The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.
This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Burning ghost wrote:
At least I am smiling at my own pretentious nonsense!
"Also sprach Sarathustra," said the Buddha. But first he had it translated to Hindi.
Self-mockery is a lot of fun, when you run out of others to mock. Humour and sex have a lot in common in this aspect.
I am still amazed that the bible hasn't latched onto that and forbode laughter; "Thou shalt not laugh at your neighbour's foibles" and "thou shalt not drop your seed of humour on the ground".
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
I was referring mainly to the "ONLY" of the sentence. Only assumes otherness in its absence.
Yes,well, that is the point. As to your other thoughts, I do appreciate your perspective. It is close to this here, distant from that there. You're in the middle of postmodern thinking, but you don't want to go into it too much, and the reason for this, I would hazard, is you don't like these philosopers enough at first blush to give them a proper hearing. Look, you can't talk like that about Heidegger. He doesn't parallel Husserl as you say. And Derrida does not rant. It just takes time and patience to get them.
I have limited patience for so many others. Logicians bore me, but the fault is mine, not theirs.
I am always scathing of philosophers. I think it is something about my general attitude toward "authority".
Of course I read them in the first place, and continue to, because I find use in doing so. If I didn't I would stop and move on. Some annoy and confuse me more than others. Nietzsche really baffles me! He is comedic, brilliant and mind bogglingly difficult in some places. A lot of it is about wedding your own views with those of others. Sometimes its easier than others.
To be honest I kind of hate you say I am "in the middle" of post modernist thinking because I am not entirely sure what that means! haha! I am, in your eyes, whatever I appear to be I guess?
I have said elsewhere my views on philosophy differ from topic to topic. In some places I find one approach more useful than others. My primary investigation is into "subjectivity". In the political sphere I may shift from one positions to another depending on the subject matter. Ethically I am more for subjectivism as being the best thing to follow, in this sense more inclined toward Nietzsche in many ways.
Being critical does not mean I don't like these "philosophers". I don't care about them enough to add too much emotional weight. In the same way if I have someone agreeing with me about everything I am not interested in having a discussion with them, it is not really much use to me.
Obviously this does sound a lot like I am referring to hermeneutics ... which I am! haha!
btw if you grasp the idea of what Heidegger meant by "dasein" please explain and quote if you can. I cannot. It appears to me he slipped over the edge of the limits of language and left many of us, if not all, guessing what he meant rather than knowing what he meant. Maybe some of us simply won't understand due to this or that intellectual bias? Maybe not? For now I remain open to his ideas yet unconvinced of there underlying substance. I have not felt inclined to dedicate time to him yet to try and pry out more meaning either. I am satisfied more with Husserl and his ideas of which I found Heidegger useful in expressing them a little better here and there.
Maybe I am just not cut out for this kind of stuff. I find it to be a good waste of time though. I've gotten half-way through Philosophical Investigations and not been overly impressed just yet. Probably because his ideas have been rehashed so often as to make them already familiar. I still find Husserl to be the main force of the whole movement, and a pretty significant one.
Today philosophical concerns seem to be more aimed at obvious political issues that are facing us today in a very quickly changing world. Again, the Husserlian obsession with the "subjective" is what I see as befitting to todays world and the path taken by science into our current political arena in regard to psychology and socio-politics of religion and nationhood.
NOw I am ranting! I said Derrida "rants", simply meaning he goes on and on and on, mor eso than Heidegger, for seemingly no fit purpose. Sometimes a nice "gist" presents itself, but over all the style just seems almost to make language retarded. From a linguistical perspective he is fascinating. People seem to love and hate his work in equally severe measures from what I can gather.
I would also suggest that Husserl, as I have recently noticed, seems to have leaned heavily of Nietzsche, although I have not seen him mention Nietzsche? I am no scholar so if you know what Husserl said about Nietzsche I'd be interested to read that!
I'm fairly certain that something exists as opposed to nothing, and that this is an example of the human mind being able to accurately understand reality. Is anyone seriously suggesting that nothing exists?
The matter turns to whether the terms 'nothing' and 'exist' have proper referents in the first place. Pragmatists say my understanding of the world is on a par with a fender's understanding of an offending guard rail. The challenge to this is the "ghost" theory of perception. There is something there that is not foolish.