↪L'éléphant You could easily look up that the first piece of writing in Greek predates the first in Chinese by some 200 years — Lionino
↪Joshs Can you say some more about how Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity? Does this come out of their critique of the binary/emphasis of pluralities? — Tom Storm
Non-dualism represents the absence of a distinction that seperates reality into subject-object, appearance-thing in itself, becoming-being, nothingness-somethingness, necessity-contingency etc. In short, binary distinctions created by our langauges and thoughts dissappear — Sirius
Motion is. Motion cannot be tracked as moving, unless something endures long enough to be moved. So the thing is as well. But before we jump to ask “what is this thing” we can remember, if the thing “is”, it is also consumed by motion again — Fire Ologist
And without identifying anything, nothing happens — Fire Ologist
I wonder if we forget our place if we don't sometimes remind ourselves of the middle.
— Fire Ologist
Yes, we are 'beings-in-media-res'. I prefer Jasper's notion of 'Existenz' as conditioned, or grounded, by what he calls the encompassing¹ or even better, more concrete, Spinoza's/Deleuze's 'radical immanence' (i.e. eternal and infinite substance² — 180 Proof
The rhizome is reducible neither to the One nor the multiple. It is not the One that becomes Two or even directly three, four, five, etc. It is not a multiple derived from the One, or to which One is added (n + 1). It is composed not of units but of dimensions, or rather directions in motion. It has neither beginning nor end, but always a middle (milieu) from which it grows and which it overspills.
And yet, here we are, existing out of context, notwithstanding the context of saying this. There is in this, some elusive and profound affirmation that has nothing do to with context, though as with all things, nothing stops it from being categorized — Astrophel
"The iterability of an element divides its own identity a priori, even without taking into account that this identity can only determine or delimit itself through differential relations to other elements and hence that it bears the mark of this difference. It is because this iterability is differential, within each individual "element" as well as between "elements", because it splits each element while constituting it, because it marks it with an articulatory break, that the remainder, although indispensable, is never that of a full or fulfilling presence; it is a differential structure escaping the logic of presence.”
"imperceptible difference. This exit from the identical into
the same remains very slight, weighs nothing itself...". “It is not necessary to imagine the death of the sender or of the receiver, to put the shopping list in one's pocket, or even to raise the pen above the paper in order to interrupt oneself for a moment. The break intervenes from the moment that there is a mark, at once. It is iterability itself, ..passing between the re- of the repeated and the re- of the repeating, traversing and transforming repetition.” “Pure repetition, were it to change neither thing nor sign, carries with it an unlimited power of perversion and subversion.”
Jacques Derrida, that annoying French deconstructionist that is so difficult to read, is intentionally annoying. He wants the reader to see, in his own way, this Taoist point in his analysis of the "difference and deference" of the structure of language and the basic idea is that language not only does not tell us "about" a world in any foundationally determinate way, but does not divide the world with its categories. The world is entirely "outside" of this, yet to say this at all obviously is an exercise in language — Astrophel
Free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints is the most accurate definition for free will — Truth Seeker
give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention
— Joshs
As much contention as there might, g-factor is still highly related to academic achievement — Lionino
HD would be you sitting listening to facts and then being asked for your conclusion, and then you would offer up the reasons that you were pre-determined to offer and then you would offer your conclusion that was also pre-determined. This idea that you could have decided otherwise isn't part of HD. That's part of free will — Hanover
↪Joshs How do you know that demons exist? — Truth Seeker
We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable.
— Truth Seeker
Why do we do that? — Hanover
However, it seems problematic to say that truth is completely relativized, even vis-á-vis introspection —that people cannot look back on past events and say "that was a bad decision," with any more validity than their thoughts at that given moment. It's not moral relativism that is at stake when practical reason is reduced to emotional claims, but a thoroughgoing relativism for all claims. — Count Timothy von Icarus
My view would be that conceptions of truth are prephilosophical. They show up when your mechanic fails to have fixed your car, or when your child claims they didn't throw a rock you just saw them throw, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
↪Joshs IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they? — flannel jesus
That makes it more impressive. How many other vaguely-defined concepts do you know of that are very heritable? — flannel jesus
I do wonder what Nietzsche's impact will be going into the future. Will he be be like Plato or St. Augustine, a mainstay on introductory philosophy syllabi millennia later? Or will he be like Eriugena or Henry of Ghent, one of the "deep cuts" of an era, hardly lost to history, but also not a major name in the field? — Count Timothy von Icarus
That IQ is significantly inheritable is a frequently reproduced finding of psychology — which is remarkable for a field that has so much trouble reproducing. — Lionino
Personally, Emotivism is the only reasonable position and O'Connor has rightly landed on it. — AmadeusD
We have existence, ready-to-hand, present-at-hand and being. The last of these is common to the other three
— Ludwig V
Not really. Had Kant said “being” (instead of existence) is not a real predicate, Heidegger may have agreed — Arne
From where I sit, the universe is completely indifferent (not hostile, I grant you) to my desires and emotions. — Ludwig V
the way it "feels" to be conscious is a result of our delusional conscious perception. The accuracy that such a feeling has to convey information about what is truly happening inside is highly questionable. ie: accuracy of conscious perception should be treated with the same Kantian spectacles as with all other perceptions. This is the complaint against introspection on steroids — Malcolm Lett
Welcome to red state and blue state America.
— Joshs
That rift was never about morality or justice. — Vera Mont
. The person who commits a wrongful act is subject to judgment by his society; it's not up to him to decide whether he's ill or damaged or evil or in error. — Vera Mont
It might be possible to approach harmful actions from a perspective other than assigning guilt. We might look at the person who committed a harmful act as damaged and in need of repair. Or we might consider whether that individual is able to make some kind of restitution and win forgiveness from the victim. We might look at justice from the First Nations' POV:
The purpose of a justice system in an Aboriginal society is to restore the peace and equilibrium within the community, and to reconcile the accused with his or her own conscience and with the individual or family who has been wronged. — Vera Mont
↪Truth Seeker What's the alternative to determinism to you? Is it just some degree of randomness sprinkled in? Like some visions of quantum mechanics suggest? — flannel jesus
Some people cannot help themselves but do what they do, regardless of whether hard determinism is true or not. But we should also not help ourselves against jailing those that pose a threat to us. It might just be that socially and psychologically stressing over a serial killer, ultimately over the question of "Why did you do that?", might be as pointless as asking the hurricane "Why did you destroy my house?" — Lionino
Ah, you mean as in Kierkegaard's Repetition, as opposed to the "recollection". But in the liberated "moment," we are still bound to that which is there to be liberated, and this is as cultural, bound, that is, in the sense that there is nothing else "there" in the possibilities. — Astrophel
Truth, as the clearing and concealing of what is, happens in being composed, as a poet composes a poem. All art, as the letting happen of the advent of the truth of what is, is, as such, essentially poetry. The nature of art, on which both the art work and the artist depend, is the setting-itself-into-work of truth. It is due to art's poetic nature that, in the midst of what is, art breaks open an open place, in whose openness everything is other than usual. By virtue of the projected sketch set into the work of the unconcealedness of what is, which casts itself toward us, everything ordinary and hitherto existing becomes an unbeing. This unbeing has lost the capacity to give and keep being as measure.” (Origin of the Work of Art)
Our existence is "fundamentally futural." But in "the moment" (what looks to me like Heidegger's version of nunc stans) one is still bound to finitude: "So neither must we take the fallenness of Dasein as a ‘fall’ from a purer and higher ‘primal status’. Not only do we lack any experience of this ontically, but ontologically we lack any possibilities or clues for Interpreting it. (p. 336 Stambough). There is nothing of a singular primordiality in this analytic. I read this to say that truly novel possibilities are simply bad metaphysics based on extravagant thinking about presence at hand (like Descartes of the Christian God — Astrophel
Yes, all. Including organisms and plants. They all perceive and react to their environment. Because they all want to survive. And multiply. — Alkis Piskas
Heidegger, later on, affirmed the value of gelassenheit, the yielding to the openness allowing the world to "speak," if you will. A very important move, I think, for even if one's thoughts are constructs of historical possibilities, there is in this openness things that are alien to this. And language may gather around this and discover a new "primordiality — Astrophel
"Art is beauty. Beauty takes many forms beyond the stereotypical and expected ie. a flower or a warm summer's day. — Outlander
Art critic Sister Wendy Beckett once said that before Picasso, painters took it for granted that their job was to produce works of beauty. What else is art to do, after all? It was only after Picasso—specifically, after 1907's “Les Demoiselles d'Avignon,” with its squatting French prostitutes with faces like grotesque African masks—that painters realized they were not bound to beauty, that beauty was not a fate but, in a way, a limitation. Picasso showed that ugliness too could be the subject of great art, that artists could capture ugliness without rendering it beautiful, and this forever changed the course of culture. Like all truly deep assumptions, this one about beauty had hardly seemed like an assumption at all. It had seemed rather like an unquestionable, inescapable truth—until someone questioned it and thereby escaped it. What had seemed self-evident came to be seen as a self-imposed restriction. How much of the world, how much ugliness, how much mundanity had artists been ignoring? How much more could they now capture? This was perhaps the question of twentieth century art, with its depictions of hideous slaughter, its sliced-up cow carcasses, its snow shovels and urinals and soup cans, paint splotches and blank canvases.
(Lee Braver)
You’ll notice Amadeus was speaking not just of his followers, but of Nietzsche himself. Perhaps one can say of many of Nietzsche’s followers as well as of his more shrill detractors that they are gauche and insufferable in their inability to read him well.↪AmadeusD Thanks. Yes, some Nietzscheans can be gauche and insufferable. — Tom Storm
Heidegger doesn't seem to say a lot about freedom and Being
— Corvus
No, he does not speak directly in terms of freedom. However, authentic Being-one's-Self is a choice. Please see Being and Time at 312-313 — Arne
In being-ahead-of-oneself as the being toward one's ownmost potentiality-of-being lies the existential and ontological condition of the possibility of being free for authentic existentiell possibilities.
With the factical existence of Da-sein, beings are also already encountered. That such beings are discovered in the There of its own existence is not under the control of
Da-sein. Only what, in which direction, to what extent, and how it actually discovers and discloses is a matter of freedom, although always within the limits of its thrownness. (Being and Time)
Simon Critchley wrote that philosophy was the great spreader of doubt and despair because nothing survives inquiry. But I disagree. Like the Hindu's jnana yoga, philosophy is a liberation from tthe presumption of knowing — Astrophel
And why do you think scientists are telling you what you think so frequently?
— flannel jesus
Because they want to have control over people.
It's a standard mode of operation for people anyway; scientists have just elevated it to a whole new level, much like religion/spirituality — baker
I've been in several, disparate 'gay' and 'queer' communities. I fucking hate them. I detest everything I went through trying to be friends with those people. Any opinion that didn't align with the group was grounds for not just ostracization but attempts to belittle me in my work life, family life and other social endeavours. It was harrowing, and disgusting (in two specific examples, anyhow). One of my children was put through essentially a Struggle Session in an attempt to have them tell their school that i was an unfit parent. And this is a common experience. — AmadeusD
Groups of affinity aren't designed to foster difference (nor do they incidentally do so). This context is actually an apt one - trans individuals who do not tout the same concepts and ideas we're, perhaps wrongly, discussing, are ostracized as not the 'right kind of trans' (as it is with blacks, Jews, feminists etc....). Affinity groups seem to reinforce irrational self-image. — AmadeusD