@DUE: I have no idea what you are talking about. Derrida, by all accounts, was a pretty fantastic person.
Indeed, he was a DICK to argue against, as John Searle found out, because he would pour over every little word and turn them all against you and he would rather deliciously oscillate between attacking you with classical metaphysics and then taking your metaphysical arguments and deconstructing them, but that's just intellectual rigor, in my opinion.
But, yeah, you're wrong about him being a Douche. Derrida was a pretty remarkable person.
I made an edit. Egotist is a better word.
Like you said he was a dick to argue against. Dick/douche. Same deal.
figuratively and literally lol.
His defense of Paul de Man was a really embarrassing moment by all accounts.
I personally haven't read them, but I trust my derrida prof when he said that they were an attempt by derrida to try to use his theories in a realm he had no experience.
I'm guessing that your knowledge of his articles on de Man after his death are the whole NYT hatchet jobs. The northeast press had a pretty big hate for derrida? Have you read his obituary from the new york times? It's an absolutely disgraceful piece. Even if I weren't a big derrida student, I would be embarrassed that my preferred newspaper put out such an aggressive and bellicose obituary.
there's so much bullshitting going on here. Like, epic levels of never telling the truth.
About what
Who works
What happens today
What agreements have been made
When we are visiting the bank
How other volunteers can help
The financial state of this organisation
Loads of other stuff.
I'm seriously vile this morning, please direct me to the nearest punching bag before I just walk down the street and start calling people sisterfuckers.
I think you have even more silly views on stereotypes and equality than Sarks, though.
Taking a class this semester on body as spectacle that includes queer theory and crip theory. What happens in that video is like, a perfectly classic example of desexualizing old/disabled people.
Inquisitor on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
When I watched Boombox I was like gross, old people having sex but then I stopped myself and wondered why I think that and maybe I shouldn't because why can't old people have sex?
Isn't it pretty standard to be at least somewhat repulsed by watching people you don't find very attractive having sex?
Winky on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
@DUE: I have no idea what you are talking about. Derrida, by all accounts, was a pretty fantastic person.
Indeed, he was a DICK to argue against, as John Searle found out, because he would pour over every little word and turn them all against you and he would rather deliciously oscillate between attacking you with classical metaphysics and then taking your metaphysical arguments and deconstructing them, but that's just intellectual rigor, in my opinion.
But, yeah, you're wrong about him being a Douche. Derrida was a pretty remarkable person.
I made an edit. Egotist is a better word.
Like you said he was a dick to argue against. Dick/douche. Same deal.
figuratively and literally lol.
His defense of Paul de Man was a really embarrassing moment by all accounts.
I personally haven't read them, but I trust my derrida prof when he said that they were an attempt by derrida to try to use his theories in a realm he had no experience.
I'm guessing that your knowledge of his articles on de Man after his death are the whole NYT hatchet jobs. The northeast press had a pretty big hate for derrida? Have you read his obituary from the new york times? It's an absolutely disgraceful piece. Even if I weren't a big derrida student, I would be embarrassed that my preferred newspaper put out such an aggressive and bellicose obituary.
I've actually read his defense of De Man. I was not impressed. If it was an experiment, it was in poor taste.
I agree that it would have been more tasteful for the NYT to not print an obituary at all.
there's so much bullshitting going on here. Like, epic levels of never telling the truth.
About what
Who works
What happens today
What agreements have been made
When we are visiting the bank
How other volunteers can help
The financial state of this organisation
Loads of other stuff.
I'm seriously vile this morning, please direct me to the nearest punching bag before I just walk down the street and start calling people sisterfuckers.
Oh for a second I thought you were about to come to Edward Cullen's defense
Sorry that your day has been so awful Hopefully you sort out all of this stupidity
I think you have even more silly views on stereotypes and equality than Sarks, though.
Taking a class this semester on body as spectacle that includes queer theory and crip theory. What happens in that video is like, a perfectly classic example of desexualizing old/disabled people.
I know you've been taking that class, which I think is playing a major part in you taking these helpful ideas to an utterly silly level.
If the Boombox video bothers you because making a joke about old people fucking is "reinforcing negative stereotypes about old people and sex," you are taking that shit too far.
When I watched Boombox I was like gross, old people having sex but then I stopped myself and wondered why I think that and maybe I shouldn't because why can't old people have sex?
Isn't it pretty standard to be at least somewhat repulsed by watching people you don't find very attractive having sex?
Yep, but the commonality of an attitude does not necessarily excuse it.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited April 2010
okay so i am pretty tired of being told that i have to find unattractive people and situations attractive
or that my revulsion at seeing some things that i don't care to see is like an instrument of oppression man
Irond Will on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
because if existentialism could be roped into a single belief, it's that we are existential beings (dasein, in my preferred terminology) that is pure possibility and utter nothingness. Thus, to align oneself with humanism, which has a whole slew of beliefs, even if it is the mere statement "I am human" is an anathema to an existentialist.
If the Boombox video bothers you because making a joke about old people fucking is "reinforcing negative stereotypes about old people and sex," you are taking that shit too far.
The Boombox video would be defensible only if it were subverting the negative stereotypes; I'm not sure that it is.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I know you've been taking that class, which I think is playing a major part in you taking these helpful ideas to an utterly silly level.
If the Boombox video bothers you because making a joke about old people fucking is "reinforcing negative stereotypes about old people and sex," you are taking that shit too far.
I don't really care for the music or the lyrics. The joke at the end I feel wasn't funny and reinforced negative stereotypes.
I don't even think you know what taking shit too far in this context means. :P
I think you have even more silly views on stereotypes and equality than Sarks, though.
Taking a class this semester on body as spectacle that includes queer theory and crip theory. What happens in that video is like, a perfectly classic example of desexualizing old/disabled people.
I know you've been taking that class, which I think is playing a major part in you taking these helpful ideas to an utterly silly level.
If the Boombox video bothers you because making a joke about old people fucking is "reinforcing negative stereotypes about old people and sex," you are taking that shit too far.
Why? I don't find the Boombox video intentionally malicious (I enjoy the video despite my problems with it) but it's there and it should be pointed out what's going on and why it might be going on.
As long as you can turn your brain off at the appropriate times and enjoy it when you need to
Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
Like, for instance, I hate Dennett. I wish he'd never published a word.
However, I would be incredibly embarrassed if the nyt put out similar obituary for him.
edit* but you are right -- his defense of de man is probably the worst section in his CV. It is interesting though, since Derrida experienced a great deal of anti-Semitism in his life.
I think you have even more silly views on stereotypes and equality than Sarks, though.
Taking a class this semester on body as spectacle that includes queer theory and crip theory. What happens in that video is like, a perfectly classic example of desexualizing old/disabled people.
I know you've been taking that class, which I think is playing a major part in you taking these helpful ideas to an utterly silly level.
If the Boombox video bothers you because making a joke about old people fucking is "reinforcing negative stereotypes about old people and sex," you are taking that shit too far.
because if existentialism could be roped into a single belief, it's that we are existential beings (dasein, in my preferred terminology) that is pure possibility and utter nothingness. Thus, to align oneself with humanism, which has a whole slew of beliefs, even if it is the mere statement "I am human" is an anathema to an existentialist.
i thought that the sole common belief of "existentialism" was that the experience of personal existence is directly unknowable to others.
that doesn't preclude the possibility of empathy or sympathy or humanism i wouldn't think
Irond Will on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Derrida is a genius writer because derrida consciously tries to write in an unspeakable, and possibly even unthinkable, language.
Your definition of "genius" is broken.
I am by no means a Derrida fan but I am kind of dying to hear in detail what you, _J_, have to say about him. I feel like that even when agreeing with you I would disagree with you.
I do not need the intuition of the object "I" in order to understand the word "I". The possibility of this non-intuition constitutes the Bedeutung as such, the normal Bedeutung as such. When the word "I" appears, the ideality of its Bedeutung, insofar as it is distinct from its object, puts us in the situation that Husserl describes as abnormal: as if the word I were written by someone unknown. Only this situation allows us to account for the fact that we understand the word I not only when its author is unknow, but also when he is a fictional person or dead. The ideality of the Bedeutung has here a value that is structurally testimonial. And just as the value of a perceptual statement depended on neither the actuality nor the possibility of the perception, the signifying value of the I does not depend on the life of the speaking subject. Whether the perception accompanies or not the perceptual statement, whether life as selfe-presence accompanies or not the statment of the I, this is perfectly indifferent to the functioning of the meaning.
Ahem,
"I" is a subjective pronoun which refers to the subject of the sentence of clause in which the "I" appears.
The end.
The statement "I am living" is accompanied by my being-dead and its possibility requires the possibiilty that I be dead, and the reverse.
No. "I am living" is a sentence, the I referring to the subject of the sentence, the am being the present tense of the verb to-be, and "living" being an adjective, which modifies the pronoun "I". There is no "accompanying" being-dead to the sentence; that is absurd.
Deconstruction
Deconstruction is absurd both in Derrida's thinking it possible and actual.
Finally, Derrida was a literary critic, not a philosopher, and he can go die in a fire.
I wasn't looking for it. It's blatant. It's like, impossible to not see.
It would be like if the song at the end decided playing the boombox was bad because women stopped cooking in the kitchen. I mean, it's not some hidden subtext here.
Like, for instance, I hate Dennett. I wish he'd never published a word.
However, I would be incredibly embarrassed if the nyt put out similar obituary for him.
edit* but you are right -- his defense of de man is probably the worst section in his CV. It is interesting though, since Derrida experienced a great deal of anti-Semitism in his life.
:x
Though, let's face it, I like Dennett pretty much specifically because I'm a scientist and not a philosopher.
or that my revulsion at seeing some things that i don't care to see is like an instrument of oppression man
Disgust and revulsion have typically been ways by which dominant classes express their disapproval of subjugated classes. Sex is a natural subset of human behavior, to say that you find one class of people repulsive when they engage in a natural subset of human behavior would imply that you find either the behavior or the class of people inherently repulsive. To say "I find this intersection of [class] and [behavior] repulsive, but not [behavior] or [class] in isolation" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Posts
I, for example, like Ace of Base. It is very silly music.
perhaps I should return to it
yes they are a great example of an enjoyable arty post-punk band and wait a minute what are you saying here?
I personally haven't read them, but I trust my derrida prof when he said that they were an attempt by derrida to try to use his theories in a realm he had no experience.
I'm guessing that your knowledge of his articles on de Man after his death are the whole NYT hatchet jobs. The northeast press had a pretty big hate for derrida? Have you read his obituary from the new york times? It's an absolutely disgraceful piece. Even if I weren't a big derrida student, I would be embarrassed that my preferred newspaper put out such an aggressive and bellicose obituary.
Only because that and what Sarks said about Twilight made me say that I have been annoyed at the ridiculous levels some people have taken this shit.
I mean I like those dudes, which is the only reason I brought it up. When _J_ says something I think is silly I don't mention it.
Who works
What happens today
What agreements have been made
When we are visiting the bank
How other volunteers can help
The financial state of this organisation
Loads of other stuff.
I'm seriously vile this morning, please direct me to the nearest punching bag before I just walk down the street and start calling people sisterfuckers.
Taking a class this semester on body as spectacle that includes queer theory and crip theory. What happens in that video is like, a perfectly classic example of desexualizing old/disabled people.
Why?
NEITHER SHOULD FAT PEOPLE
OR DISABLED PEOPLE
OR UGLY* PEOPLE
* Please refer to your local cultural guidelines for ugliness
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
mahogany furniture > maple furniture
Isn't it pretty standard to be at least somewhat repulsed by watching people you don't find very attractive having sex?
I've actually read his defense of De Man. I was not impressed. If it was an experiment, it was in poor taste.
I agree that it would have been more tasteful for the NYT to not print an obituary at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z33tH-JdPDg
Oh for a second I thought you were about to come to Edward Cullen's defense
Sorry that your day has been so awful
I know you've been taking that class, which I think is playing a major part in you taking these helpful ideas to an utterly silly level.
If the Boombox video bothers you because making a joke about old people fucking is "reinforcing negative stereotypes about old people and sex," you are taking that shit too far.
Yep, but the commonality of an attitude does not necessarily excuse it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
or that my revulsion at seeing some things that i don't care to see is like an instrument of oppression man
because if existentialism could be roped into a single belief, it's that we are existential beings (dasein, in my preferred terminology) that is pure possibility and utter nothingness. Thus, to align oneself with humanism, which has a whole slew of beliefs, even if it is the mere statement "I am human" is an anathema to an existentialist.
But I like sex
The Boombox video would be defensible only if it were subverting the negative stereotypes; I'm not sure that it is.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PaoLy7PHwk
I don't really care for the music or the lyrics. The joke at the end I feel wasn't funny and reinforced negative stereotypes.
I don't even think you know what taking shit too far in this context means. :P
thank you
Why? I don't find the Boombox video intentionally malicious (I enjoy the video despite my problems with it) but it's there and it should be pointed out what's going on and why it might be going on.
As long as you can turn your brain off at the appropriate times and enjoy it when you need to
However, I would be incredibly embarrassed if the nyt put out similar obituary for him.
edit* but you are right -- his defense of de man is probably the worst section in his CV. It is interesting though, since Derrida experienced a great deal of anti-Semitism in his life.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/grad-student-deconstructs-takeout-menu,85/
At some point, you have to stop looking at every thing for reinforcing negative stereotypes unless you want to hate everything.
You carry a mahogany buffet up 3 flights of stairs and see if you agree.
Pine furniture is clearly the best.
Wait, do they make furniture out of balsa?
No one is saying you have to find it attractive, but, strawmans are fun, I guess.
i thought that the sole common belief of "existentialism" was that the experience of personal existence is directly unknowable to others.
that doesn't preclude the possibility of empathy or sympathy or humanism i wouldn't think
The Economist's obit for Derrida was way more scathing than the NYTimes one was.
Let us begin with Voice and Phenomenon:
Ahem,
"I" is a subjective pronoun which refers to the subject of the sentence of clause in which the "I" appears.
The end.
No. "I am living" is a sentence, the I referring to the subject of the sentence, the am being the present tense of the verb to-be, and "living" being an adjective, which modifies the pronoun "I". There is no "accompanying" being-dead to the sentence; that is absurd.
Deconstruction
Deconstruction is absurd both in Derrida's thinking it possible and actual.
Finally, Derrida was a literary critic, not a philosopher, and he can go die in a fire.
I wasn't looking for it. It's blatant. It's like, impossible to not see.
It would be like if the song at the end decided playing the boombox was bad because women stopped cooking in the kitchen. I mean, it's not some hidden subtext here.
:x
Though, let's face it, I like Dennett pretty much specifically because I'm a scientist and not a philosopher.
Doing this would behoove you.
There's a middle ground between finding something "attractive" and finding it "repulsive."
Disgust and revulsion have typically been ways by which dominant classes express their disapproval of subjugated classes. Sex is a natural subset of human behavior, to say that you find one class of people repulsive when they engage in a natural subset of human behavior would imply that you find either the behavior or the class of people inherently repulsive. To say "I find this intersection of [class] and [behavior] repulsive, but not [behavior] or [class] in isolation" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You would grow hooves and be removed from society and thrown into a wardrobe.