Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0 Join Date: Jan 1, 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2022 12:39:13 GMT -5
Say you eat a burger and poop it out
At what point is it no longer a burger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0 Join Date: Jan 1, 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2022 12:40:17 GMT -5
fellas, is jacking off ga.y?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0 Join Date: Jan 1, 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2022 12:42:49 GMT -5
theead
|
|
|
Post by Al gave some, some gave Al on Aug 18, 2022 13:04:55 GMT -5
fellas, is jacking off ga.y? in a good way
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 13:11:33 GMT -5
I have settled down to the task of writing these lectures and have drawn up my two chairs to my two tables. Two tables! Yes; there are duplicates of every object about me--two tables, two chairs, two pens. This is not a very profound beginning to a course which ought to reach transcendent levels of scientific philosophy. But we can-not touch bedrock immediately; we must scratch a bit at the surface of things first. And whenever I begin to scratch, the first thing I strike is--my two tables.
One of them has been familiar to me from earliest years. It is a commonplace object of that environment which I call the world. How shall I describe it? It has extension; it is comparatively permanent; it is coloured; above all it is substantial. By substantial I do not merely mean that it does not collapse when I lean upon it; I mean that it is constituted of "substance" and by that word I am trying to convey to you some conception of its intrinsic nature. It is a thing; not like space, which is a mere negation; nor like time, which is--Heaven knows what! But that will not help you to my meaning because it is the distinctive characteristic of a "thing" to have this substantiality, and I do not think substantiality can be described better than by saying that it is the kind of nature exemplified by an ordinary table. And so we go round in circles. After all if you are a plain common-sense man, not too much worried with scientific scruples, you will be confident that you understand the nature of an ordinary table. I have heard of plain men who had the idea that they could better understand the mystery of their own nature if scientists would discover a way of explaining it in terms of the easily comprehensible nature of a table.
Table No. 2 is my scientific table. It is a more recent acquaintance and I do not feel so familiar with it. It does not belong to the world previously mentioned--that world which spontaneously appears around me when I open my eyes, though how much of it is objective and how much is subjective I do not here consider. It is part of a world which in more devious ways has forced itself on my attention. My scientific table is mostly emptiness. Sparsely scattered in that emptiness are numerous electric charges rushing about with great speed; but their combined bulk amounts to less than a billionth of the bulk of the table itself. Notwithstanding its strange construction it turns out to be an entirely efficient table. It supports my writing paper as satisfactorily as Table No. 1; for when I lay the paper on it the little electric particles with their headlong speed keep on hitting the underside, so that the paper is maintained in shuttlecock fashion at a nearly steady level. If I lean upon this table I shall not go through; or, to be strictly accurate, the chance of my scientific elbow going through my scientific table is so excessively small that it can be neglected in practical life. Reviewing their properties one by one, there seems to be nothing to choose between the two tables for ordinary purposes; but when abnormal circumstances befall, then my scientific table shows to advantage. If the house catches fire my scientific table will dissolve quite naturally into scientific smoke, whereas my familiar table under-goes a metamorphosis of its substantial nature which I can only regard as miraculous.
|
|
Sorley Boy
Pulsating Member
tom bombadil gang
Posts: 8,561 Join Date: Jun 30, 2018
Likes: 31,376
|
Post by Sorley Boy on Aug 18, 2022 13:24:40 GMT -5
|
|
ITID
Pulsating Member
least likely to win at literally anything
Actually funny, not actually fun
Posts: 20,932 Join Date: Jun 27, 2018
Likes: 40,253
BiL Premium Poster: ๐จโ๐ป
|
Post by ITID on Aug 18, 2022 15:16:05 GMT -5
Wait, shitty ship of theseus is the better theead?
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 16:10:22 GMT -5
Milton Friedman remarks in Capitalism and Freedom that the neoliberals โwere a small beleaguered minority regarded as eccentrics by the great majority of our fellow intellectualsโ during the 1960s. By the late-1970s, Foucault is at least prescient enough to realize that the idea of the subject as an โentrepreneur of the selfโ is proliferating rapidly. How did this come to pass and does Foucault himself shed any light on this issue? A clue might be found in Friedmanโs preface to the 1982 edition of Capitalism and Freedom:
"Sometime in the late 1960s I engaged in a debate at the University of Wisconsin with Leon Keyserling, an unreconstructed collectivist. His clinching blow, as he thought, was to make fun of my views as utterly reactionary, and he chose to do so by reading, from the end of chapter 2 of this book, the list of items that, I said, "cannot, so far as I can see, validly be justified in terms of the principles outlined above." He was doing very well with the audience of students as he wen't through my castigation of price supports, tariffs, and so on, until he came to point 11, "Conscription to man the military services in peacetime." That expression of my opposition to the draft brought ardent applause and lost him the audience and the debate."
Consider Friedmanโs remarks alongside what Foucault says at the beginning of the ninth lecture:
"The second contextual element is of course the Beveridge plan and all the projects of economic and social interventionism developed during the war. These are all important elements that we could call, if you like, pacts of war, that is to say, pacts in terms of which governmentsโ basically the English, and to a certain extent the American governmentโ said to people who had just been through a very serious economic and social crisis: Now we are asking you to get yourselves killed, but we promise you that when you have done this, you will keep your jobs until the end of your lives. It would be very interesting to study this set of documents, analyses, programs, and research for itself, because it seems to me that, if I am not mistaken, this is the first time that entire nations waged war on the basis of a system of pacts which were not just international alliances between powers, but social pacts of a kind that promisedโto those who were asked to go to war and get themselves killedโa certain type of economic and social organization which assured security (of employment, with regard to illness and other kinds of risk, and at the level of retirement): they were pacts of security at the moment of a demand for war. The demand for war on the part of governments is accompaniedโand very quickly; there are texts on the theme from 1940โby this offer of a social pact and security."
As a final observation, we should note Foucaultโs prescience here, as I know of very few popular criticisms of neoliberalism that consider the role of the draft (although perhaps I am merely ignorant). The advance of neoliberalism was predicated (at least in part) by a breakdown in the ruling bargain that wounded the previous post-war Keynesian consensus. The โsocial pactโ betweengovernor and governed based on the promise of security gave way to a different social pact that promised the full and free development of human capital in exchange for a degree of insecurity and precarity.
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 16:18:55 GMT -5
A good deal of empirical motivation for a shift towards process ontology comes from recent work in the philosophy of biology. Duprรฉ and Nicholson (2018) list metabolic turnover, ontogeny, and ecological interdependence as three key empirical motivations for a process ontology of biology. Regarding metabolic turnover, consider a truck without any gas in the tank. The truck does not cease to exist. We might metaphorically speak of an engine dying because of a lack of fuel, but of course we do not mean that it literally dies: Its โstructural integrityโ remains intact. The situation is quite different for living biological organisms: Without the metabolic process, we simply donโt have a living organism. Furthermore, the material make-up of single and multicellular organisms changes with metabolic events. This is as true for the simplest lifeforms as it is for fully-developed humans beings: โthe cells lining our stomach only last around five days; cells of our epidermis are renewed every two weeks; our red blood cells are replenished after four months; our liver as a whole is regenerated on a yearly basis; and our entire skellytan is replacement each decade.โ While a biological organism appears to be just as stable and solid as a block of steel, it is in fact dynamic and processual. Rather than a substantial thing that contains processes, we might better think of biological organisms as processes instantiated by things. We witness this same dynamism in other areas of biological research. For example, philosophers of biology long agonized over the metaphysical status of a species. It was thought that a species must be a sort of individual thing, yet species are made up of multiple members and the nature of evolutionary development results in โfuzzy boundariesโ between one species and another. Thus, it makes more sense to think of a given species as individuated by processes, such as cycles of reproduction, developmental processes, ecological niches, and the persistence of a lineage. An explication of the entirety of Dupre and Nicholsonโs argumentation is unnecessary, but it is worth noting that they conclude that processes are what biology primarily studies. An emphasis on process is more explanatorily adequate when ones wishes to understand the results of biological research and determine in what direction future studies ought to go.
Revisionary metaphysics is never desirable in and of itself: It always makes philosophical work messy, and it disrupts the working vocabulary philosophers have developed. However, if it is more explanatorily adequate in philosophical discussions of biology, then a processist approach may very well serve philosophical discussions of perception just as well. Wilfrid Sellars believed a process ontology would best resolve the conflict between the manifest and scientific images, as did his advisor at the University of Buffalo, Marvin Farber. If much of the philosophical debate around color emerges from a perceived clash between manifest and scientific images, then the route ultimately taken by Sellars himself ought to be of interest.
To conclude, letโs return to Chirimuutaโs three desiderata:
1. A view that accommodates the inner-relatedness and outer-directedness of color (its โJanusfacednessโ).
2. A monistic approachโa way of thinking about color that does not presuppose a problematic subjectโ
object dichotomy.
3. A means to avoid any contentious reification of color.
If we can adopt the process ontological approach to which Chirimuuta alludes, then she does indeed meet her stated desiderata without any dire consequences. As far as the โJanus-facednessโ of color goes, we can talk about its inner-relatedness and its outer-directedness without finding ourselves talking about two different topics. Rather, weโre looking at different parts or time-slices of the same process. The perceiver, the visual system, and the stimuli are all on the same footing, and all areequally real elements in the process. Color adverbialism succeeds in meeting its monistic aims, because color does not turn out to be something that is simply created by the mind; It is part of how the mind processes and represents the mind-independent external world. Finally, color adverbialism avoided any contentious reification of color because color is not reduced to the properties of a concrete existent object. If prioritizing process works in this instance, then it very well may work to resolve other philosophical issues concerning qualia and the mind-body problem.
|
|
jimmyspudboy
Engorged Member
nice
Posts: 2,708 Join Date: Jul 3, 2018
Likes: 8,760
|
Post by jimmyspudboy on Aug 18, 2022 16:23:43 GMT -5
fellas, is jacking off ga.y? Only if you make yourself cum.
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 16:24:14 GMT -5
Sean is making a genuine effort to raise the level of discourse on the board and I cannot help but lend my hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0 Join Date: Jan 1, 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2022 16:26:15 GMT -5
Thank you!
|
|
Cholo Molester
Pulsating Member
our very own Gideon Yago ๐
off the duster
Posts: 19,553 Join Date: Jul 5, 2018
Likes: 33,534
|
Post by Cholo Molester on Aug 18, 2022 16:54:22 GMT -5
Out of all the ideas proposed by Marx, commodity fetishism remains as one of the most misinterpreted subjects amongst western leftists. This has left us with many questions on how Marxism fits the new world in relation to the commodity. For instance, isn't modern travel not just another form of commodity, which replaced acquiring material possessions? As millenials, our generation prioritizes experiences rater than material goods, but those experiences have turned into perceived worth, the new social signifiers of wealth. I understand that "traveling" is not considered a traditional "commodity" in Marxist circles, but we need to start applying the science of Marxism to our new modern society to synthesize new theories and expand our understanding of our current reality.
Another interesting subject to look through Marxist filters would be the video game industry and content creators. It's not as straightforward as one might think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0 Join Date: Jan 1, 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2022 17:00:13 GMT -5
Commodity fetishism chapter was the number one telltale sign for me whether people actually tried reading capital or not. What I got out of it was so different from the majority of poser ass YouTubers or whomever
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 17:06:58 GMT -5
I wanna do a reading group for a nice ole tome but itโs hard to pull off. Iโm havin trouble gettin one going for a sub-200 page book already.
|
|
Cholo Molester
Pulsating Member
our very own Gideon Yago ๐
off the duster
Posts: 19,553 Join Date: Jul 5, 2018
Likes: 33,534
|
Post by Cholo Molester on Aug 18, 2022 17:10:52 GMT -5
Commodity fetishism chapter was the number one telltale sign for me whether people actually tried reading capital or not. What I got out of it was so different from the majority of poser ass YouTubers or whomever I think you and I briefly talked about this, but you're 100% right. I outlined travel as one example, but things like self care or education are also now new social signifiers and some people can't think beyond commodity fetishism being when you buy new Yeezys or whatever. I'm working through some Lacan shit right now, but as soon as I'm done I'm doing a deep dive on the theory of commodity fetishism and its role in our modern society. I would love any reading recs you might have on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 17:17:33 GMT -5
Postin my blood n sweat work over here n no one even cares
|
|
Cholo Molester
Pulsating Member
our very own Gideon Yago ๐
off the duster
Posts: 19,553 Join Date: Jul 5, 2018
Likes: 33,534
|
Post by Cholo Molester on Aug 18, 2022 17:23:04 GMT -5
Sean let's talk about the homogenization of culture and loss of individual creative output due to commodity fetishism. I'm sick of coffee shops all having the same silicon valley minimalist industrial chic aesthetic just to appease the digital nomad. >=(
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 17:24:44 GMT -5
Letโs keep the heidegger-y romanticism away from Marx
|
|
Cholo Molester
Pulsating Member
our very own Gideon Yago ๐
off the duster
Posts: 19,553 Join Date: Jul 5, 2018
Likes: 33,534
|
Post by Cholo Molester on Aug 18, 2022 17:32:32 GMT -5
Letโs keep the heidegger-y romanticism away from Marx A philosophical system is only as good as the ethics it promotes and exemplifies, and within that, only as good as its ethical self-consistency. Given that the ethics promoted and exemplified by Heidegger were compatible with Nazi "ethics", and that it is largely bereft of self-consistency, Heideggerian thought represents a poisonous well of self-aggrandizing misinformation. If you want more specific criticisms: -Heidegger twisted etymologies and greek sayings to fit whatever he wanted. -Right in the middle of Letter on Humanism he admits to considering philosophy a futile effort, which anyways the common person should be barred from understanding. -Heideggerian thinkers insist on an essentialist valuing of german terms, which amounts to a lexical form of german exceptionalism. -His attack on metaphysics is meaningless, seeing how he immediately proceeded to inject metaphysics of his own. -Heideggerian thinkers refuse to explain and substantiate Heideggerian thought in non-heideggerian terms. All of the above constitute acts of systematic intellectual dishonesty, on the part of both the founder and the followers.
|
|
Cholo Molester
Pulsating Member
our very own Gideon Yago ๐
off the duster
Posts: 19,553 Join Date: Jul 5, 2018
Likes: 33,534
|
Post by Cholo Molester on Aug 18, 2022 17:37:33 GMT -5
@narc did you ever get into Baudrillard, specifically his writings on hyper reality and simulation/simulacrum?
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 17:52:10 GMT -5
Iโm not well-versed in Heidegger but I obviously know the most common complaints because Iโve heard them repeated verbatim at least a dozen times.
If you expand a Marxist concept or analytical tool like commodity fetishism to to legitimate the dissatisfaction of individual preferences regarding coffee shop aesthetics, then Iโm not sure how it can any longer be distinguished from world-weary lamentations regarding the spiritual degradation of โindividual creativityโ or whatever. And the latter just sounds like the bulk of yawn-inducing continental handwringing about post-WWII socioeconomic developments, which are (wait for it) largely influenced by Heidegger and Arendt.
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 17:54:45 GMT -5
I never found any stuff I heard about Baudrillard to be interesting enough to want to read more, honestly. Whenever I get back to that general area of stuff, Iโd rather read some solid stuff on Marx and make my way (finally) through some books by Axel Honneth.
|
|
|
Post by Al gave some, some gave Al on Aug 18, 2022 17:55:10 GMT -5
Java aesthetic from the 90โs in every coffee shop and send the industrial chic look back to Scandinavia. Maybe sell those cool world music CDโs at the counter again too.
|
|
Cholo Molester
Pulsating Member
our very own Gideon Yago ๐
off the duster
Posts: 19,553 Join Date: Jul 5, 2018
Likes: 33,534
|
Post by Cholo Molester on Aug 18, 2022 18:00:58 GMT -5
Simone De Beauvoir's "Ethics of Ambiguity" > anything Arendt wrote.
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 18:18:54 GMT -5
Never read it. I enjoyed Arendtโs The Human Condition way back when, at least as a stimulating read.
|
|
ITID
Pulsating Member
least likely to win at literally anything
Actually funny, not actually fun
Posts: 20,932 Join Date: Jun 27, 2018
Likes: 40,253
BiL Premium Poster: ๐จโ๐ป
|
Post by ITID on Aug 18, 2022 19:59:26 GMT -5
Java aesthetic from the 90โs in every coffee shop and send the industrial chic look back to Scandinavia. Maybe sell those cool world music CDโs at the counter again too. Industrial minimalist isa good aesthetic
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 20:09:17 GMT -5
got dang marxists donโt understand the philosophical import of visual color
|
|
ITID
Pulsating Member
least likely to win at literally anything
Actually funny, not actually fun
Posts: 20,932 Join Date: Jun 27, 2018
Likes: 40,253
BiL Premium Poster: ๐จโ๐ป
|
Post by ITID on Aug 18, 2022 20:34:07 GMT -5
got dang marxists donโt understand the philosophical import of visual color Beyond rothko and the evocativeness of the color field movement, it'd certainly make for better conversation if more book nerds could talk about art and aesthetic value in everyday life.
|
|
|
Post by โ๐ถ๐ๅ๐ฮทฤฎ๐แดแ on Aug 18, 2022 20:41:09 GMT -5
got dang marxists donโt understand the philosophical import of visual color Beyond rothko and the evocativeness of the color field movement, it'd certainly make for better conversation if more book nerds could talk about art and aesthetic value in everyday life. Iโm talking about how visual color is not reducible to a mind-independent property, blahblahblah nerd shit about that. My girlfriend is really into art history and so is one of my best buds, and itโs great stuff, though. Iโd love to go back to Martin Seelโs work or Nelson Goodmanโs and other stuff in aesthetics, but I havenโt had/made the time, but I was really into the truth-value of aesthetic structures like narrative historiography n stuff. David Carr has a really fucking good n short book called Time, Narrative, and History thatโs influential but undersung.
|
|