Not all of the Greeks, but a large proportion of them, were passionate, unhappy, at war with themselves, driven along one road by the intellect and along another by the passions, with the imagination to conceive heaven and the wilful self-assertion that creates hell. They had a maxim "nothing too much," but they were in fact excessive in everything-in pure thought, in poetry, in religion, and in sin. It was the combination of passion and intellect that made them great, while they were great. Neither alone would have transformed the world for all future time as they transformed it. Their prototype in mythology is not Olympian Zeus, but Prometheus, who brought fire from heaven and was rewarded with eternal torment.
That is not philosophy. It is bad, late-19th/early 20th century myopic, biased classicism.
So why is it in a book about THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY?
I don't know. Probably because the text is neither a good philosophical or historical text, but certainly is a GREAT monument to Russell's ego.
I once asked one of my professors why Russell wrote that book.
My professor responded, "Well, Russell had another alimony to pay off..."
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
The penis is basically a butter churn.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Ayer (He was a dick, but he was still an awesome person. At 80 years old, onetime he got into an altercation with Mike Fucking Tyson when he was the baddest man on earth and won!)
Do you think that actually happened?
I hope it happened. But I always took it to be one of those stories that should be true, though it probably isn't.
Edit: I that story.
He taught or lectured several times in the United States, including serving as a visiting professor at Bard College in the fall of 1987. At a party that same year held by fashion designer Fernando Sanchez, Ayer, then 77, confronted Mike Tyson who was forcing himself upon the (then) little-known model Naomi Campbell. When Ayer demanded that Tyson stop, the boxer said: "Do you know who the fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world," to which Ayer replied: "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men". Ayer and Tyson then began to talk, while Naomi Campbell slipped out.
As a heideggerian, I'm just going to continue recontextualizing my past so that the ONE thing I think is true is that fucking story HAPPENED.
Like, I'll deny dinosaurs before I believe that story didn't happen.
Also Podly that description doesn't fail to describe any philosopher with which I am acquainted.
By all accounts (that I know of), philosophers who were rad, awesome people:
Spinoza
Derrida
Frege
Ayer (He was a dick, but he was still an awesome person. At 80 years old, onetime he got into an altercation with Mike Fucking Tyson when he was the baddest man on earth and won!)
Lots of other people were dicks, but were also very intellectually honest. Russell had a supreme achievement -- that was later completely dismantled by Gödel a few years later.
Well, to be fair I'm not yet well acquainted with any of those except Ayer.
Not all of the Greeks, but a large proportion of them, were passionate, unhappy, at war with themselves, driven along one road by the intellect and along another by the passions, with the imagination to conceive heaven and the wilful self-assertion that creates hell. They had a maxim "nothing too much," but they were in fact excessive in everything-in pure thought, in poetry, in religion, and in sin. It was the combination of passion and intellect that made them great, while they were great. Neither alone would have transformed the world for all future time as they transformed it. Their prototype in mythology is not Olympian Zeus, but Prometheus, who brought fire from heaven and was rewarded with eternal torment.
That is not philosophy. It is bad, late-19th/early 20th century myopic, biased classicism.
So why is it in a book about THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY?
I don't know. Probably because the text is neither a good philosophical or historical text, but certainly is a GREAT monument to Russell's ego.
I once asked one of my professors why Russell wrote that book.
My professor responded, "Well, Russell had another alimony to pay off..."
Also Podly that description doesn't fail to describe any philosopher with which I am acquainted.
By all accounts (that I know of), philosophers who were rad, awesome people:
Spinoza
Derrida
Frege
Ayer (He was a dick, but he was still an awesome person. At 80 years old, onetime he got into an altercation with Mike Fucking Tyson when he was the baddest man on earth and won!)
Lots of other people were dicks, but were also very intellectually honest. Russell had a supreme achievement -- that was later completely dismantled by Gödel a few years later.
Well, to be fair I'm not yet well acquainted with any of those except Ayer.
Ayer (He was a dick, but he was still an awesome person. At 80 years old, onetime he got into an altercation with Mike Fucking Tyson when he was the baddest man on earth and won!)
Do you think that actually happened?
I hope it happened. But I always took it to be one of those stories that should be true, though it probably isn't.
Edit: I that story.
He taught or lectured several times in the United States, including serving as a visiting professor at Bard College in the fall of 1987. At a party that same year held by fashion designer Fernando Sanchez, Ayer, then 77, confronted Mike Tyson who was forcing himself upon the (then) little-known model Naomi Campbell. When Ayer demanded that Tyson stop, the boxer said: "Do you know who the fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world," to which Ayer replied: "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men". Ayer and Tyson then began to talk, while Naomi Campbell slipped out.
As a heideggerian, I'm just going to continue recontextualizing my past so that the ONE thing I think is true is that fucking story HAPPENED.
Like, I'll deny dinosaurs before I believe that story didn't happen.
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
Winky, I actually don't know of any "general" histories of philosophy worth the effort to put in reading. Because if its written by a philosopher, they will ALWAYS frame the argument in terms of their bias, and if its written by a historian, they might miss the incredible subtleties that have always existed in philosophy. (Lots of people assume that Aristotle and Plato must be simple because they are thousands of years old, but their arguments are extremely intricate, detailed, and complex.)
The best method REALLY is to just read a major text or two by the big names starting with plato and aristotle. You can jump over the mediaeval philosophers if you want to get to modern philosophy, but you'll be missing a lot of crucial (and fascinating) physical and metaphysical arguments that guys like Descartes and Spinoza use all the time and you won't really understand what they are talking about.
Plus, you'll miss all the great natural philosophy arguments that get pushed aside in the history of western philosophy. Like descartes hard body vector arguments vs. leibniz calculus based proto-string theory.
Not all of the Greeks, but a large proportion of them, were passionate, unhappy, at war with themselves, driven along one road by the intellect and along another by the passions, with the imagination to conceive heaven and the wilful self-assertion that creates hell. They had a maxim "nothing too much," but they were in fact excessive in everything-in pure thought, in poetry, in religion, and in sin. It was the combination of passion and intellect that made them great, while they were great. Neither alone would have transformed the world for all future time as they transformed it. Their prototype in mythology is not Olympian Zeus, but Prometheus, who brought fire from heaven and was rewarded with eternal torment.
That is not philosophy. It is bad, late-19th/early 20th century myopic, biased classicism.
So why is it in a book about THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY?
I don't know. Probably because the text is neither a good philosophical or historical text, but certainly is a GREAT monument to Russell's ego.
I once asked one of my professors why Russell wrote that book.
My professor responded, "Well, Russell had another alimony to pay off..."
Ayer (He was a dick, but he was still an awesome person. At 80 years old, onetime he got into an altercation with Mike Fucking Tyson when he was the baddest man on earth and won!)
Do you think that actually happened?
I hope it happened. But I always took it to be one of those stories that should be true, though it probably isn't.
Edit: I that story.
He taught or lectured several times in the United States, including serving as a visiting professor at Bard College in the fall of 1987. At a party that same year held by fashion designer Fernando Sanchez, Ayer, then 77, confronted Mike Tyson who was forcing himself upon the (then) little-known model Naomi Campbell. When Ayer demanded that Tyson stop, the boxer said: "Do you know who the fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world," to which Ayer replied: "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men". Ayer and Tyson then began to talk, while Naomi Campbell slipped out.
As a heideggerian, I'm just going to continue recontextualizing my past so that the ONE thing I think is true is that fucking story HAPPENED.
Like, I'll deny dinosaurs before I believe that story didn't happen.
Also Podly that description doesn't fail to describe any philosopher with which I am acquainted.
By all accounts (that I know of), philosophers who were rad, awesome people:
Spinoza
Derrida
Frege
Ayer (He was a dick, but he was still an awesome person. At 80 years old, onetime he got into an altercation with Mike Fucking Tyson when he was the baddest man on earth and won!)
Lots of other people were dicks, but were also very intellectually honest. Russell had a supreme achievement -- that was later completely dismantled by Gödel a few years later.
Well, to be fair I'm not yet well acquainted with any of those except Ayer.
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
To be fair, if an english speaker is discussing heidegger, they are probably a critical theorist and COMPLETELY misunderstand heidegger
I stopped discussing Heidegger in public because so many people love to go on an on about being and time and just spew the worst BS that it makes me cringe.
I just tell people I studied Duns Scotus in school.
Winky, I actually don't know of any "general" histories of philosophy worth the effort to put in reading. Because if its written by a philosopher, they will ALWAYS frame the argument in terms of their bias, and if its written by a historian, they might miss the incredible subtleties that have always existed in philosophy. (Lots of people assume that Aristotle and Plato must be simple because they are thousands of years old, but their arguments are extremely intricate, detailed, and complex.)
The best method REALLY is to just read a major text or two by the big names starting with plato and aristotle. You can jump over the mediaeval philosophers if you want to get to modern philosophy, but you'll be missing a lot of crucial (and fascinating) physical and metaphysical arguments that guys like Descartes and Spinoza use all the time and you won't really understand what they are talking about.
To be fair, if an english speaker is discussing heidegger, they are probably a critical theorist and COMPLETELY misunderstand heidegger
I stopped discussing Heidegger in public because so many people love to go on an on about being and time and just spew the worst BS that it makes me cringe.
I just tell people I studied Duns Scotus in school.
That's...that's actually fairly sensible.
Plus, you know, Heidegger was a Nazi.
_J_ on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Ever since I started playing Sim City 2000 and 4 I keep looking at shit while I'm driving and thinking about how the neighborhoods could be laid out better.
Help me.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
For instance, that video fails in the title alone
Two persons can not have a "Dialectic"
Whether or not that is intentionally sarcastic remains to be seen, but there are definitely plenty of people out there that would write that, which is terrible.
Why do people hate Tebow? Is it the crazy religious thing? I forget.
It's a combination of that and the terrible-at-football thing
Add to that the fact that he inspires a lot of idiotic devotion and everyone wouldn't shut up about him.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Actually, I did know copleston. But it's better as a reference than something you'd read to learn philosophy.
Also, I think the L. thing is totally apropos. His whole theory is that the physical world is this endlessly reducible spiral that eventually is generated from something metaphysical. I suppose it's more "information theory" than string theory, but I used string theory as a buzzword catch-all.
Also, hoo-fucking-ray that he is not in our state anymore. Have fun with him, New York. Of course, I'm sure I'll have to suffer through a season of "Oh, well, Tebow would have done better." every time Manning doesn't play absolutely perfectly.
Posts
read the GIGANTIC text principia mathematica
the longest book to be proved -- not critiqued, mind you, but PROVED -- wrong
EVER
I once asked one of my professors why Russell wrote that book.
My professor responded, "Well, Russell had another alimony to pay off..."
Wait, which one, is it a good one? She's hot.
That was just Gödel's opinion, man.
Is it that hard to wrap your mind around a douchebag using a douchebag?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I know the score with that one.
Also I didn't claim that history of western philosophy was good or accurate, but it is enjoyable so far.
As a heideggerian, I'm just going to continue recontextualizing my past so that the ONE thing I think is true is that fucking story HAPPENED.
Like, I'll deny dinosaurs before I believe that story didn't happen.
You read Spinoza's Ethics now!
i was just kidding
just trying to play w/ ur expectations lolol
AHHHHHHHHH
amazing
Russell was actually an AI.
"This sentence is fals-" *EXPLODE*
Fuck you I was gonna friend you on Facebook to see pictures of your hot sister, BUT NEVERMIND.
Actually we are already friends but I forgot. Nevermind, again.
I know Spinoza!
I just don't know about Spinoza.
It is. Picture in your mind a girl being called a douchebag by a guy. Comes across as awkward, right?
For the record, I'd have stood my ground on the motor boating comment
because, first and foremost, I am a man of principal.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
The best method REALLY is to just read a major text or two by the big names starting with plato and aristotle. You can jump over the mediaeval philosophers if you want to get to modern philosophy, but you'll be missing a lot of crucial (and fascinating) physical and metaphysical arguments that guys like Descartes and Spinoza use all the time and you won't really understand what they are talking about.
Plus, you'll miss all the great natural philosophy arguments that get pushed aside in the history of western philosophy. Like descartes hard body vector arguments vs. leibniz calculus based proto-string theory.
Well, he did just split up with Katy Perry.
Is she sporting a fake tan, wearing a trucker cap, and making a duck face?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Oh, I laugh so hard at this.
Edit: Because I've watched people have this argument in person.
He was a p cool guy
I stopped discussing Heidegger in public because so many people love to go on an on about being and time and just spew the worst BS that it makes me cringe.
I just tell people I studied Duns Scotus in school.
Copleston good
No No No God no god...damn..
Podly, you're better than that.
That's...that's actually fairly sensible.
Plus, you know, Heidegger was a Nazi.
Help me.
Two persons can not have a "Dialectic"
Whether or not that is intentionally sarcastic remains to be seen, but there are definitely plenty of people out there that would write that, which is terrible.
You are good people.
Oh, wow, she sounds like such a douche!
...
...
...
Add to that the fact that he inspires a lot of idiotic devotion and everyone wouldn't shut up about him.
Also, I think the L. thing is totally apropos. His whole theory is that the physical world is this endlessly reducible spiral that eventually is generated from something metaphysical. I suppose it's more "information theory" than string theory, but I used string theory as a buzzword catch-all.