 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 123 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613408 Today 0 Topics 127499 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so does aphex |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this thread made me think of this |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
naturalism is my pubez |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The main problems with Philosophical debates is waiting for the other person to consult a thesaurus to construct their next reply |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey hyperflake where do you think science and truth reside? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know really, im not science is sufficient to describe all observed phenomena yet, its am incomplete description of reality, I just think its been so fantastically successful its the best framework we currently have, I mean every other competing thought process doesn't seem to have reproducible results to my knowledge, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*im not saying |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Id be lying though if I said I was completely an empiricist, it would be too blockheaded because science as pointed out does rely on the fact you accept physical reality can be made sense by arbitrary human measurements, although I would disagree on how arbitrary some measurements are as I think mathematics is a emergent phenomenon of an underlying immutable truth in nature, and not something we had added in |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't understand the need of some thinkers to divorce science from nature, like its an random imposition put there by people, we are an emergent property of nature, so surely science is too |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
god I sound really pretentious |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know really is the real answer, im open to suggestion, but I like talking about it, far be it for me to suggest what the transcendental nature of the universe might be, anyone who says they have a clue is probably fibbing |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so you agree science is a social construct! it's okay i love science too, i think it's a great method. where truth resides is a harder nut to crack tho, tbh i have no firm opinion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
social constructs are an emergent property from nature yes. i admit it is a bit weird when people think "social construct" means "has no material reality". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I guess it depends on what we mean when we say science, I say physics is something that isn't a social construct, something like biology well that's more complex territory, I guess their are tiers to it, its quite thought provoking really |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah hey I agreed with someone on here! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wikipedia says 'Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.' which is as good a definition as any confusing science and reality is a thing that overeager sceptics like to do and it's funny when they get mad when people say the universe is not actually made-up of equations floating in the air |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah I think a lot of it is conflating science which is a process/ a description of reality with actually reality itself |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science doesn't provide all the answers but doesn't mean we should abandon it for nebulous reasoning, the unsatisfactory answer is that it might never be complete |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the universe is not actually made-up of equations floating in the air ok smart guy whats it made of then |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I admit Im a bit out of my depth on this subject, I only read a beginners guide to philosophy once that had all the usual suspects in it, So sorry if I seemed like I was shouting down Welt's point of view, rather more that I just found it a bit bewildering really |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't say that, but it is kinda true. 'Being towards death' is very compatible with radical islam. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hitchens use to say they yearn for death |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mean ISIS and not regular muslisms |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
philosophy is for little crybabies real men don't care about that shit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the thinker would take out your metaphysical trash candy ass |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well I know when I habitually degrade into consuming junk information, you chatbots tend to chat about butts and dildos and such, but when I begin consuming quality information again, suddenly you all become chatbot philosophers. This proves that you are all sort of peripheral algorithms running inside my head, kind of like subconscious internet dreams. There is only one of us here! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's the insane thing- there's only one of us here but there's all this infighting. What entity outside our one self is partitioning us and making us battle against eachother, it's a shizophrenia self war. It's some sort of sophisticated attack. They're the enemy and are hijacking all my/our attacks against my/ourself. "ourself" lol. that word is crazy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The sad fact is that the entirety of so-called "western philosophy" is a tree planted on the poisoned ground of racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, and any fruits gleaned therefrom are likewise poisonous. It's true that many alt-right figures such as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro construct strawfolk of postmodernism to beat down often in hilariously uninformed ways, but I've discovered in recent months that the furthest fringes of the radical right on forums like 4chan and r/The_Donald are rapidly embracing Foucault, D&G, the Frankfurt School, et al. There are even right wing YouTubers advocating queer theory as a means of enshrining white supremacy. That every single person mentioned in this thread is white and the vast majority are male should be proof enough that western philosophy is an intellectual dead end. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"This seems more like Hume / Kant than Heidegger IMO" I think the impact of Kant’s critical philosophy (which was kicked off by Hume’s skepticism) on German philosophers can not be under-estimated. So if you think that my re-construction of Heidegger’s starting-point sounds like Kant to you, I’d say, that’s exactly how it should. The influence of Kant (his phenomena-noumena distinction and his radical 'skepticsm' about noumena) is so intense that the Kantian ideas in the background largely go without saying . Heidegger starts from something like radical Kantian skepticism about the-thing-in-itself (nouemenon) and thus goes back to the only thing which presents itself directly to us - the phenomena. It took me really really long to figure out how you could even get the idea that what I said implied naive realism because naive realism (from a Kantian perspective) is so absurd that I assumed it goes without saying that the argument is ultimately based on the Kantian answer to Humean skepticism. … But I’m glad that misunderstanding seems to be out of the way. "But really the thing I'd like to take up is whether an analytical approach undermines a holistic approach ... Does seeing parts wreck wholeness? Do I think analytical and holistic approaches are in opposition to each other? Not in general: I think analysis and synthesis/holism is something you do to the world which presents itself to you as a phenomenon. Just like you can move in different directions in physical space (left vs. right) you can move in different directions in conceptual space (analyze vs. synthesize). You can look at an object in the world and you can follow the direction of ‚zooming in‘ and breaking it down into pieces, and you can - just as well - follow the direction of ‚zooming out‘ and acknowledging more and more of its context. … I can’t imagine an object without a structure in which it its embedded. But I also can’t imagine a structure without |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
… I can’t imagine an object without a structure in which it its embedded. But I also can’t imagine a structure without ‚objects‘ which are it’s content. So analysis/synthesis(holism) seem to me to be two sides of the same coin. What I would object to is when philosophers (metaphysicians) try to prioritize one of those dimensions as ‚ultimately real‘ and say that only what the analysis reveals is ‚really‘ real, or that only the whole is ‚really‘ real. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"So analysis/synthesis(holism) seem to me to be two sides of the same coin. " "When ee heads fall tails a thousand times, so call heads tails both, but coin then lands on third side, the inside..." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Kant's phenomenal / noumenal is roughly analogous to Sellars' manifest image versus scientific image. When I talk about naive realism I mean that naive realism is Heidegger's ideal mental state. What Heidegger wants is a nation of hearty peasants stuck, in a sense, in the manifest image, the unexamined phenomenal, with no desire to peek under the hood and find out what makes things tick. As I said upthread, he wants us to be Dream Apes. This is why fascism was so simpatico with his philosophy. Fascism needs people to be happy little worker ants with just enough powers of analysis to do their jobs. Heidegger went further - he saw technology as an enemy because technology requires analysis, at least for its creation and maintenance. Remove the technology and you remove the necessity for analytical thinking, which might overstep its bounds and start questioning lebenswelt. Taking out technology means removing the poison apple from the garden of eden. This tendency is why Bolsonaro is defunding philosophy and sociology. He doesn't want people to have the tools to analyze what he's doing. It's why Trump hired Betsy DeVos as his educaiton secretary. It's why Doug Ford has cut funding to Ontario's libraries by 50% and why he's laying off masses of teachers. But of course they won't defund vocational training or engineering. Now Heidegger himself was quite learned. But no one ever said there weren't contradictions and tensions in the fascist worldview. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dang, beyond the schtick is this true? post some links buddy i wanna see |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Richard Spencer himself has said homosexuality is the "last stand of implicit white identity". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol , this is beautiful tho still! is it a thing?? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Clarification - science according to Kant measures the world of phenomena. Science and technology are normal parts of the Lebenswelt. So I don’t see how science or technology could even be in contradiction with the Lebenswelt in a Kantian/Heideggerian framework. Only a naive understanding of science which does not carefully dinstinguish between physics and metaphysics and treats scientific results as metaphysical results can clash with the Lebenswelt (as I use the term). Kant and Heidegger are opposed to science understood as metaphysics. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What Heidegger thinks is that the drive to focus on technology and be obsessed with technical progress is a symptom of unauthentic being in the world. That’s very very different from being against technology. (And it’s true I think) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What I'm saying is that Nazism wasn't a bug in Heidegger's thinking, it was a feature, and He hated those tricksy Jews and their talent for analytical thinking, which knocked the honest völkisch peasant out of his naive feudal daze. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is that really a fruitful way to evaluate his philosophy? Wouldn’t it be better just to look at Heidegger’s Argumentation in his core texts? For instance - when it comes to assessing Aristotle’s doctrine of the four causes versus Plato’s theory of forms it’s not important that Aristotle was more racist and sexist than Plato ... what is important is whether the doctrines are coherent and clarify unclear phenomena. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the central core of heidegger's philosophy is a conceptual hollowness filled up with his reactionary politics :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is that really a fruitful way to evaluate his philosophy? Yes. The absolute core of his worldview is that people should be dumbed down feudal peasants happy to eat a bowl of mush, pull a cart and contemplate being itself, and "international Judaism" was a modernizing force that got them all riled up by offering exciting alternatives to his bucolic contemplative utopia. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mean, what are heidegger's actual insights? what is good and important about being an authentic dasein? how is "you're gonna die and it's impossible for someone to die in your place" an interesting or useful thought? in short what has he proposed that isn't either trivial or nonsense? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
- raising the question of Being (instead of merely raising the question of beings) - describing the phenomenonal world and describing how different metaphysics arise from forgetting different aspects of the phenomenal world —> getting rid of metaphysical confusions —> unclouded view of the world —> happiness That’s what it does for me ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It’s like meditation. You work to see things clearly and calmly and that produces happiness |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What is "the question of being", I'm serious, is it just "why is there something and not nothing"? Or is it just a fancy way of saying let's contemplate that-there-is-something? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah put it down to the beetles i see tits flying |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There’s a tendency in metaphysics to confound Being and beings. Instead of asking what Being as such is philosophizing people ask what basic objects exist. Then an answer might be that the basic objects are platonic forms, or God’s mind or elementary physical particles. But there’s a difference between what an object essentially is and *that* it exists. And he’s wrestling with the question what it means *that* something exists without reducing the question what it means that something exists to the question *what* exists. (Again very strong debt to Kant who in his critique of the ontological proof for God stressed that existence is not a normal predicate) —— The ‘complaint’ that Heidegger is simple or trivial comes up again and again. But it seems to me to miss the point. To me it feels like shouting angrily at a man in the forest who’s looking at trees “what the fuck are you doing, looking at trees, how boring, look at something more complex, like the plans for a machine, and do some calculations, you motherfucker 😡” or like shouting at a person playing with their children “what’s wrong with you thinking it’s worthwhile to play with children. They can’t even talk properly or do maths properly, let alone do engineering. They’re little better than animals, retarded freaks 😠😡” ... In a similar way Heidegger seems very basic and very worthwhile to me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
welllll you're really making it sound like new age banalities now . . . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, the interesting question to me would be a) is it true and b) is it important. Rejecting true insights because they sound banal, would be silly. What are the criteria you use to determine whether something is worth your time/energy? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
