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.
Hm I was under the impression that while there is a known commonality it is ignored because of self importance and actualization since there is nothing else.
but it has been a while. I ain't done no book learnin' in a year and the last thing I was into was philosophy of law.
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.
Nah, we ain't no matter. We ain't even a physical process, dogg.
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.
Marx was an economist, not a philosopher.
Marxist, Nigel, Marxist.
Lawndart on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
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.
This is tantamount to asserting that it's impossible to tolerate something without wishing to experience or partake in it.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
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.
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.
This makes me a sad panda.
Evolution is all the rage, at least in Anglo-American philosophy. Check out George Lakoff's Philosophy in the Flesh.
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 do you like to hear about?
I get all hot and bothered when you get socratic, Podly.
Silas Brown on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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 do you like to hear about?
are you ready for some fooooootbaaaaahhhhlllll
Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
This is tantamount to asserting that it's impossible to tolerate something without wishing to experience or partake in it.
you have encapsulated "a day in the life of feral" i think
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.
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.
Indeed, it's cool when people use science and philosophy to help their arguments. As I've mentioned before, I love Ted Sider's Four-Dimensionalism for its take on time.
However, if your philosophy is completely unfounded and unargued, then it doesn't end up doing much. Dennett is that. He is also a sort of pariah because he NEVER addresses any criticism. Like, ever.
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.
This makes me a sad panda.
Evolution is all the rage, at least in Anglo-American philosophy. Check out George Lakoff's Philosophy in the Flesh.
As it should be. But again, I admit that he's got the only satisfactory incorporation that I know of. Which really really isn't saying much.
I am, of course, really open to any recommendations.
i find fat and/ or hairy people naked kind of gross
though i don't have a problem with them clothed
I think that most Americans' attitudes towards nudity in particular are shaped by media depictions of nudity; in other words our expectations of what a nude human should look like are based largely around Hollywood and porn.
So a statement like "I find fat or hairy people kind of gross" is an implicit admission that you're really not comfortable with nudity when it involves actual humans; you're only comfortable with it when it involves media fictions, or with the particular humans who happen to fulfill those fictions.
i don't like to see other people pooping or, say, vomiting
even though everyone does it! it is a subset of natural behavior!
Okay, my entire point is that it's one thing to find a behavior repulsive across all examples of it, it's another to only find it repulsive from a certain class of people. If your thesis is "vomiting is gross," well, okay, vomiting is gross. There's nothing to argue against there. If your thesis is "vomiting is great when skinny people do it, it's only gross when fat people do it," then it's pretty clear to me that you have a stereotypical idea of fat or skinny people.
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
I'm not talking about attraction, I'm talking about repulsion. Those aren't even two sides of a linear spectrum; they're two separate axes entirely. You can be aroused, or repulsed, or neither, or both by a given stimulus.
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.
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 do you like to hear about?
Things other than philosophy.
Lawndart on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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!
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 do you like to hear about?
Things other than philosophy.
Like what?
Besides cantankery and the finer aspects of sophomoric blabbering.
Whenever I look up homemade pornography a part of me eagerly hopes for bronzed adonises making aesthetically pleasing love to their gorgeous girlfriends.
Instead it's a dude in a For the Horde t-shirt rolled up over his stomach pounding his bored looking girlfriend with burn scars.
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.
Indeed, it's cool when people use science and philosophy to help their arguments. As I've mentioned before, I love Ted Sider's Four-Dimensionalism for its take on time.
However, if your philosophy is completely unfounded and unargued, then it doesn't end up doing much. Dennett is that. He is also a sort of pariah because he NEVER addresses any criticism. Like, ever.
I really wouldn't say unfounded and unargued. Rather, I found his reasoning pretty solid.
But I really can't say anything about his unwillingness to address criticism, it's just not something I know about.
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.
This is tantamount to asserting that it's impossible to tolerate something without wishing to experience or partake in it.
I don't see how your objection follows from my statement.
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
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited April 2010
I wish my cats would get along. I'd sleep a lot better.
Whenever I look up homemade pornography a part of me eagerly hopes for bronzed adonises making aesthetically pleasing love to their gorgeous girlfriends.
Instead it's a dude in a For the Horde t-shirt rolled up over his stomach pounding his bored looking girlfriend with burn scars.
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.
You are a fan of compatiblism?!?!?!?
The entire idea of free will was kind of invented by theologians to solve the problem of evil in the face of a just God. The Greeks were all fatalistic and shit; i'd go so far as to call them proto-determinists.
Whenever I look up homemade pornography a part of me eagerly hopes for bronzed adonises making aesthetically pleasing love to their gorgeous girlfriends.
Instead it's a dude in a For the Horde t-shirt rolled up over his stomach pounding his bored looking girlfriend with burn scars.
Whenever I look up homemade pornography a part of me eagerly hopes for bronzed adonises making aesthetically pleasing love to their gorgeous girlfriends.
Instead it's a dude in a For the Horde t-shirt rolled up over his stomach pounding his bored looking girlfriend with burn scars.
I found some pretty good stuff the other day.
I think I'm just going to use my imaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagination.
Whenever I look up homemade pornography a part of me eagerly hopes for bronzed adonises making aesthetically pleasing love to their gorgeous girlfriends.
Instead it's a dude in a For the Horde t-shirt rolled up over his stomach pounding his bored looking girlfriend with burn scars.
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 do you like to hear about?
Things other than philosophy.
Like what?
Besides being cantankerous and otherwise unpleasant.
Being cantankerous and otherwise unpleasant pretty much sums it up, actually.
Posts
Hm I was under the impression that while there is a known commonality it is ignored because of self importance and actualization since there is nothing else.
but it has been a while. I ain't done no book learnin' in a year and the last thing I was into was philosophy of law.
Nah, we ain't no matter. We ain't even a physical process, dogg.
Marxist, Nigel, Marxist.
This is tantamount to asserting that it's impossible to tolerate something without wishing to experience or partake in it.
What do you like to hear about?
This makes me a sad panda.
Evolution is all the rage, at least in Anglo-American philosophy. Check out George Lakoff's Philosophy in the Flesh.
It made you drunk though so it served its' purpose.
I get all hot and bothered when you get socratic, Podly.
you can do it mori!
it isn't that hard - really. i even learned how!
it can get kind of expensive once you get into the more fringe cases and stuff, but you should be able to stock a basic bar for pretty cheap.
are you ready for some fooooootbaaaaahhhhlllll
you have encapsulated "a day in the life of feral" i think
I'll try again after I visit some bars. I think I need a professional baseline to compare against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs
Indeed, it's cool when people use science and philosophy to help their arguments. As I've mentioned before, I love Ted Sider's Four-Dimensionalism for its take on time.
However, if your philosophy is completely unfounded and unargued, then it doesn't end up doing much. Dennett is that. He is also a sort of pariah because he NEVER addresses any criticism. Like, ever.
As it should be. But again, I admit that he's got the only satisfactory incorporation that I know of. Which really really isn't saying much.
I am, of course, really open to any recommendations.
I think that most Americans' attitudes towards nudity in particular are shaped by media depictions of nudity; in other words our expectations of what a nude human should look like are based largely around Hollywood and porn.
So a statement like "I find fat or hairy people kind of gross" is an implicit admission that you're really not comfortable with nudity when it involves actual humans; you're only comfortable with it when it involves media fictions, or with the particular humans who happen to fulfill those fictions.
Okay, my entire point is that it's one thing to find a behavior repulsive across all examples of it, it's another to only find it repulsive from a certain class of people. If your thesis is "vomiting is gross," well, okay, vomiting is gross. There's nothing to argue against there. If your thesis is "vomiting is great when skinny people do it, it's only gross when fat people do it," then it's pretty clear to me that you have a stereotypical idea of fat or skinny people.
I'm not talking about attraction, I'm talking about repulsion. Those aren't even two sides of a linear spectrum; they're two separate axes entirely. You can be aroused, or repulsed, or neither, or both by a given stimulus.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Things other than philosophy.
i am okay with tut-tutting in general
just not misdirected tut-tutting
tut-tutting is not a toy!
You are a fan of compatiblism?!?!?!?
Like what?
Besides cantankery and the finer aspects of sophomoric blabbering.
But you gotta know your limits with a tut-tut!
Instead it's a dude in a For the Horde t-shirt rolled up over his stomach pounding his bored looking girlfriend with burn scars.
I really wouldn't say unfounded and unargued. Rather, I found his reasoning pretty solid.
But I really can't say anything about his unwillingness to address criticism, it's just not something I know about.
I don't see how your objection follows from my statement.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I found some pretty good stuff the other day.
What do you consider to be sufficient foundations or arguments?
The entire idea of free will was kind of invented by theologians to solve the problem of evil in the face of a just God. The Greeks were all fatalistic and shit; i'd go so far as to call them proto-determinists.
You've finally learned
Welcome to the pack my boy :P
you're going to the wrong sites
And I am suddenly sober! Which is no good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbPVwvd_H50
baruch is on fire
I think I'm just going to use my imaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagination.
For me there are no right sites
they all end in miserableness and tears
Being cantankerous and otherwise unpleasant pretty much sums it up, actually.
Why does it matter what I like to hear about?