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
That's egoism.
Existentialism is essentially the motto of "existentia before essentia," that a thing IS before it is "an X." The self, whether it is Dasein or Sartre's transcendental ego or whathaveyou, is only its IS, it is nothing else. To realize this is supposed to be liberating.
@Hach: no, I haven't. Of course the English hate Derrida. That's like what they do.
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.
Pointing out the use of a stereotype in a work of art doesn't inherently mean I hate the work of art. In fact, in some cases I may appreciate that stereotype - that's what camp is about, for instance. It's highly contextual.
If you said, "Yeah, Boombox reinforces a stereotype that old people are desexualized but I like the video anyway," I'd sort of nod and shrug my shoulders and go "Okay, I get that." What I disagree with are people saying either (a) "that stereotype isn't there" when it clearly is or (b) "there's nothing wrong with that stereotype."
From my perspective this is a pretty dispassionate conversation. I'm not wharrrrrgarbling here, and from what I can see neither are Sarks or Inqy.
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
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
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.
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
It leads to all beings as completely unknowable isolated entities in and of themselves. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Which leads to empathetic and humanistic complications.
I honestly can't imagine trying to get through Being and Time without an awesome philosophy TA who's willing to spend 3-5 hours a week discussing it chapter by chapter with me until I start to grasp it.
The self, whether it is Dasein or Sartre's transcendental ego or whathaveyou, is only its IS, it is nothing else. To realize this is supposed to be liberating.
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
It leads to all beings as completely unknowable isolated entities in and of themselves. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Which leads to empathetic and humanistic complications.
This is completely wrong, at least wrt to actual existentialism, i.e., Heidegger.
Dasein finds itself with worldhood already disclosed -- it is impossible not to know a common world. The Other is completely knowable, because it is merely nothingness existing-towards worldhood. It is only cartesian egoism that prevents us from knowing other.
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.
i find people with long beards eating soup repulsive
because that shit is like a soup sponge
i find fat and/ or hairy people naked kind of gross
though i don't have a problem with them clothed
i don't like to see other people pooping or, say, vomiting
even though everyone does it! it is a subset of natural behavior!
i mean at the end of the day, feral, i don't think we have a great deal of control over what we find aesthetically or sexually attractive
when a gay kid admits to himself that he is gay, it doesn't mean that he is rejecting the humanity of the female class of humanity and thus reinforcing an ancient gender-based social structure. he is just ceding to his natural attraction to dudes.
what i am basically saying is that i don't think that there is much legitimacy to tut-tutting people for what they are attracted to, or on the other side of the coin, what they are not attracted to or even repulsed by!
Asking questions and questioning values is important, but at a certain point (whether level of specificity or otherwise) it just seems to suck so much joy out of everything that it isn't worth it.
Maybe it's just me though---I know that part of the reason I have a hard time enjoying fiction is that even years after being away from intense literature classes I still get caught up in the minutiae.
I honestly can't imagine trying to get through Being and Time without an awesome philosophy TA who's willing to spend 3-5 hours a week discussing it chapter by chapter with me until I start to grasp it.
Understanding Being and Time requires three things:
1) Heidegger dictionary
2) Gin
3) A copy of mein kampf
_J_ on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
This is completely wrong, at least wrt to actual existentialism, i.e., Heidegger.
Dasein finds itself with worldhood already disclosed -- it is impossible not to know a common world. The Other is completely knowable, because it is merely nothingness existing-towards worldhood. It is only cartesian egoism that prevents us from knowing other.
doot dee doo
we are all made of the same energy-matter as everything else. separation from the environment is an illusion. we are the universe understanding itself.
This is completely wrong, at least wrt to actual existentialism, i.e., Heidegger.
Dasein finds itself with worldhood already disclosed -- it is impossible not to know a common world. The Other is completely knowable, because it is merely nothingness existing-towards worldhood. It is only cartesian egoism that prevents us from knowing other.
doot dee doo
we are all made of the same energy-matter as everything else. separation from the environment is an illusion. we are the universe understanding itself.
derp a derp.
Are you making fun of me? I should magically appear over there and then manually plant my fist in your face.
It's nice to know I don't need to visit it to hear all about the seemingly endless supply of fossilized old Marxists who blather out reams of incomprehensible pointlessness about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
what i am basically saying is that i don't think that there is much legitimacy to tut-tutting people for what they are attracted to, or on the other side of the coin, what they are not attracted to or even repulsed by!
It's nice to know I don't need to visit it to hear all about the seemingly endless supply of fossilized old Marxists who blather out reams of incomprehensible pointlessness about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
what i am basically saying is that i don't think that there is much legitimacy to tut-tutting people for what they are attracted to, or on the other side of the coin, what they are not attracted to or even repulsed by!
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.
What do you like about Dennett?
Of course, his accessibility is wonderful to me. I'm a fan of his conception of free will, and what he has to say about determinism. He seems to be honestly concerned with inter-relating his ideas with empirical evidence and scientific concepts. I don't know of any other philosopher who has incorporated the concept of evolution into their ideas in a satisfactory way.
It's nice to know I don't need to visit it to hear all about the seemingly endless supply of fossilized old Marxists who blather out reams of incomprehensible pointlessness about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Posts
and drunk!
It's certainly possible that we may find that certain views are justified, but, still worth questioning.
Anyway, time for me to watch some starcraft.
Civil War: I'm with Cass
A boombox is not a toy.
But what am I going to do on Friday nights now?
That's egoism.
Existentialism is essentially the motto of "existentia before essentia," that a thing IS before it is "an X." The self, whether it is Dasein or Sartre's transcendental ego or whathaveyou, is only its IS, it is nothing else. To realize this is supposed to be liberating.
@Hach: no, I haven't. Of course the English hate Derrida. That's like what they do.
They are slaves to common sense.
I don't "hate" Boombox.
Pointing out the use of a stereotype in a work of art doesn't inherently mean I hate the work of art. In fact, in some cases I may appreciate that stereotype - that's what camp is about, for instance. It's highly contextual.
If you said, "Yeah, Boombox reinforces a stereotype that old people are desexualized but I like the video anyway," I'd sort of nod and shrug my shoulders and go "Okay, I get that." What I disagree with are people saying either (a) "that stereotype isn't there" when it clearly is or (b) "there's nothing wrong with that stereotype."
From my perspective this is a pretty dispassionate conversation. I'm not wharrrrrgarbling here, and from what I can see neither are Sarks or Inqy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What do you like about Dennett?
It leads to all beings as completely unknowable isolated entities in and of themselves. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Which leads to empathetic and humanistic complications.
These things happen when 70% of your days are overcast.
This is like some sort of major social goof. I'm truly embarassed.
Naw, it's cool. Did you have fun getting drunk?
"supposed to be liberating", indeed.
"It is only its is" EUREKA!
srsly?
I did. And am!
This is completely wrong, at least wrt to actual existentialism, i.e., Heidegger.
Dasein finds itself with worldhood already disclosed -- it is impossible not to know a common world. The Other is completely knowable, because it is merely nothingness existing-towards worldhood. It is only cartesian egoism that prevents us from knowing other.
i find people with long beards eating soup repulsive
because that shit is like a soup sponge
i find fat and/ or hairy people naked kind of gross
though i don't have a problem with them clothed
i don't like to see other people pooping or, say, vomiting
even though everyone does it! it is a subset of natural behavior!
i mean at the end of the day, feral, i don't think we have a great deal of control over what we find aesthetically or sexually attractive
when a gay kid admits to himself that he is gay, it doesn't mean that he is rejecting the humanity of the female class of humanity and thus reinforcing an ancient gender-based social structure. he is just ceding to his natural attraction to dudes.
what i am basically saying is that i don't think that there is much legitimacy to tut-tutting people for what they are attracted to, or on the other side of the coin, what they are not attracted to or even repulsed by!
Maybe it's just me though---I know that part of the reason I have a hard time enjoying fiction is that even years after being away from intense literature classes I still get caught up in the minutiae.
Understanding Being and Time requires three things:
1) Heidegger dictionary
2) Gin
3) A copy of mein kampf
Excellent.
Also, couldn't find any punching bags.
Plan B!
Time waits for no man
Time waits for no, man.
doot dee doo
we are all made of the same energy-matter as everything else. separation from the environment is an illusion. we are the universe understanding itself.
derp a derp.
Are you making fun of me? I should magically appear over there and then manually plant my fist in your face.
It's nice to know I don't need to visit it to hear all about the seemingly endless supply of fossilized old Marxists who blather out reams of incomprehensible pointlessness about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Interesting thesis.
Proof?
Time, waits for no man
what did you drink?
I am the king of tut-tutting
Nothing to get excited about, sadly. Just a lot of beer.
Marx was an economist, not a philosopher.
tsk tsk
Of course, his accessibility is wonderful to me. I'm a fan of his conception of free will, and what he has to say about determinism. He seems to be honestly concerned with inter-relating his ideas with empirical evidence and scientific concepts. I don't know of any other philosopher who has incorporated the concept of evolution into their ideas in a satisfactory way.
why would you do that
it's right there in the name
This is dumb.