What are
/r/badphilosophy's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/badphilosophy:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/badphilosophy:
Academia.edu
Wayback Machine
Open Culture
Internet Archive
Rate My Professor
Google Play Books
Oxford Dictionaries
Wikiquote
Anime News Network
Google Sites
Google Groups
Myspace
Anchor
SurveyMonkey
Barnes & Noble
The most popular reviews in /r/badphilosophy:
From his website:
>Chapter 13 of 88: Never forget or forgive your enemies.
>What kind of a general would you be, one who is so skilled and so diligent in The Art of War 2, to be looked upon or seen upon as a weak, mocked, or cowardly leader?
I'm dying here.
Oh my god
For the copypasta:
> IamA ("Logician" which is like being a "Wielder of Black Magic") AMA!
> My short bio: My name is Kenneth, and my nickname is "The Dragon", which I gave to myself because it's not logical to have to have someone else give you your nickname. I also took the nickname from Bruce Lee because he wasn't logical enough, he was a philosopher not a scientist. Finally I gave myself the name Kenneth because it's not logical to have someone else give you a name (and also for SEO purposes because there's already a famous Kenny). I have an IQ of 140+ which I received in the 5th grade. That's all you need to know. Oh and I almost forgot, I'm the author of The Art of War 2, the sequel to Sun Tzu's The Art of War 1. You can read my book which is a work in progress here at www.artofwar2.com (no promo).
I can't fucking believe this is a real person
I was amused until I saw another post by the dude saying Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was a "dense philosophical text" that he planned to do a detailed analysis on (to fight SJWs ofc). Now I'm fully Poe'd.
Here is the 'paper' itself, since the r/math mods are sure to nuke that thread any minute now: https://www.academia.edu/33079029/A_derivation_of_the_theory_of_everything_from_the_cogito_ergo_sum
"I hold the philosophical proposition that logic axioms are provable by contradiction against the cogito"
That's what they teach in universities, isn't it?
> Educators, generals, dieticians, psychologists, and parents program. Armies, students, and some societies are programmed.
- First words of <em>Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs</em>
>Political liberalism has nothing to do with whether someone is part of neoliberalism.
Milton Friedman himself argued extensively that what he identified as political and economic freedom cannot be meaningfully separated. He acknowledged that economic freedom could exist without political freedom but an essential part of his argument for economic freedom was his claim that political freedom could not possibly exist without economic freedom. It's not by accident that he titled his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom rather than just Capitalism. You may disagree vehemently with his ideas, but to suggest that neoliberalism can be totally divorced from any concept of political liberalism is wrong.
Edit: Milton Friedman himself stated that the
>Chilean economy did very well, but more importantly, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society.
Far too many people want to cite the "Sokal Squared" affair as evidence that gender studies and related fields are nothing but ideologically motivated hackery.
That may be true (and there are certainly some cases where it is), but their success in publishing papers is stronger evidence that you can find a journal that will publish something, given enough time and effort.
Edit: I looked deeper into Lindsay's other work. This is one of his major books: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everybody-Wrong-About-James-Lindsay/dp/1634310365
From the Amazon blurb:
> With every argument for theism long since discredited, the result is that atheism has become little more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
What fucking planet are these guys on? I've read Boghossian's absolutely terrible Manual for Creating Atheists, and it's page after page of intellectual flatulence followed by assertion after assertion about theistic arguments and claims. Neither Lindsay nor Boghossian show the slightest signs of grasping basic philosophical issues.
No, it doesn't imply either of those things. He's not saying it's the mark of an educated mind never to believe anything. Of course he claims to believe things, and also to know them and so on--the canonical texts here would be On the Soul II-III and Nicomachean Ethics VI.
Yep. I've been recommending Postman's book for years:
>What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X
First of all, that's not an ad hominem.
Now, I majored in CS and maths and my philosophical background is non-existent, apart from reading a few books and some SEP pages, but I think the main problem with your post is you're being extremely naive.
- "Even the most intelligent of philosophers look down upon the AI": maybe this is right, I don't know, but it doesn't sound right. Care to show some evidence?
- "AI is going to be the next step in evolution of perceptive and analytic entities": Why? Just because AI will come after us doesn't mean it's going to be "better" (whatever this means) in any way.
- "Our duty to be rational and objective": We don't have any such duty.
- "we treat AI like 2 year olds": This is to be expected. Presumably, an AI would have to learn and mature before it can fully develop, much like we do, and during this maturation process it would probably be much like a child. This is how neural networks work.
- "every single bit of data AI's will work upon is gathered from observing us": This is just false.
- "objectivism": You mean objectivity. Objectivism is a really ugly word.
- "morality propagated and imposed by the great democratic nations of freeduns": Are you implying Islamic theocracies don't impose morality? Communist police-states? Feudal monarchies?
Throughout the whole text, there are, I think, a few ideas that aren't explicitly stated but also rather questionable:
- Morality comes from being rational.
- AI will be more rational than us.
I think it's really funny how you accuse humanity of deriving their morality from religion, God and external entities in general but you yourself are telling us that we should derive it from AIs (that don't even exist yet) instead, which is basically the same thing: an attempt to outsource your own moral choices.
Also, who's this Lisa and where can I find her tits?
Here's the metafilter debate in case anyone here wants to kill themselves.
I did like this one though.
>as if simply saying something is a fallacy is a convincing argument. As if an argument is a battle between wizards and they cast Dispel Magic and now whatever was said is null and void.
Edit: Forgot to link.
>Wait a minute, you better talk to my mother
No, Rakim is the Wittgenstein of hip hop and the Bertrand Russell of hip hop is Bertrand Russell.
Last drinking thread? There's still 6 days of 2015 left. That's like 13 drinking threads.
Also, I've been drinking for a while now, first with family at my aunt's house, and now alone. I have to say, drinking is more fun when other people drink with you. I guess that's why I'm in this thread. I picked up a couple classics the other day, Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning and Russell's The Problems of Philosophy. I'm also thinking about making some gluhwein. Give me a good recipe if you know any.
My other favourite part is how he will go on podcasts to whine about how people making fun of his head-up-ass tweet constitute a real disruption of his obviously fruitful philosophical project and philosophy in general, of course.
If anything, the warrior class should have been the real rulers, they're the ones who invented Sparta!
But what does a geriatric old man, who probably didn't exist (we only know about him through dialogues from, you guessed it, other philosophers) know about politics anyways? Machiavelli was the first one to get it right, if you discount The Art of War (and it's sequel, The Art of War 2)
His RMP page.
I'm sad, it's basically 100% identical with every other philosophy professor's ratings page. 50% "WOW I LEARNED A LOT" and 50% "WAT ID PHOLOSOPHRY"
>Favorite Books:... Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
On a side note, why would there ever be a reason for me to have a wikipedia editor's FB, or know that he is a "committed flexitarian" or that he "supports recycling"?
I think there actually is some record of his will... I'll have to dig deep into my repressed stash of Nicomachean Ethics seminar memories... nah, too buzzed, I'll just Google it
Edit:
Top search result http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-greeklegal79.shtml
Hate to rain in the parade but he's divvied already.
"In the bookshops of international airports, fit between self-help books and manuals on how to screw over thy neighbor, you can find a slim paperback, 100 pages or little more. On the cover, on a background of concrete and skyscrapers is a guy in suit and tie. He's got Eastern traits: slanted eyes, strong cheekbones. He smiles; because he's a "winner". He's, how they said not long ago, a rising star. He's a warrior of the new global capitalism. "You, reader, can be this warrior", the cover says. "You can be like the Chinese and their two-cypher PIL. The answers to all your questions are in this 540 b.C tract. Buy it and you'll make wonders". [...] The Art of War is the most overvalued and undervalued text of our times. Overvalued because it's charged with taumaturgic, salvific, provvidential expectations; hearing certain apologists, you only need a copy in the pocket to be reborn as great strategists. Be like water and so on. Undervalued because it's a book few people seem to have learnt something."
The intro is specifically a critic to the common reading by corporate culture, but in general he criticizes how it's fetishised and misread as a textbook to success.
Are you kidding? 'Life' and 'species' are totally well-defined. Have you ever heard of Wikipedia or the Dictionary?
You fundamentally do not understand the article and I do not know how to help you.
Here is another article from the author Wendy Larner (who is a queer feminist in geography btw). Here is her definition:
'The term ''neo-liberalism'' denotes new forms of political-economic governance premised on the extension of market relationships. In critical social science literatures, the term has usurped labels referring to specific political projects (Thatcherism, Regeanomics, Rogernomics), and is more widely used than its counterparts including, for example, economic rationalism, monetarism, neo-conservatism, managerialism and contractualism. '
Something about liberal capitalist ideology seems to lend itself to poorly-thought-out thought experiments substituting for actual history. Contra this image of isolated subsistence farmers locked in bitter individual struggles for survival against the caprice of nature, precapitalist agricultural societies in the real world tended to be highly communitarian, and often utilized large-scale social institutions to ensure that small-scale farming remained a stable and viable way of life. In fact, in many cases it was precisely the destruction of such institutions by European imperialists in the name of "free trade" or "the Protestant work ethic" or some such that turned what might have otherwise been manageable economic/ecological fluctuations into humanitarian disasters that killed millions and left survivors with no option but to join the indigent capitalist workforce. Some essential reading in case you're curious, which it sounds like you might not be.
"Metaphysicist" is funnier because it has more science in it and because it's also the name of a class in a very obscure MMORPG that nobody plays anymore. Which is a shame because it was a really neat little MMORPG.
I'm not drinking anything tonight. I've been drinking tequila and apple Strong Zeros quite a bit the past few nights, so I'm giving it a rest. I'm still reading A History of Western Philosophy by Russell.
Sabbath laws are a particularly bad example since it's totally fine to invent technologies that make them easier in the modern world (cf. this IFTTT recipe to use Google Calendar to automatically put your smart appliances into a special Sabbath Mode: https://ifttt.com/recipes/285634-turn-on-sabbath-mode-using-google-calendar)
No worries, this is RES. It is extremely useful. I can give you a run down of why if you'd like, just reply and let me know. Otherwise, you can read the link or try it out for yourself! It's essentially considered by many to be absolutely essential to browsing reddit's antiquated UX.
What the person you're replying to is referring to is RES tracks how much you've upvoted or downvoted someone. As a result, you can typically tell whether the person you're talking to is someone you typically think is reasonable or not. It's questionable, but I'm not defending it, simply explaining it.
Lemme know if you have any questions.
There is no way that this isn't satire.
>Now who among you, those who have so diligently studied The Art of War 2, and its prequel The Art of War (not 2), to say that you are a skilled artist who can slay Sun Tzu in his sleep, “who” one asks, was there to see the tree fall on the tiger?
>Maybe you are a bird, but then you will need to have your eyes checked oh bird. For you are not learned in The Art of War 2, and therefore not skilled enough to have even read The Art of War 2 much less The Art of War 1 (not to compare it to The Art of War 2, its much more advanced sequel). You are just a bird, how can you read The Art of War 2?
>And the tree, well we all know what [SPOILER BLOCK] happened to the [SPOILER BLOCKS]. Well now, I am tired of explaining what happened. Do I need to repeat myself verbatim? Okay, I will [SPOILER BLOCKS].
684 internet points as of this moment.
"Nuh uh! Chemicals!"
Sam Harris and his flock are certainly a happy bunch with Big Yud and his flock. That book, when it comes out, will be right next to The Art of War and Atlas Shrugged on shelves next to anime wall scrolls and mall katanas.
Nothing to do with it, but I once read a psychology book called Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman (cognitivist). At the beginning of the book, he quotes a successful "treatment" a colleague of his for depression: telling people to stop feeling sorry for themselves and start doing things (!).
>this is a book read by shitty people who want to somehow rationalize being a shitty cutthroat dick.
At the intro level, yes. For the advanced shitty cutthroat dick (read: "high powered business executive"), read The Art of War. Oh wait, you probably don't have time in your busy schedule, here's someone who already did it for you.
I don't think I have enough for a book yet, no. But yeah, I'll definitely kickstarter it. Kickstarter is so ridiculous, people just give you free money so you can sell them stuff. Speaking of Zach Weiner, he just put up a kickstarter for a children's book today and already got $55k of his $30k goal.
Nothing against him or the people that donate to stuff like this...but it's just so silly. Like Zach Weiner couldn't have gotten a book deal with a publisher without their money upfront. He's Zack Weiner, his site has like a trillion fans, I'm pretty sure publishers would be fighting to publish his shit. But hey, people love it, so whatever. I'll pretend like I couldn't get a book published for free money (although I might actually need it, I have no idea how that stuff works).
I pretty much only know the names of Punk Rock songs or Folk songs, so I can't really help you out there. So I'll have to mix it up a bit.
I'm sitting alone drinking, when I hear a voice behind me that I've not heard in a long time, or ever actually. "This is payback for all the capycaras you said were ugly". I spin and draw my pistol, but I'm too slow. /r/reallynicole stands in front of me, unloads five shots, then pausing, and shooting the sixth. Later on she was seen going to a comedy movie and bathing in the ocean with a cute girl, but that's a whole different thing.
Everything I've learned in philosophy I've learned from Bertrand Russell!
I looked it up on thefreedictionary.com. It means "To mark; indicate". You're welcome!
It's not true. She did say something that sorta kinda maybe could sound like she agreed with Saint Thomas on one point, though. And she says that, after Aristotle, she likes Aquinas' philosophy the best...
It's also assuming that
1) The universe our universe is being simualted by has the same laws of physics as our unvierse. (We simualte 2D universes with rules that are simpler than ours all the time.)
2) That the simulation needs to store and calculate all that information, rather than only the information that is observed by...an observer.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! I TRY TO BE A GOOD TIME-MANAGING PERSON FOR ONE DAY AND THIS HAPPENS.
One of the saddest things I've ever read was this thesis that goes to show if you're a Wallace Fundamenalist, it's easier to misread every stray comment that Wittgenstein makes than to take the overwhelmingly obvious realization that Wallace really didn't understand him at all. And if you're a English grad instructor, it's easier to reward junk so long as the minimal indications were there that the student went to the library at one point. After all, that market isn't going to dilute and degrade itself!
Evaluate your life and cry a little, but its more like a spasm anymore. A lot of the pain is just dead now. You never got over anything, you just got a little bit numb. You wake up every morning thankful that you can function like a normal person, but maybe your hollow now. It scares you to think about. Now you don't even know what you are really sad about. Something is just there, a pressure where there used to be a pain. It all just feels like your anticipating something.
That's my game plan anyway. :D
At least I am over my fear of glass bottles.
So, I expected to see a lot of stupidity on a thread titled "GayLubeOil Fills you with his Esoteric Wisdom." And oh boy did it deliver.
But what put this over the top was the fact that GayLubeOil, the esoteric TRP sage himself, apparently has his own line of T-Shirts: https://teespring.com/glofit?pr=ATLAS#pid=72&cid=5906&sid=front
Hello, I'm a bot! The movie you linked is called Ma nuit chez Maud, here are some Trailers
>(assuming that the positive feelings from empathy dont outweigh the negative feelings from it along with the disadvantage I put myself in)
That's a large assumptions you are making, and I wouldn't agree with you here.
Not only would you be at a significant disadvantage and constantly clashing with the rest of society, I have also read that sociopaths and psychopaths generally have rather shallow emotions and that they apparently try to compensate that with their attempts to control and manipulate people.
Add to that this doesn't fill the "hole in their soul", with them constantly looking for new victims to satisfy their lust for power, never being content with what they have achieved. (See also: 8The paradox of hedonism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_hedonism))
So they probably, at least in my view, won't really be happier than normal people. Maybe they will have some short shallow sense of grandeur that will serve as a sort of short-lived happiness surrogate, but I seriously suspect they will never achieve the deep contentment that empathetic people with real emotions have.
They might be sometimes more successful in business (through by no means does this have to be the case), but hardly happier.
Happiness is best achieved as a by-product of deeds and projects that mean something to you and don't just serve to make you happy, i.e. having happiness as your direct goal is not going to work.
This indirect approach, laid out by Viktor Frankl in "Man's Search for Meaning" and also summed up on Wikipedia here is what I try to keep in mind.
I haven't read The Art of War, so I can't really respond to this guy's claims (although I'm almost certain they're ridiculous). I do know, though, that a certain demographic on reddit is really into it. My theory is because it's old, Eastern, and sounds kinda cool. Can anyone expand?
> I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter [on Ancient philosophy] are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant.
Russell. A History of Western Philosophy. 1945.
Take that, fundie.
/unjerk
I can't begin to tell how much that passage russells my jimmies...
One of the main admins, forget who, loves philosophy (I think he likes pop phil and not actual phil), so it probably was a reason why it got to be a default.
His interview was akin to OMG I too love Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Phil is so useful in business, especially when I wax philosophic. I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, since it was an interview that didn't ask good questions. So that's maybe why it's a default sub???
Or there's some sort good moderation going on that the admins liked. Variety of topics. Stuff like that.
I see Pinker criticized every so often on here, but I'd like to defend him a bit. If it means anything, I was able to attend a guest lecture of his at my university. He was speaking about bad writing and what we can do to make it better (the subject of his latest book, The Sense of Style). The lecture was held in a small room, but people packed inside to hear him speak. Let me just say that he was one of the most gregarious, charismatic people I've ever met. He treated everyone with dignity and respect, regardless of whether they were undergrads, grad students, or faculty. Big deal, you might say, but he had a real charm about him. The presentation itself was excellent as well.
Admittedly, I have not heard of any of the Nazi analogies that you brought up, but in my personal anecdotal experience I was very impressed. I was even able to talk to him afterward for a bit about prescriptive grammar, and was surprised by the variety of material he was familiar with (he also works for the American Heritage dictionary company). You are right that his theories in linguistics have met with some resistance (this is my field), but keep in mind that the linguistic community is very resistant to change. Just look at the refusal by the Chomskyans to even listen to Dan Everett's challenges to universal grammar, for instance. I'm not saying Pinker is right about everything, but he's a real scientist who does real science.
And that's not even mentioning his incredible head of hair. Good God.
Well then Showa would be a must-read definitely.
If you're into hot guys, then watch Rurouni Kenshin. It's a heavily fictionalized portrayal of Meiji Japan, but oh well. Sengoku Basara is a fun one, based on the video game of the same name, and is kind of an alternate history of the Sengoku Jidai. If you're looking for actual nonficiton serious stuff though, I'm not sure actually.
I know some obscure avant-garde stuff too: There's Shigurui: Death Frenzy, which is basically 12 episodes of Tokugawa era samurai behaving like obscene assholes, with plenty of violence, gore, and otherwise offensive content. Unfortunately, the narrative seems to actually support them.... which I didn't pick up on because I just watched clips of it to laugh at the gore/torture pron.
It lets you browse the internet anonymously or, at least, significantly more anonymity. Typically used by people who want to get around their country's censorship (ex. Great Firewall of China), activists who don't want their government tracking them (ex. planning protests and demonstrations), and people who want to buy drugs or watch child porn.
And it looks like an e-book of some sort?
> Perfectivism, a new philosophy in the spirit of Aristotle, Jefferson, Beethoven, Mahler, Ayn Rand, Stanley Kubrick, Michael Jordan, Jimmy Wales and many other geniuses, is in the works. Enjoy the ride! :-)
jiggawut.
> ARGH YOU CANT REFUTE MY OWN PERFECTIONISITISM, SO THERE. IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND BETTER BECAUSE THERE EXISTS NO CRITICISM OF IT BITCH.
He's like a combination of Jesse Pinkman and the "Seven Minute Abs" killer from Something About Mary.
This guy must have eaten kitty litter well into his teens.
He said flying to London, careful with those logical fallacies there Socrates ;)
But I think you may be on to something with Zizek. Perhaps he jumped at the opportunity to wash his feet every morning. Interestingly he does have a rating on ratemyprofessor.
I've never been there myself unfortunately. Definitely on my to-do/bucket list.
I think I found his myspace as well...
For a while it seemed like he was using the same handle to comment at wordpress. All posts there and from his myspace are from more than two years ago. :(
I was curious about the book he edited that "that represent[s] views from the left and right in equal measure."
I thought I should provide as fair and balanced a view of his book as he provides of voting for Trump, so I selected some reviews from amazon:
>Having read some of the more full length versions of some of the works shortened into this book, I can say that this book does an atrocious job of explaining and hitting at the key issues of the writers within. You simply cannot summarize Aristotle, Plato, Peter Singer, etc. in 5-7 pages. It's impossible. I think you're better off reading a 5-7 page section of the actual text of some of these writers then this paraphrased mess. I don't recommend this to anyone that wants an actual grasp of the writers within. [1 star]
> From the moment I picked up this book I began to feel a metamorphosis within myself that no other education has ever provided me. For starters, I crapped my pants three times in chapter two--something I haven't done in over twenty years. By the end of chapter five I had filed for divorce, found out that I wanted to be a painter for the rest of my life, and discovered the joys of cooking with olive oil (thank you Aristotle!). By far, this book is the best thing that's ever happened to me. I realized that love is only relative to sex and punishment and that that rat that works for Chuckie Cheese is nothing more than a fictional piece of bull whose only purpose in life is to cheat people out of pizza and prize tickets. Anyway, get the book; free your mind. [5 stars]
> Steven Pinker is... the author, most recently, of “The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century.”
Never trust a man who markets his own material as "the thinking person's guide to X"
Seriously though. I have to write a paper on "According to Aristotle, what does it mean to act?" that incorporates De Anima, Magna Moralia, Eudemian Ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, and Metaphysics Book IX. Honestly this probably isn't even a comprehensive list. Considering my capacity for Aristotle, t's going to be the intellectual equivalent of a half-marathon.
Well I'll stop by Gray's office sometime and, I dunno, hand over a sternly-written letter about Klein, who is shit, by the way. I loved hating The Shock Doctrine, which was warmed-over Marxian criticism of modern American economic/political policies in the Third World, and I cannot understand why she has become a poster child for anything. And she just had another book published. Bah!
Sounds like fun, what with the Canadian politics. It's about as mysterious to me as British politics. Um... I wanted Scotland to go 'Yes' because the Pound would tank. That's about it.
And I like a lot of Foucault's work in so far as his work is a valuable contribution to--and I think it was Ernest Gellner that said this--an analysis of certain social situations where we encounter 'theatre ushers': people that tell us to do things and we are socialised to unquestionably follow their quiet orders. Sit here, stand there, wait in line, wait your turn, quiet down or be escorted out with no threat of violence and so on blah blah blah.
If you read Russell's Problems of Philosophy or the chapter on Hegel in his A History of Western Philosophy then you will find a critique of his underlying assumptions that, I believe, is still more or less accepted by many contemporary Anglo-American philosophers.
I've always thought of Hegel as being more historically significant than he is philosophically; he influenced a lot of what is now termed Continental Philosophy and he also provoked a reaction (the "revolt against metaphysics") from what would eventually be called the early analytic philosophers (Russell, Moore et al.) He is undoubtedly a chore to read, and many of those who are admittedly indebted to him will often disagree with many of his claims (Marx and Adorno for example).
That early critique has certainly been pervasive (so far as I can tell). Not many Anglo-American philosophers are Hegelians, although he is still read in some circles. Their was a brief movement called Analytic Marxism whose stated aim was "Marxism, without the bullshit", with the bullshit largely being the Hegelian schema. That said, someone like Arthur Danto talks about an "analytic rehabilitation of the concept of geist" (or words to that effect) so he's by no means dead. On the whole though, I'd take anything he says with a pinch of salt; he was from a different time, a time when grand systems of thought still had a place. Nowadays a work which attempts to be a "theory of everything" is not well regarded, because Philosophy, like all academic disciplines, has many more branches, each of which requires a certain amount of specialisation to properly understand.
I feel like I grew up in the shadow of No Logo with most people who wanted to be seen as Leftists basically using it as bullying dogma against everybody else. You aren't a shrieking harpy against a fast food company? Obviously, you're just part of colonialist capitalism. You're a steel worker apprentice who goes to A&W on your break? You're obviously THE problem. You know what the solution is? Subscribing to and donating to Ad-Busters so everyone can have supposed dissent in the glossiest most anti-semitic (yes, that happened) format possible.
When I first saw The Shock Doctrine I thought, "Oh neat, maybe Naomi grew up" thinking it was picking up Chomsky's thread that a lot of capitalism and communist markets are based on keeping people under the impression they're "recovering" from the latest economic event and must perpetually "sacrifice" economically. Nope, it's a cornball conspiracy theory made of only events that got news coverage that "caused capitalism."
If you think about it, it might actually be a self-metaphor. Global Capitalism is such a unique and immanent danger, and the only way to avoid it would be to immediately transition to hitherto undefined Klein-land Socialism (because it's all about the MOVEMENT! Not Solutions! Those are for Squares!). Unfortunately, that was the book Grey praised. Maybe it sounded better before the release, or he also only read the title and thought it was a good phrase (it is).
I like what Ned Katz can do with Foucault, and Alisdair Macintyre's and Rorty's notes on his work, but both emphasize how he's either been overwhelmingly misread in favour of cheap obscurantism, or that his attempt at style gets in the way of his message.
> also I have seen Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance around a lot, is that good or is it another Sophie's world according to adefinitedescription?
Nothing with "Zen" in the title has anything to do with real philosophy. And by "real philosophy" I mean Western Philosophy.
It's basically the roundtable discussion prompt for the monthly meeting of the Juggalo Book Club, if their selection was The Wealth of Nations.
This is all the more tiring since there are works that perfectly account for the theory of evolution in a neo-Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysical framework. This book contains an entire chapter on "the metaphysics of evolution". One of the greatest neo-Thomists of the 20th century dedicated a whole book to it. It is really stupid to oppose the two.
It's already been implemented into behaviorist theories, as the current understanding of how reinforcement works is based explicitly on information theory.
> The Hard Problem as I now understand it is basically this:
Yes, you don't understand it, we know, you've told us over and over. If you don't care about understanding it, just go about your day and don't waste your time on it.
If you do care about understanding it and find wikis insufficient, pick up some literature on the subject. For a recent book that's a good entry-point on philosophy of mind, and that shares a number of perspectives presented by different philosophers who hold that perspective, I recommend Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind. It's short, easy to read, and has everything from substance dualists to illusionists.
https://www.amazon.ca/Synchronicity-Acausal-Connecting-Principle-Collected/dp/0691150508
You could argue people are indulging their superstitions unknowingly with the I Ching. As someone who has used it, I do think about that. But it’s users are not superstitious. They’re all about that Tao, lol.
I kind of find Kant saying it a lot more funny. Partly because of how incredibly harsh he looks in that one portrait, and partly because "Das ist nicht ein Lernenplatz" is largely the <em>actual</em> content of his famous Rectorate address.
My other favourite part is how he will go on podcasts to whine about how people making fun of his head-up-ass tweet constitute a real disruption of his obviously fruitful philosophical project.
There's a very important difference between how someone might use a philosophical system (e.g conservatism in the case of Feser, and racism in the case of online "rad trads") and the internal validity of the system itself. Saying that all of Scholasticism has been demonstrated wrong by modern philosophy is just as silly as saying that all of Aristotle has been demonstrated wrong by modern philosophy. Aristotlianism has seen a healthy resurgence in the last half century, and rightfully so. Essentialism is a carefully argued and highly plausible approach to metaphysics, and Virtue ethics is a carefully argued and highly plausible approach to ethics. And Scholasticism is really just a modified Aristotleian framework, and one that I think actually improves upon it. Neo-Scholastics like Feser actively work to build on it further. But Aristotelians sometimes say silly things, and scholastics sometimes say silly things, but that doesn't "demonstrate how wrong" it is. Come on.
/u/DoctorLogan (in full),
your name Tim? <I went to grad school with one such. big boi.>
>Guuiiisseee look at all the words I used!
:
I have said:
>Evolution possible ifF God $erves Ycxp8XMfQVd4T n.
>6/17/13
>Re: c/? Tyler Perry's "Ma_dY|ahhh" Re: [LS:7001] Horse's appeal
>'"<>'"
>On Monday, June 17, 2013 6:20:07 PM UTC-6, ~t^ wrote:
> >"'<Prepare Yourself for the other-side of blindness.>"' - hide quoted text -
> >On Monday, June 17, 2013 6:14:31 PM UTC-6, Erribert wrote:
> > >Caesar was a ruler. Who is your ruler?
> > >Mark
> > >On Jun 17, 2013, at 5:00 PM, ~t^
...redacted
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lilasquad/quSxVVWzPUU/CEDtsDggRf8J
>[first sub pull]you are doing that too much. try again in 1 minute.
>[second sub pull]you are doing that too much. try again in [##+8] seconds.
Would you accept the Dictionary of Philosophy, published in 1942 as a source (or if you prefer)?
far be it from me to change the subject randomly, but I assume you are aware of this?
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to guess it's the sort of thing you are interested in.
edit: ok this is a pretty feeble movie so far. Still.
> The definition of atheism as merely lack of belief in God is only in wide usage in the sense that it's become an adamant dogma of the atheist blogosphere. As a dictionary or technical definition, it has negligible penetration.
Actually, I think this claim deserves a little more examination.
> Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (Oxford Dictionaries)
This is a fairly prestigious dictionary acknowledging the lack of belief definition.
> The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
This is a more relevant, scholarly source saying the same thing.
In his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification Michael Martin describes an atheist as "someone without a belief in God." Martin has a stake in the theism / atheism debate, arguably, but he is a well regarded professional philosopher nonetheless.
So, I'm not sure the lack of belief definition is as ignored as you suggest.
His website (not the academia.edu page) is a bizarre combination of self-promotion, illusions of philosophical grandeur, and obscurantism. If he meant it to be a light-lipped parody, then he lets on a bit too much here:
Someone recently posted footage of the first Bloomsday on r/ireland. The video and some more info is here if you're interested. I never actually knew Paddy Kavanagh and Flann O'Brien started it.
"On the Genesis of Ideas"
> When someone hears first ‘over-interpretation’ instead of ‘interpretation,’ they think of over-interpretation as a definition of interpretation. Then their minds can only stretch (through neologism) to the phrase ‘overt interpretation.’ When they do not stretch their minds, they become conglommed with the idea that only over-interpretation will suffice for interpretation. The first effect is that they are obsessed with interpretation. The second effect is that they try to move beyond interpretation. These stages frame an important lesson about the nature of intellectual inspiration, which can be summarized in the following way: 1. The most important thing is process: moving beyond artificial levels. 2. If process fails, the effect is at best a formalism. 3. Without formalism, ‘max is product.’
I can't stretch my mind enough to understand this.
Analyzing eperopolis0
- comments per month: 3.4
- posts per month: 0.7 ^lurker
- favorite sub nba
- favorite words: really, really, you're
- age 4 years 4 months ^old ^man
- profanity score 0.9% ^Gosh ^darnet ^gee ^wiz
trust score 96% ^tell ^them ^your ^secrets!
Fun facts about eperopolis0
- "I am confused."
- "I've had lunch with the Daryl Morey's of this world, I've played pool with the Phil Jackson's of this world."
- "I've watched closed gym practices with the Carmelo's of this world and the Steve Nash's of this world."
- "I've done my time in the trenches, and have respect across the league."
- "I've seen Duncan catch and alley oop, slam it while his body was practically parallel with the floor and end up not injuring himself."
- "I've had fewer problems since switching over to https://hearthis.at/ but that limits you to a smaller audience."
- "I've learned from fantasy it's to go for the long con."
- "I've erred in the mean computation (oops!)."
- "I've erred, please don't hesitate to correct me."
The things that really did it for me was the fact that, under the Aristotelian causal framework, per se causal finitism must be true, and the fact that, as David Oderberg has argued extensively, existence cannot be deduced from the essence of a particular thing, but instead essence and existence are separated and must be joined together from something that isn't the particular thing itself. If something were to give itself existence, it would have to exist already, but since since existence still needs to be added, it doesn't exist already. If I study the nature of some obscure plant in a book (like the plants in the Voynich manuscript, say), the nature of that plant tells me nothing about whether or not it exists in any particular way. Aquinas always distinguishes between what a thing is, and that it is.
Couple that by extending the essence/existence gap to the Universe, along with how Aquinas has argued at length about how God's divine attributes can only come from something that is the pure actuality/un-caused cause of the universe, and you have something that really rustles one's materialist jimmies.
It's been a while since I watched that talk, but I didn't get the impression he was simply just asserting what was beautiful and what was not. A lot of Barron's theological work is focused on beauty such as on cathedrals. That's why I was clarifying what he was saying in my reply to you.
>Transubstantiation is the mechanism of creating the same output from two different inputs.
Omgomgomgomgomg ive been WAITING for JMK to pop up on here. This guy was a professor at my alma mater around when I was there. I never had a class with him but a few friends did and they had nothing but bizarre stories to tell. He got fired because of some scandal involving him and a few students. He’s also the son of the 66th president of Peru. I hear he’s the fuck-up of the family. Everyone else is some super rich diplomat or whatever.
He’s written an endless array of insane articles and books about anything he can possibly lasso into some kind of applied philosophy. I don’t even know where to begin. His amazon store is a goldmine. Here’s my favorite
There's actually a bunch of stories I could tell about him because he was so controversial of a professor within the department. I knew this because I was on pretty good terms with the other professors, and I got the impression that they weren't fans of him.
His way of thinking was just erratic. The class started with a general guide to QM, then moved to Georg Cantor's Diagonal argument for transfinites, then moved to super symmetry and string theory, and just kept going off in a ton of different directions.
Also, it was super hard. You could tell he had no clue what students he had in his class because the textbook he referred to was something like this:
We're talking about undergrad phil students that likely haven't even had a college-level physics course. Also, from the beginning of the entire course I called bullshit on him knowing string theory. There's no way he understood the material in that textbook.
Then again, this is a professor who claimed to be more well read on structural engineering than the vast majority of all engineers, so the delusion was strong in this one.
Good idea, although I really doubt it's at BN . you can view a preview of a few pages on amazon https://www.amazon.com/Cube-Unlike-All-Others/dp/1453641297, from them it seems like he is claiming an actual mathematical proof so it's not some metaphorical use like Lacan.
I thought I might share some of my favorite texts, the following I've read through at least once fully, but most I've spent much time with select parts, but the requirement for making this list is a necessary change in my character and or a lasting impression, and so include: Plato's "Euthyphro" and "Apology"; Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" (Though I've lost my physical copy); Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy"; Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"; Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals", "Lectures on Ethics", and "Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics"; Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation"; Nietzsche's "The Gay Science", "Beyond Good and Evil", and "Genealogy of Morals"; and Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda".
There are some other's but I limited the list to exclude compilations from multiple texts, though Kant's "Lectures on Ethics" is still a compilation, to my knowledge the content was not compiled from multiple published works.
I play video games, currently playing Dark Souls on the PC and Ar nosurge: Ode to an Unborn Star on the Vita.
I also play the Universal Fighting System Card and more casually play Dicemasters.
I would read philosophy more but whenever I pick up my copy of Nicomachean Ethics I think more of personal problems I am having trouble with which strongly distracts from reading and taking notes.
In Alberta, they literally give homeless people Greyhound tickets to Vancouver. During the Olympics, they gave them ferry tickets to Vancouver Island. I'm not even kidding; both of these were carried as problem-solving policies.
That and Vancouver was fully committed to the anti-psychiatric Berkley funwagon in the seventies and shut down way too many of their mental health services, and still keeps the same policies in place because apparently you can't change an policy directions municipally after 1980. It's a shitshow.
Also, you're at the LSE? Holy Crap, you should try to meet John Grey and ask him how much he regrets giving Naomi Klein a positive review for The Shock Doctrine. Or just meet him and pretend you're part of Isaiah Berlin's intellectual genaeology.
Is it part of the continental process to struggle to hear what is being said? I think I will come back to this video after I buy and read his key book.
also I have been told to just read it anyways: This item: Of Grammatology by Jacques Derrida Paperback $26.48 Writing and Difference by Jacques Derrida Paperback $22.59 on amazon. Is this a good price AND translation, and should I also get the other book or have you never read it?
also I have seen Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance around a lot, is that good or is it another Sophie's world according to adefinitedescription?
Book prices: Those are relatively expensive. Go to AbeBooks.com. I buy used since I live pretty close to a book store, or I borrow from the library that's close to my house.
A good translation depends... on if you are reading this for a specific class. If so, the best translation is the one the professor is going to use for the class. Not reading this for a specific class? The cheapest copy will do. If you get later editions, as a general rule, they seem have more contemporary language and are easier to read. I'd just try and save money and get out of the school with less debt.
Derrida also published Speech and Phenomena at the same time, but Of Grammatology will keep you busy.
I'd recommend you use GoogleBooks to preview any books and decide if it is something you should get or not.
I looked up this Zen book a while ago (I wanted a motorcycle, specifically a Harley and a buddy recommended me to read Zen to discourage me). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance illustrates a story with a lot of interesting ideas. Funny thing is his bike breaks down every ten pages or so. Upset at mechanics trying to fix his bike, he just does it himself for the rest of the trip with his son. If you read about the author, you'd know he's bat shit insane. The story is an attempt to reconcile a few personal struggles and tragedies in his life using philosophical themes/motifs. As far as that goes, I think it is more of a fantasy book. You spend 10 pages reading about him seeing blackbirds and being either amazed or not about it. Compare that to a philosophy book. The first sentence gets straight to the point of the matter at hand.
Kors and Peters' Witchcraft in Europe 400-1700 is a good resource.
Could always go for the reading only route:
http://www.amazon.com/French-Reading-Karl-C-Sandberg/dp/0133316033#
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0820467596/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_1?refRID=0F5GDZMSR01XXTC99V9Q
Which reminds me, /u/literallyanscombe hey.
> Are you seriously telling me if a holocaust survivor told you that if the modern meat industry gave them horrible flashbacks to their time in Auschwitz, that you'd just walk away and end the conversation?
Or a Holocaust survivor calling it "The Eternal Treblinka".
I actually got my hands on this recently and it has an extended chapter on Goethe's strained relationship with Baconian empiricism, and how Goethe's critique of the axiom part of it may have inspired the Karl Popper.
> …and the "wars of religion" in Europe had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with political centralization.
People really need to read their Cavanaugh.
He's written a book on Hindu spiritualism. Fancy that.
Well, due to Zil'ber's theorem any totally categorical theory is not finitely axiomatizable. So yeah, so is your example :)
I think it shouldn't be hard to prove in this specific case (an idea using ultraproducts and Los' theorem comes to mind, should check if it works), but the general proof requires a fair share of some basic geometric stability theory. The only book I know which presents it is Pillay's, but unfortunately it isn't a very readable book.
Do you remember that time Our Lord And Savior Revealed that Jainist people could literally never ever do wrong?
Also, this showed up at the thrift store and I was wondering if you had heard about it?