Such as libertarians being progressive. And I think fascism and anarchism should switch places.
Anarchism is not primarily a right wing movement anywhere except in the US... and then only sort of.

[circasuicide]

i was wondering if anyone has heard of this, and if so, what do you make of it? i find it very interesting. me and a friend talked about it for hours one night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

[caveBEAR]

i was wondering if anyone has heard of this, and if so, what do you make of it? i find it very interesting. me and a friend talked about it for hours one night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

I get the idea behind it, but can't stand when people act like the cat is in some limbo of non-existance until you lift the top; it's either alive or dead, we just don't know yet.

[circasuicide]

I get the idea behind it, but can't stand when people act like the cat is in some limbo of non-existance until you lift the top; it's either alive or dead, we just don't know yet.

agreed. it's just a neat thought.

[caveBEAR]

agreed. it's just a neat thought.

Indeed, it definitely is...just turns me off when a college freshman thinks he understand's quantum mechanics because he read about the fucking cat somewhere.

[circasuicide]

Indeed, it definitely is...just turns me off when a college freshman thinks he understand's quantum mechanics because he read about the fucking cat somewhere.

haha. as someone who once was a freshman i can tell you that i thought some pretty basic stuff was a revelation at the time. i look back at myself at 20 and think 'i didn't know shit'. i hope i feel the same way about now when i'm 30.

[Love As Arson]

Hegel says the clitoris is inactive and passive. lol.

[x togepi x]

It's pretty interesting.

i bet, i'm just not looking forward to this girl in my class who'll inevitably answer everything he says with "BUT HE'S A NAZI"

[Love As Arson]

i bet, i'm just not looking forward to this girl in my class who'll inevitably answer everything he says with "BUT HE'S A NAZI"
I had a similar experience when my class discussed Nietzche. The professor made the mistake of mentioning he suffered a mental collapse, at which point someone said that shouldn't bother discussing him further. In any event, there is some sense that Heidegger saw in the Third Reich an opportunity to immerse his authentic self in history. Nevertheless, there is some beautiful stuff in his writings.

[x togepi x]

I had a similar experience when my class discussed Nietzche. The professor made the mistake of mentioning he suffered a mental collapse, at which point someone said that shouldn't bother discussing him further. In any event, there is some sense that Heidegger saw in the Third Reich an opportunity to immerse his authentic self in history. Nevertheless, there is some beautiful stuff in his writings.

The problem is this girl does this every time we make it to a new philosopher in the class. We started on Kierkegaard and she complained that he was a Christian and so he was bs because philosophy should be atheist and it personally offended her. Then we went to Nietszche and she complained that he was misogynist so we should completely ignore anything he said. Then she found out about his mental collapse and she did the same thing you're talking about.

We're supposed to read an article on Heidegger and the nazis that i haven't read yet but I feel like that's just going to fuel the fire. it sucks when people in the class sort of ruin how worthwhile it is. oh well, everybody else hates her too so it leads to some funny exchanges.

[circasuicide]

The problem is this girl does this every time we make it to a new philosopher in the class. We started on Kierkegaard and she complained that he was a Christian and so he was bs because philosophy should be atheist and it personally offended her. Then we went to Nietszche and she complained that he was misogynist so we should completely ignore anything he said. Then she found out about his mental collapse and she did the same thing you're talking about.

We're supposed to read an article on Heidegger and the nazis that i haven't read yet but I feel like that's just going to fuel the fire. it sucks when people in the class sort of ruin how worthwhile it is. oh well, everybody else hates her too so it leads to some funny exchanges.

so she wants an atheist philosopher who is infallible? her expectations aren't too high....

[caveBEAR]

The problem is this girl does this every time we make it to a new philosopher in the class. We started on Kierkegaard and she complained that he was a Christian and so he was bs because philosophy should be atheist and it personally offended her. Then we went to Nietszche and she complained that he was misogynist so we should completely ignore anything he said. Then she found out about his mental collapse and she did the same thing you're talking about.

We're supposed to read an article on Heidegger and the nazis that i haven't read yet but I feel like that's just going to fuel the fire. it sucks when people in the class sort of ruin how worthwhile it is. oh well, everybody else hates her too so it leads to some funny exchanges.

We had a chick like this in one of my classes. One day, when she started on one of her bullshit tirades, one of my classmates just blurted out, 'just shut the fuck up already! No one cares!' I don't think she ever talked in there again. It was awesome.

[circasuicide]

We had a chick like this in one of my classes. One day, when she started on one of her bullshit tirades, one of my classmates just blurted out, 'just shut the fuck up already! No one cares!' I don't think she ever talked in there again. It was awesome.


'one of my classmates'. riiiiiight.

[crackedthesky]

If I was a philosophy teacher and a student told me there was no reason to research a philosopher, I'd tell them to go ahead and gtfo of my classroom. Chances are, if that's the way they think, they don't have the mental capacity to actually learn anything about philosophy anyway.

But maybe that's just because I learned from a real philosophy teacher. He asked one of his classes if they had any questions or anything to say. Nobody did, so he told them all to go home.

[caveBEAR]

'one of my classmates'. riiiiiight.

Ha ha ha, if you're insinuating that I said it...can't do anything for you. Trust me, I'd have no problem owning that story.

[circasuicide]

If I was a philosophy teacher and a student told me there was no reason to research a philosopher, I'd tell them to go ahead and gtfo of my classroom. Chances are, if that's the way they think, they don't have the mental capacity to actually learn anything about philosophy anyway.

But maybe that's just because I learned from a real philosophy teacher. He asked one of his classes if they had any questions or anything to say. Nobody did, so he told them all to go home.

that teacher is a bad ass.

[crackedthesky]

that teacher is a bad ass.

Indeed.
I don't blame him at all. If you don't have any questions, if you truly, honestly have nothing to ask, why would you be in a philosophy class?

Also, after that happened, people suddenly had a lot more questions...

[circasuicide]

Indeed.
I don't blame him at all. If you don't have any questions, if you truly, honestly have nothing to ask, why would you be in a philosophy class?

Also, after that happened, people suddenly had a lot more questions...

the irony of taking a class to learn is no one wants to be seen as not knowing it all already. our own egos prevent us from a lot in life. it's not 'cool' to ask questions, it's 'cool' to sit back and pretend you know the answer.

[Love As Arson]

Picked up:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41m7uvYtz8L._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Good book. I recommend it.

[x togepi x]

i'm loving how nietszche is tearing apart science in The Genealogy of Morals

[Love As Arson]

Reconsidering Nietzsche

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/09/hbc-90007601

[The Personist]

"Plato's Pharmacy" is an amazing essay. Changed teh way I think about...well, everything.

[Love As Arson]

Derrida is the main.

[The Personist]

Derrida is the main.

I've only just started reading other theorists who take his work and apply it to more political ends, like Cixous, Haraway, and--though this is more cultural than political, and still in the realm of writing/textuality--Stuart Hall. But I'm curious about your thoughts on Derrida in general, especially given your Marxism.

Also, getting ready to read Deleuze and Wittgenstein, so hopefully I will have interesting things to talk about regarding them in the near future.

[Love As Arson]

I've only just started reading other theorists who take his work and apply it to more political ends, like Cixous, Haraway, and--though this is more cultural than political, and still in the realm of writing/textuality--Stuart Hall. But I'm curious about your thoughts on Derrida in general, especially given your Marxism.

Also, getting ready to read Deleuze and Wittgenstein, so hopefully I will have interesting things to talk about regarding them in the near future.
I think deconstruction is important to reveal the hierarchies implicit in our language which lend themselves to sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc. The norms in speech are one of the prominent means of subjugating people, as it effects their interpretation of the world. And yet it is subtle because many simply take language simply as tool for communication and not a means of delivering ideological norms. Derrida actually wrote a book titled the Specters Of Marx, in which he critiques the pronouncements of "the end of history" and argues for a preservation of the critical Marxist spirit against the ideal of the liberal democracy.

For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelise in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realised itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida2.htm

Also, Deleuze is my favorite philosopher. I recommend checking out Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism & Schizophrenia

[The Personist]

Deleuze is seriously brilliant. What little I've read (excerpts from Difference and Repetition, the book I have and plan on reading) is just remarkable.

[Love As Arson]

This site has a lot of philosophical books that can be downloaded. One of the links is to the books I've recommended and the other is an overview of Deleuze/Guartarri's works:

http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/philosophy/derridaspecters.html
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/philosophy/AntiOedipus.html
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/0262132826-1278576476.html

[The Personist]

Ah! Amazing! Thank you!

[Thomas Balkcom]

This site has a lot of philosophical books that can be downloaded. One of the links is to the books I've recommended and the other is an overview of Deleuze/Guartarri's works:

http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/philosophy/derridaspecters.html
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/philosophy/AntiOedipus.html
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/0262132826-1278576476.html

I appreciate these links.

[pennie]

This site has a lot of philosophical books that can be downloaded. One of the links is to the books I've recommended and the other is an overview of Deleuze/Guartarri's works:

http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/philosophy/derridaspecters.html
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/philosophy/AntiOedipus.html
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/0262132826-1278576476.html

This is fantastic. Thank you.

[Mitch]

I still haven't managed to read through any philosophy books. I should really consider taking a class or something.

[loveisdead]

I still haven't managed to read through any philosophy books. I should really consider taking a class or something.

Check out what Dom just posted.

[x togepi x]

fuck i know philosophy majors at my school who have never managed to read through a philosophy book.

[saysmydoctor]

I see AntiOedipus in the link and I'm intrigued.

[crackedthesky]

I started listening to Aristotle on an audiobook, the other day. I got about fifteen seconds in and had to stop. Moral of the story: Audiobooks are horrible for philosophy. Which is ironic, considering how early philosophy was word-of-mouth.

Edit: maybe it was just the reader's boring-as-hell-voice, or the way he said things like "open bracket" and "close bracket" to mark parenthetical statements.

[Love As Arson]

I also recommend reading Levinas.

[Thomas Balkcom]

fuck i know philosophy majors at my school who have never managed to read through a philosophy book.

same.

[The Personist]

I also recommend reading Levinas.

I read a poem in which he was mentioned once. I think you should read Lyn Hejinian's poetry; it's very theoretical and very brilliant. There are actually several of her works up on this website for free download:

http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/GESUALDO/gesualdo.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/GUARD/guard.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/MASK/mask.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/REDO/redo.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/THOUGHT/thought.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/WRITING/writing.html

The Guard is my favorite. I love her poetry and most Language Poetry, especially that which is an extension of the New York School aesthetically, because they're not afraid to foreground or explore theory in their writing. So I think it's germaine to this thread to post it.

[Love As Arson]

I read a poem in which he was mentioned once. I think you should read Lyn Hejinian's poetry; it's very theoretical and very brilliant. There are actually several of her works up on this website for free download:

http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/GESUALDO/gesualdo.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/GUARD/guard.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/MASK/mask.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/REDO/redo.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/THOUGHT/thought.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/WRITING/writing.html

The Guard is my favorite. I love her poetry and most Language Poetry, especially that which is an extension of the New York School aesthetically, because they're not afraid to foreground or explore theory in their writing. So I think it's germaine to this thread to post it.
I'll have to check it out. I have been reading more poetry, but it's mostly been nineteenth century French poetry, so this should be a welcome departure.

Also, great stuff:


Heideggerian Marxism (http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/philosophy/HeideggerianMarxism.html)

[The Personist]

I'll have to check it out. I have been reading more poetry, but it's mostly been nineteenth century French poetry, so this should be a welcome departure.

Also, great stuff:


Heideggerian Marxism (http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/philosophy/HeideggerianMarxism.html)

Both the links there aren't working for me. I'll try it again later.

Yeah, Language poetry is a lot different. It's very theoretically-based, and while it lacks the giddiness of my favorite New York poets, it's oftentimes laugh-out-loud funny even while it refigures radically a lot of traditional assumptions about poetry and deals with some difficult philosophical issues. Of course, I also think everyone should read the New York School poets, especially Ashbery and Koch and O'Hara. But Hejinian seems right up the alley of this thread, and she stands out to me as someone who rescues poetry from a lot of the more mundane manifestations it's seen in the past 50 years.

I'm attaching two essays: Hejinian's "Rejection of Closure," which is amazing, and then the polemic she wrote in collaboration with the other Language poets about contemporary poetry. They're quite fabulous.

Also, what 19th century Frenchmen? I love me some Rimbaud.

[Love As Arson]

Both the links there aren't working for me. I'll try it again later.

Yeah, Language poetry is a lot different. It's very theoretically-based, and while it lacks the giddiness of my favorite New York poets, it's oftentimes laugh-out-loud funny even while it refigures radically a lot of traditional assumptions about poetry and deals with some difficult philosophical issues. Of course, I also think everyone should read the New York School poets, especially Ashbery and Koch and O'Hara. But Hejinian seems right up the alley of this thread, and she stands out to me as someone who rescues poetry from a lot of the more mundane manifestations it's seen in the past 50 years.

I'm attaching two essays: Hejinian's "Rejection of Closure," which is amazing, and then the polemic she wrote in collaboration with the other Language poets about contemporary poetry. They're quite fabulous.

Also, what 19th century Frenchmen? I love me some Rimbaud.
I've read some Rimbaud, George Sand and Mallarmé. I was going to read Baudelaire, but he was a reactionary.

[The Personist]

I've read some Rimbaud, George Sand and Mallarmé. I was going to read Baudelaire, but he was a reactionary.

Oh but Baudelaire is great! As an art critic he was essential in promoting realism (over neoclassicism) and as a poet, even though he wrote in very strict meter frequently, he was very talented. Also, have you read his prose poems? I like them better than the metrical ones, though I must say his address to the reader at the beginning of Les Fleurs Du Mal has always been one of my favorites of his.

You should move into some 20th century Frenchmen--Eluard and Reverdy are great.

[Love As Arson]

Oh but Baudelaire is great! As an art critic he was essential in promoting realism (over neoclassicism) and as a poet, even though he wrote in very strict meter frequently, he was very talented. Also, have you read his prose poems? I like them better than the metrical ones, though I must say his address to the reader at the beginning of Les Fleurs Du Mal has always been one of my favorites of his.

You should move into some 20th century Frenchmen--Eluard and Reverdy are great.
I've only a passing familiarity with his work. I was just turned off by his affinity for the authoritarian elements of the French Revolution. I'll give "Les Fleurs du mal" a try, though.

[The Personist]

I got bored at work and reread this whole thread.

Apologetics, PoMo or relativism? some kind of a case may be made for some pomo philosophers (although the majority of them are charlatans or close to veering into charlatanry). The other two are utterly useless, of course, and no case for their usefulness that is not dependent on a particular political or religious agenda can be made at all.
I am quoting this because I want you to come back, and also because I want to know who these charlatans of whom you speak are. Because I very much disagree.

Oh, and fuck Kant.
Eternally this.

I've only a passing familiarity with his work. I was just turned off by his affinity for the authoritarian elements of the French Revolution. I'll give "Les Fleurs du mal" a try, though.

http://fleursdumal.org/


EDIT: This is one of my favorites, but I'd suggest looking for a different translation: http://fleursdumal.org/poem/116
There are multiple translations of each poem from Fleurs Du Mal online there, which is very awesome and convenient.

I still can't get that book to download, dammit.

[Love As Arson]

For people that were interested in "Heidegerrian Marxism", it is attached below. I've also attached "The Flesh of Words" by Jacques Ranciere:


This new collection of challenging literary studies plays with a foundational definition of Western culture: the word become flesh. But the word become flesh is not, or no longer, a theological already-given. It is a millennial goal or telos toward which each text strives.

Both witty and immensely erudite, Jacques Rancière leads the critical reader through a maze of arrivals toward the moment, perhaps always suspended, when the word finds its flesh. That is what he, a valiant and good-humored companion to these texts, goes questing for through seven essays examining a wide variety of familiar and unfamiliar works.

A text is always a commencement, the word setting out on its excursions through the implausible vicissitudes of narrative and the bizarre phantasmagorias of imagery, Don Quixote’s unsent letter reaching us through generous Balzac, lovely Rimbaud, demonic Althusser. The word is on its way to an incarnation that always lies ahead of the writer and the reader both, in this anguished democracy of language where the word is always taking on its flesh.

[The Personist]

A lovely little quote I stumbled upon. This also works nicely in the context of all those old battles over religion:

I do not mean that [literature] is unstable because value-judgments are 'subjective.' According to this view, the world is divided between solid facts 'out there' like Grand Central station, and arbitrary value-judgments 'in here' such as liking bananas or feeling that the tone of a Yeats poem veers from defensive hectoring to grimly resilient resignation. Facts are public and unimpeachable, values are private and gratuitous. There is an obvious difference between recounting a fact, such as 'This cathedral was built in 1612,' and registering a value-judgment, such as 'This cathedral is a magnificent specimen of baroque architecture.' But suppose I made the first kind of statement while showing an overseas visitor around England, and found that it puzzled her considerably. Why, she might ask, do you keep telling me the dates of the foundation of all these buildings? Why this obsession with origins? In the society I live in, she might go on, we keep no record at all of such events: we classify our buildings instead according to whether they face north-west or south-east. What this might do would be to demonstrate part of the unconscious system of value-judgments which underlies my own descriptive statements. Such value-judgments are not necessarily of the same kind as 'This cathedral is a magnificent specimen of baroque architecture,' but they are value-judgments nonetheless, and no factual pronouncement I make can escape them. Statements of fact are after all statements, which presumes a number of questionable judgments: that those statements are worth making, perhaps more worth making than certain others, that I am the sort of person entitled to make them and perhaps able to guarantee their truth, that you are the kind of person worth making them to, that something useful is accomplished by making them, and so on.

Thoughts?

[circasuicide]

I read a poem in which he was mentioned once. I think you should read Lyn Hejinian's poetry; it's very theoretical and very brilliant. There are actually several of her works up on this website for free download:

http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/GESUALDO/gesualdo.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/GUARD/guard.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/MASK/mask.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/REDO/redo.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/THOUGHT/thought.html
http://english.utah.edu/eclipse/projects/WRITING/writing.html

The Guard is my favorite. I love her poetry and most Language Poetry, especially that which is an extension of the New York School aesthetically, because they're not afraid to foreground or explore theory in their writing. So I think it's germaine to this thread to post it.

wow. i read 'the guard'. excellent.

[Love As Arson]

A lovely little quote I stumbled upon. This also works nicely in the context of all those old battles over religion:



Thoughts?
Those statements are intelligible, at the very least. What some argue, and I might agree, is that a statement may be so incoherent as to have no real meaning. It's similar to Chomsky's demonstration that sentences,while grammatically correct, may be nonsensical.

[The Personist]

wow. i read 'the guard'. excellent.
Read the rest! Great stuff.

Those statements are intelligible, at the very least. What some argue, and I might agree, is that a statement may be so incoherent as to have no real meaning. It's similar to Chomsky's demonstration that sentences,while grammatically correct, may be nonsensical.
I may just be tired, but I feel like I"m missing the Chomsky connection here.

[Love As Arson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furious ly

I was using that as an example that people that make theological statements are making incoherent statements, because the concepts they're speaking about are unintelligible.

[The Personist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furious ly

I was using that as an example that people that make theological statements are making incoherent statements, because the concepts they're speaking about are unintelligible.

The wiki article mentions how I would respond--polysemy allows for the sentence to be interpreted.

[circasuicide]

for the record, jesus is not my 'homeboy'.

[Love As Arson]

The wiki article mentions how I would respond--polysemy allows for the sentence to be interpreted.
Theological statements can be interpreted, but that is premised upon a human speaker and individual/s to receive the messages. The concepts themselves remain vague, waiting until definitions can be made for them. The implication, in my mind, is there has been many gods, each differing according to their epoch. The problem is, Christianity isn't polytheistic. But, this is a debate for another thread, if you want to respond.

[The Personist]

Anyone read any Judith Butler? I'm having a little trouble wrapping my brain around "Bodies That Matter" (we were just assigned the intro from the book, not the whole thing, but still, any help would be greatly appreciated)

[Love As Arson]

What are you having trouble with?

[The Personist]

I'm trying to figure out exactly what she's getting at in terms of gender and sex and the system/text. I looked at it again today, and I THINK what's going on is that she accepts gender as separate from sex, but she also argues that even sex itself is necessarily a product of past representations of sex; that is, even if you accept that "gender" and "sex" are not synonymous, you can't get at the "essence" that sex seems to represent without citation of past means of construing or representing sex. I'm having trouble, also, locating the "body"--the flesh itself--in all this. I know she talks about it but I can't quite get a handle on its role here.

[Love As Arson]

I'm trying to figure out exactly what she's getting at in terms of gender and sex and the system/text. I looked at it again today, and I THINK what's going on is that she accepts gender as separate from sex, but she also argues that even sex itself is necessarily a product of past representations of sex; that is, even if you accept that "gender" and "sex" are not synonymous, you can't get at the "essence" that sex seems to represent without citation of past means of construing or representing sex. I'm having trouble, also, locating the "body"--the flesh itself--in all this. I know she talks about it but I can't quite get a handle on its role here.
Butler questions the distinction between gender and sex, insofar as she believes the production of both are intrinsically linked together. Gender is predicated upon performative actions, which, by repetition, creates the gendered subject. In her book Bodies That Matter, she argues that matter itself is uncertain and has been conceived of as potential/origin for something. Therefore, the intelligibility of matter is defined by particular forms of rationality and then is materialized, in the sense of being construed, in society. As such, the intelligibility of the body, as matter, can be understood as something which isn't some pre-given, but is produced. It is at the point of this production that the performative actions are inscribed in discourse.

[The Personist]

Butler questions the distinction between gender and sex, insofar as she believes the production of both are intrinsically linked together. Gender is predicated upon performative actions, which, by repetition, creates the gendered subject. In her book Bodies That Matter, she argues that matter itself is uncertain and has been conceived of as potential/origin for something. Therefore, the intelligibility of matter is defined by particular forms of rationality and then is materialized, in the sense of being construed, in society. As such, the intelligibility of the body, as matter, can be understood as something which isn't some pre-given, but is produced. It is at the point of this production that the performative actions are inscribed in discourse.

This clarifies a lot. Thanks. I had to read Edelman, too, which was a lot clearer.

[IntoTheSun]

I just started on 'Gender Troubles' a little while ago. Don't know if I'll be able to grasp the things she's saying just reading through.

[The Personist]

Honestly, every week I go into my lit theory class with what i feel is a tenuous grasp on the material, and I walk out not only understanding what I've read, but with the ability--and desire--to read more of it. So it helps to have a great teacher.

[Love As Arson]

Good site:

http://www.askphilosophers.org/

[The Personist]

Good site:

http://www.askphilosophers.org/

Awesome! Thanks.

Also...Lee Edelman is speaking at my school a week from today. I will definitely be there.

[Thomas Balkcom]

Good site:

http://www.askphilosophers.org/

big fan of this website. I used to spend most of my time between classes browsing there.

[Thomas Balkcom]

this is pretty pertinent to the thread http://www.askphilosophers.org/

I've been using that site to kill time in-between classes at school

old post of mine, haha.

[Nevuk]

fuck i know philosophy majors at my school who have never managed to read through a philosophy book.
I've never met a philosophy major who read more than twice a semester for their classes.

[carriethewait]

Notes from underground changed my life.

[GuitarR0cker1]

My Philosophy professor writes articles for the American Thinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Thinker).

So his lectures/notes are filled with reactionary sentiments. It annoys me, even if I enjoy the class.

[The Personist]

The only problem with AskPhilosophers.org is that some of the questions are fucking stupid.

[x togepi x]

I know i'm oversimplifying but i like the fact that a lot of Nietszche's Genealogy of Morals can be summed up as "haters gonna hate"

[The Personist]

I know i'm oversimplifying but i like the fact that a lot of Nietszche's Genealogy of Morals can be summed up as "haters gonna hate"

Hahahahaha this is so true




Also, anyone know anything/interested in postcolonial theory/philosophy? I guess it's more theory than philosophy but it's still pretty damn cool.

[The Personist]

Bumping because maybe Dom will magically appear and help me understand Deleuze and Guattari's concept of the rhizome, which I am thoroughly confused by.

[IntoTheSun]

Bumping because maybe Dom will magically appear and help me understand Deleuze and Guattari's concept of the rhizome, which I am thoroughly confused by.

Hey dude, in that one thread in music I posted a question right after your post asking about Deleuze and you totally ignored it!

[Love As Arson]

Bumping because maybe Dom will magically appear and help me understand Deleuze and Guattari's concept of the rhizome, which I am thoroughly confused by.
Their usage of the term references the etymology of the word, which means combining forms and its biological usage whereby the plant extends its roots underground to create new plants. With this mind, the concept itself refers to a comprehension of the connectivity of thought in a manner that doesn't assess origins as fixed entities. It would be the antithesis of the tree-like diagrams where everything is traced backed to a singular site.

[The Personist]

Hey dude, in that one thread in music I posted a question right after your post asking about Deleuze and you totally ignored it!

Their usage of the term references the etymology of the word, which means combining forms and its biological usage whereby the plant extends its roots underground to create new plants. With this mind, the concept itself refers to a comprehension of the connectivity of thought in a manner that doesn't assess origins as fixed entities. It would be the antithesis of the tree-like diagrams where everything is traced backed to a singular site.

Is Deleuze different from Derrida in that he believes there is an outside-the-text? I"m trying to tease out a comparison for my own benefit.

[Love As Arson]

Deleuze doesn't have a preoccupation with language in the same way as Derrida does. Deleuze is more concerned with activity and thus focuses on language as an act of expression as such. He then goes on to trace the consequences of these expressive acts in the biological/socioeconomic/political context.

[The Personist]

Deleuze doesn't have a preoccupation with language in the same way as Derrida does. Deleuze is more concerned with activity and thus focuses on language as an act of expression as such. He then goes on to trace the consequences of these expressive acts in the biological/socioeconomic/political context.

So do you think Deleuze and Derrida are mutually exclusive? It seems that way but I am inclined to argue against it because both their philosophies make sense to me and seem reconcilable...I just haven't figured out how, yet.

sorry if I'm pestering you; I'm exhausted and just trying to patch things together for myself at the moment.

[Love As Arson]

So do you think Deleuze and Derrida are mutually exclusive? It seems that way but I am inclined to argue against it because both their philosophies make sense to me and seem reconcilable...I just haven't figured out how, yet.

sorry if I'm pestering you; I'm exhausted and just trying to patch things together for myself at the moment.
I do not think they are mutually exclusive. Deleuze was often interpreted the works of philosophers against their intended meaning, in the same way deconstruction does; the goal was an emphasis on becoming, whereas Derrida, in my mind, provided the tools with which one apprehends the trajectory western civilization has been on and thus effects the desire of becoming. Derrida, in my mind, answers Deleuze's questions regarding language/literature, in one of the very few times he speaks of it abstractly, which is, "Who is speaking?" There is also a strong anti-Hegelianism in both philosophies; there is a strong to desire to go beyond the dialectic and dualism, in order to construct the concept of concept of difference.

[The Personist]

I do not think they are mutually exclusive. Deleuze was often interpreted the works of philosophers against their intended meaning, in the same way deconstruction does; the goal was an emphasis on becoming, whereas Derrida, in my mind, provided the tools with which one apprehends the trajectory western civilization has been on and thus effects the desire of becoming. Derrida, in my mind, answers Deleuze's questions regarding language/literature, in one of the very few times he speaks of it abstractly, which is, "Who is speaking?" There is also a strong anti-Hegelianism in both philosophies; there is a strong to desire to go beyond the dialectic and dualism, in order to construct the concept of concept of difference.

Ah, yes. That makes sense to me. I've read more Derrida than Deleuze (which I hope to remedy over my winter break) so my apprehension of this is somewhat limited; however, I understand the emphasis on becoming and I think it's quite a beautiful, liberating, fabulous way of approaching things.

And may I just say that Deleuze and Guattari together write some of the most beautiful philosophy I've ever read?

[Love As Arson]

I would agree.

It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id.

Or, something more suitable to our conversation:

"Language is not made to be believed but to be obeyed, and to compel obedience newspapers, news, proceed by redundancy, in that they tell us what we ‘must’ think, retain, expect, etc. language is neither informational nor communicational. It is not the communication of information but something quite different: the transmission of order-words, either from one statement to another or within each statement, insofar as each statement accomplishes an act and the act is accomplished in the statement.....Forming grammatically correct sentences is for the normal individual the prerequisite for any submission to social laws. No one is suppose to be ignorant of grammaticality; those who are belong in special institutions. The unity of language is fundamentally political"