Anarchic Fox on 19/1/2024 at 14:48
Quote Posted by Fire Arrow
I wrote a big high-effort reply which just got blanked when I tried to post it. I'll try writing it again, but it might not be as high effort.
I eventually developed the the healthy habit of Ctrl+A Ctrl+C before posting. :cool:
Quote:
I think this may be an area where we have differences of opinion. I don't think there's much connection between Nazism and Heidegger's actual philosophy; I think he was more of an opportunist, as exemplified by his behaviour after the Second World War. He insinuated that Sartre's interpretation of Being and Time was wrong, as a way of getting back into public life. Arguably worse, from a certain perspective.
Hegel wasn't an anti-Semite, but I'm pretty sure Schopenhauer was an anti-Semite. Also the actual Nazi Carl Schmitt had a very negative view of Hegel. I think the attribution of totalitarianism to Hegel is more accurately applied to Fichte (if you read "Hegel's Ethical Thought" by Wood, this becomes clear).
I've gone back and forth on Nietzsche's relationship to Nazism. I came to the conclusion that although he wasn't an anti-Semite, his positive view of cruelty and negative view of Socrates, makes his attitude a precursor.
I feel insulted. I've read
The Phenomenology of Mind front to back, which is more than you can say of many Hegelians. I've also read in full Schopenhauer's
The World as Will and Representation, Kant's
Prolegomena and
Metaphysics of Morals, Schmitt's
The Concept of the Political, and every book by Nietzsche except a couple of the
Untimely Meditations. At this point you should not call it "opinion" merely, but experience. Hegel's a proto-Nazi because of the historical determinism, and because of his justification of slavery; slavery is alright in his book because a synthesis forms between master and slave.
Heidegger causes revulsion every time I try to read him. I never made it far in his books.
Quote:
Fair enough. I'll readily concede you know better than me. Further, I'll actually say its a relief to have my perspective challenged, I was getting a bit overwhelmed by it, so thank you.
You're welcome.
Quote:
Epistemic justice is the vein of normative epistemology (in my opinion), like there are correct and incorrect ways of 'knowing' just as ethics could be said to be concerned with correct and incorrect ways of 'acting'. 'Normative epistemology' is generally called 'virtue epistemology' (I only used the term 'normative' to give a better sense of the concept). Epistemic justice more specifically is concerned with whether ideas are given a fair trial. So for example, in Aristotle's Biology there was an account of a cephalopod that changed colour, and for centuries scientists thought it was just a tall tale from antiquity; it turned out that it did exist.
I don't know if other people put 'virtue epistemology' and 'epistemic justice' into the same column, like I do.
It sounds like overly academic terminology for a basic application of fairness; "giving one a fair shake," as the expression goes.
Quote:
Never heard that expression before, had to look it up.
After Virtue is more to do with the failure of other ethical systems to take hold after Thomism. MacIntyre is contrasting more modern ethical systems such as Kant's and Mill's, with Aristotle and Aquinas, finding the modern theories inadequate. He's actually one of main modern writers on virtue ethics.
I don't know anything about Aquinas, so I can't weigh in there.
Quote:
How does Ultima relate to virtue ethics? Sounds interesting...
Thanks for following my suggestion. :angel:
Quote:
Emperor's new clothes psychoanalysis! No, although it has it's roots in Freud, it's more evidence/practice-based than 'scholastic'. I think I probably wrote about it somewhere before, but I can't remember. It's one of those things I talk about over and over again, if I'm not careful.
Okay, I'll remember the term.
Quote:
Basically, it's like the inverse of CBT, emotions precede thought rather than thought preceding emotions.
Why would one hold either position? Emotions and thoughts precede each other.
Fire Arrow on 19/1/2024 at 18:34
Quote Posted by Anarchic Fox
I eventually developed the the healthy habit of Ctrl+A Ctrl+C before posting. :cool:
I've taken to doing that.
A lot of people have the same opinion as you without having so much as opened a book from continental philosophy. You are the exception rather than the rule. Most people are 'allergic' to continental philosophy.
Quote:
Hegel's a proto-Nazi because of the historical determinism, and because of his justification of slavery; slavery is alright in his book because a synthesis forms between master and slave.
This is simply not true. He draws attention to the dynamic of the master and slave because it falls short actualizing what a society can be. The process is this:
The master commands the slave to fulfil his/her needs; in the process the master becomes dependent on the slave; the slave therefore develops a self-consciousness that the master lacks; the slave then no longer needs the master. The point isn't that slavery is a morally acceptable institution; but that the relationship of subservience is inherently self-contradictory. This is why Hegel is virtually inseparable from Marxism. Fascists like the 'sound' and 'rhetoric' of Hegel, but not his actual meaning.
Also, how is Hegel a historical determinist? This is one of the most basic misconceptions people have about Hegel.
As regards Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, I'll discuss that at a later point. I have an extremely negative view of Schopenhauer (I might even go so far as to say Schopenhauer triggers me); so it's difficult for me to even think about.
Quote:
Heidegger causes revulsion every time I try to read him. I never made it far in his books.
Fair enough. I'm mostly interested in him because of his significance for theology. Most of what he says really is historicist waffle.
Quote:
It sounds like overly academic terminology for a basic application of fairness; "giving one a fair shake," as the expression goes.
Yes, it's a shame people need an academic term for it.
Quote:
I don't know anything about Aquinas, so I can't weigh in there.
Fair enough. When you started talking about virtue ethics, I thought you might have a Catholic background like me.
Quote:
Thanks for following my suggestion. :angel:
No trouble.
Quote:
Why would one hold either position? Emotions and thoughts precede each other.
It's more to do clinical modality than explaining how things actually work. Cognitive behavioural therapy is focused on changing how you think in order to change how you feel. Psychodynamic therapy is focused on changing how you feel in order to change how you think. It's more to do with the practice of therapy, than a hypothesis about how the mind actually works.
Anarchic Fox on 19/1/2024 at 19:40
Quote Posted by Fire Arrow
A lot of people have the same opinion as you without having so much as opened a book from continental philosophy. You are the exception rather than the rule. Most people are 'allergic' to continental philosophy.
Hold up, why did German philosophy suddenly become continental philosophy? German philosophy is the worst part of continental philosophy. Descartes, Pascal and La Rochefoucauld are worthwhile, and unlike German philosophers all three are eminently readable. For my present purposes, I find Kierkegaard and Foucault rewarding, and I suspect I would also value Sartre if I made the effort to read him.
Edit: Lest I be too hard on the country, I'll also add that German Romanticism has lasting value.
Quote:
...the slave then no longer needs the master.
:weird:
Quote:
Also, how is Hegel a historical determinist? This is one of the most basic misconceptions people have about Hegel.
Even so, it's a misconception I had after reading the entire damn book.
Quote:
As regards Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, I'll discuss that at a later point. I have an extremely negative view of Schopenhauer (I might even go so far as to say Schopenhauer triggers me); so it's difficult for me to even think about.
Oh, Schopenhauer is indeed awful. Philosophy has ample silly arguments, but the silliest I've found is his argument that the world is composed of will, for the reason that... we cannot imagine it being anything else.
Quote:
Fair enough. I'm mostly interested in him because of his significance for theology. Most of what he says really is historicist waffle.
If you want philosophy that bears on theology, Kierkegaard is far more worthwhile. Even putting aside his specifically Christian stuff, there's
Fear and Trembling, plus the
Philosophical Fragments and their
Postscript.
Quote:
Fair enough. When you started talking about virtue ethics, I thought you might have a Catholic background like me.
The major theologians (particularly Augustine and Aquinas) are glaring gaps in my reading.
Quote:
It's more to do clinical modality than explaining how things actually work. Cognitive behavioural therapy is focused on changing how you think in order to change how you feel. Psychodynamic therapy is focused on changing how you feel in order to change how you think. It's more to do with the practice of therapy, than a hypothesis about how the mind actually works.
Oh, that makes sense.
Fire Arrow on 19/1/2024 at 20:20
Quote Posted by Anarchic Fox
Hold up, why did German philosophy suddenly become continental philosophy? German philosophy is the worst part of continental philosophy. Descartes, Pascal and La Rochefoucauld are worthwhile, and unlike German philosophers all three are eminently readable. For my present purposes, I find Kierkegaard and Foucault rewarding, and I suspect I would also value Sartre if I made the effort to read him.
To my mind German philosophy is preferable. But that may be to do with the fact that there are a lot more Germans in Ireland than French people, so I'm more familiar with that way of thinking. The only French philosophers I know much about are Rousseau (who I find fascinating, though ultimately I disagree with his political conclusions), Merleau-Ponty (whose a role model of mine), and Montesquieu (who gets unfairly maligned in my opinion). I know bits and pieces about Sartre.
French philosophy before the 18th century is pretty much unexplored territory, for me.
I have difficulty seeing what Foucault adds as novel, but I open to being wrong.
I've been quite interested in Kierkegaard from the viewpoint of moral psychology. I read a reference in Zizek to Kierkegaard's concept of dread, which I thought was pretty interesting.
In my understanding, it because of how much the German Idealists are indebted to Rousseau. As I expect you're familiar, Rousseau can be characterized as a kind of anarcho-primitivist (similar to that whole Proudhon slogan "Property is Theft"). He thinks that property was a mistake from the beginning, and since property is inseparable from the kind of political life (i.e. bourgeois republic, feudalism) that was present in that time in Europe, the whole thing is corrupt from top to bottom. So humanity is alienated from a 'natural' state of equality by the development of agricultural society. At every stage there is a 'ruling class' that separates humanity from nature via society. However, in the Marxist context (bearing in mind I'm not a Marxist, but I have some sympathy towards Marxism), the industrial society gives the possibility that the working class can stop being alienated.
So from the Hegelian perspective, society is largely a self-destroying hierarchy. I could write more.
Quote:
Even so, it's a misconception I had after reading the entire damn book.
Are you opposed to free will more generally? I don't think I can explain it easily without reference to free will.
Quote:
Oh, Schopenhauer is indeed awful. Philosophy has ample silly arguments, but the silliest I've found is his argument that the world is composed of will, for the reason that... we cannot imagine it being anything else.
It's mainly how life-negating his philosophy is that gets me. It's seriously depressing, and I completely sympathise with how Nietzsche reacted to it (though I think Erich Fromm does a better job of expressing what a 'life-affirming' outlook would be).
Quote:
If you want philosophy that bears on theology, Kierkegaard is far more worthwhile. Even putting aside his specifically Christian stuff, there's
Fear and Trembling, plus the
Philosophical Fragments and their
Postscript.
I'll have to check them out, maybe they'll help me with my philosophical burn out.
Quote:
The major theologians (particularly Augustine and Aquinas) are glaring gaps in my reading.
Benefits of going to a Catholic school! Though to be honest they didn't really want you to understand what they were actually talking about. Just regurgitate it by rote. I'm still a bit hazy on what transubstantiation is supposed to mean. Father Ted had a relevant (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biTiWhPEPHo) quote.
Anarchic Fox on 21/1/2024 at 03:03
Quote Posted by Fire Arrow
To my mind German philosophy is preferable.
I mentioned German Romanticism in my edit. Schelling, Schleiermacher and Schiller are worthwhile. Unfortunately their names are so similar that I can't remember whose ideas are whose.
Quote:
But that may be to do with the fact that there are a lot more Germans in Ireland than French people, so I'm more familiar with that way of thinking.
Kierkegaard is Danish, his language Germanic. You might find that the linguistic affinity you mentioned elsewhere extends to him.
Quote:
The only French philosophers I know much about are Rousseau (who I find fascinating, though ultimately I disagree with his political conclusions), Merleau-Ponty (whose a role model of mine), and Montesquieu (who gets unfairly maligned in my opinion). I know bits and pieces about Sartre.
I'm ignorant of all except Rousseau, though I've finally started reading
Being and Nothingness after a decade of delay. I've only read a couple of Rousseau's shorter works. Of course the idea of the social contract is invaluable, but I don't know the further details of his philosophy.
Quote:
I have difficulty seeing what Foucault adds as novel, but I open to being wrong.
Have you read him, or are you judging him by what others have said of him? Foucault's followers have a way of making his work far more grandiose than it actually is.
Quote:
I've been quite interested in Kierkegaard from the viewpoint of moral psychology.
Fear and Trembling has that. The
Fragments are more concerned with metaphysics, and you won't see another philosopher this side of Aquinas finding metaphysical grounds for Christian concepts.
Quote:
So from the Hegelian perspective, society is largely a self-destroying hierarchy. I could write more.
Unless it's
your perspective, don't.
Quote:
Are you opposed to free will more generally? I don't think I can explain it easily without reference to free will.
I'm not opposed to free will, but I am opposed to squandering more of my life on Hegel. I grant that I misunderstood him. Nonetheless, he had his chance to win me over.
Quote:
I'll have to check them out, maybe they'll help me with my philosophical burn out.
Stanley Cavell's writing is a balm, provided you care about the same things he cares about. Wittgenstein has a powerful therapeutic effect on some philosophers, although not me. Thoreau and Emerson are paths not taken, paths where some forest still exists. These are additional options for burnout.
Quote:
Benefits of going to a Catholic school! Though to be honest they didn't really want you to understand what they were actually talking about. Just regurgitate it by rote. I'm still a bit hazy on what transubstantiation is supposed to mean. Father Ted had a relevant (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biTiWhPEPHo) quote.
Father Ted is great. :D
DuatDweller on 21/1/2024 at 04:07
Joy of psychiatry?
Sure having schizophrenia takes it's toll on personal hygiene, gives you great imagination though, maybe even high IQ, I'm in the 2% high range and enjoy a privileged experience of designing circuits analogue and digital, now on the artistic side I do drawings of scifi mostly (spaceships and such).
I've mapped for RtCW 2001 and published 2 maps in 2003.
Pain in the rear thought the script compiling for the engine and characters with no AI, you must tell them (the NPCs) to shoot at you with the aid of triggers, "I'm here shoot me, now I'm there shoot me". And you can't have more than 72 NPCs per level. Not that I even reached that limit.
This mental illness is both a blessing and a curse, I'm working on a mod for Hexen 2, yeah I know who plays it now anyway, I'm always side tracking from the main goal of this mission/mod at hand and I've been working in and out of it since 2011, hard to maintain focused on the business 100%. New textures, new ideas, is a fight to stay in line with the main concept.
If I'm lucky anywhere between 2024-2025 the project will be completed.
Then most likely I will port it to Quake I (there is a community of mappers and players still active to this very day), or let someone else do it, by releasing the assets.
I'm worn out, I've been mapping one way or another since quake came out (1996), then Unreal, and even went for Deus Ex but stopped short of making a final release.
Anyway I digress, what gets me the most is the isolation the disease can induce in your persona. Someone said you can see proof of madness in the doctor's own persona.
Heck I even diagnosed myself before I was even treated for this "blessing".
No worries I embrace the beast, and I'm happy with it all.
Sorry if it sounds like a rant because is not.
I was a member here, but had to go away in 2012, since then I've lost my original email account and password to login, humor me and let me be that mysterious fella.
Kamlorn on 22/1/2024 at 12:45
Quote Posted by DuatDweller
Heck I even diagnosed myself before I was even treated for this "blessing".
No worries I embrace the beast, and I'm happy with it all.
...humor me and let me be that mysterious fella.
Look around, man.
Quote Posted by Nicker
The folks around here can grind on about the same shit for years. We are fans of a beloved game franchise that has been in the sales bin for two decades.
Do you really think you're the weird one here?
Anarchic Fox on 22/1/2024 at 16:51
Quote Posted by DuatDweller
Anyway I digress, what gets me the most is the isolation the disease can induce in your persona. Someone said you can see proof of madness in the doctor's own persona.
Heck I even diagnosed myself before I was even treated for this "blessing".
No worries I embrace the beast, and I'm happy with it all.
Sorry if it sounds like a rant because is not.
I'm glad you've found benefit in it. Having symptoms of psychosis a tenth of the time is already a huge struggle for me, I wouldn't be able to handle it if it were continual.
DuatDweller on 22/1/2024 at 21:31
Quote Posted by Anarchic Fox
I'm glad you've found benefit in it. Having symptoms of psychosis a tenth of the time is already a huge struggle for me, I wouldn't be able to handle it if it were continual.
This worked for me, steer clear of stressful situations, a bad job ambient, stressing familiar persons, and so on.
Fire Arrow on 2/2/2024 at 20:36
Quote Posted by Anarchic Fox
I mentioned German Romanticism in my edit. Schelling, Schleiermacher and Schiller are worthwhile. Unfortunately their names are so similar that I can't remember whose ideas are whose.
Probably shouldn't give an opinion then.
Quote:
I'm ignorant of all except Rousseau, though I've finally started reading
Being and Nothingness after a decade of delay. I've only read a couple of Rousseau's shorter works. Of course the idea of the social contract is invaluable, but I don't know the further details of his philosophy.
Don't waste your time on another dead white guy.
Quote:
Have you read him, or are you judging him by what others have said of him? Foucault's followers have a way of making his work far more grandiose than it actually is.
I read the first volume of The History of Sexuality. My problem is precisely that he is underwhelming. Also a dead white guy, so why bother reading?
Quote:
Unless it's
your perspective, don't.
Such an inquiring mind you have.
Quote:
I'm not opposed to free will, but I am opposed to squandering more of my life on Hegel. I grant that I misunderstood him. Nonetheless, he had his chance to win me over.
Yeah, I mean after all, he is white, a man, and dead.
Quote:
Stanley Cavell's writing is a balm, provided you care about the same things he cares about. Wittgenstein has a powerful therapeutic effect on some philosophers, although not me. Thoreau and Emerson are paths not taken, paths where some forest still exists. These are additional options for burnout.
Wittgenstein:eww::eww::eww: What is wrong with you? Quietist rubbish that doesn't answer anything