TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- What Are You Reading? Part Deux.
Pages (33): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Philosophical qualities aside, Harris' style is a lot clearer and well-founded. I'm glad he's no Nietzsche, otherwise this book would be begging for more misunderstandings than the one you've just provided!

told you you misquoted Nietzsche you bum!

the whole point of Nietzsche's philisophical efforts was to be ambiguous- It would be pretty stupid to say 'nothing's true' in the traditional sense, then make traditionally true points now, wouldn't it
gotta read between the lines, and actively read the works, if you do it aint all that bad, and if its ambiguous its entirely in line with his claims: That LIFE is ambiguous!

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII told you you misquoted Nietzsche you bum!

But, but... I didn't even quote him

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII the whole point of Nietzsche's philisophical efforts was to be ambiguous- It would be pretty stupid to say 'nothing's true' in the traditional sense, then make traditionally true points now, wouldn't it

Hmm... not really. Even if this was the only point he wanted to make, all he had to do was make a distinction between "positive" truths and "negative" truths and claim "nothing is positively true", and then give room for this one negative truth to be... well, true

Not that this was all he was getting at anyway, so the above paragraph couldn't possibly do justice to the complexity of his work. Either way, it'd be better for human history if he didn't go all prophety and then write stuff like this:

quote:

I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous � a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.

Yeah, his writings could be so easily distorted German soldiers were given copies of his books... and we all know how that ended

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII gotta read between the lines, and actively read the works, if you do it aint all that bad, and if its ambiguous its entirely in line with his claims: That LIFE is ambiguous!

Well, I'm a fan of Feyerabend, and he's not exactly an example of consistency. However, he did take the time to make his views (kind of) clear(ish).

Perhaps TA could coin the terminology for whatever brings people to throw in Nietzsche into any philosophical, literary, and/or general internet fuck-witery.

quote:

Originally posted by infiniteJEST Perhaps TA could coin the terminology for whatever brings people to throw in Nietzsche into any philosophical, literary, and/or general internet fuck-witery.

It's his über-leetzsche spirit.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira But, but... I didn't even quote him Hmm... not really. Even if this was the only point he wanted to make, all he had to do was make a distinction between "positive" truths and "negative" truths and claim "nothing is positively true", and then give room for this one negative truth to be... well, true Not that this was all he was getting at anyway, so the above paragraph couldn't possibly do justice to the complexity of his work. Either way, it'd be better for human history if he didn't go all prophety and then write stuff like this: Yeah, his writings could be so easily distorted German soldiers were given copies of his books... and we all know how that ended Well, I'm a fan of Feyerabend, and he's not exactly an example of consistency. However, he did take the time to make his views (kind of) clear(ish).

yeah but its not as simple as that, and suggesting it is IS the misreading, which is what I was saying He doesn't just say positive vs negative truths etc, he goes into why, how, what to do now etc etc, then goes on to explore a million other topics... He's exploring life, not truth, I was using it as one example, but its a lot more complicated than saying SIMPLE things, since, as I said: Life isn't simple, and doesn't at all lend itself TO simplification.

I know you realised this, but blaming Nietzsche for people being too dumb to read him 'properly' is a bit silly

also, the nazis didn't use Nietzsche's work- he was expressly anti-nationalistic throughout his works: What they used is a VERSION of the will to power which his sister compiled from random sections of his diaries which he didn't want published, into a fascistic text... They never read any 'real' nietzsche as far as I'm concerned, reading only his sister's fascist tendencies.

I also don't see a problem with that quote-- the problem with quoting nietzsche is that he was supremely contextual in his work- its really irresponsible to take things out of their contexts in their books, as they were constructed to purposefully clash (in one paragraph free will is dumb, the next one determinism is dumb, intending to point out that neither is completely accurate etc)... Taking quotes out of the context of their situation in his texts always gets people in trouble because (like the hamlet quote I gave above), you're making it appear like he's saying things he's not... He used irony and paradox heavily, rarely making explicit points, since it would have simply been counter-productive to do so!

but once again, Thats not nietzsche's fault, its the reader's

(1) Philosophy is so much useless wank.

(2) Nietzsche wrote philosophy.

(3) Nietzsche wrote useless wank.

Airtight argument.

I think everyone should sign up for the Goodreads thing

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions (1) Philosophy is so much useless wank. (2) Nietzsche wrote philosophy. (3) Nietzsche wrote useless wank. Airtight argument.

(1) that is a philosophical argument

(2) you said philosophy is useless wank

(3) you're a retard

great work

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII (1) that is a philosophical argument (2) you said philosophy is useless wank (3) you're a retard great work

He was being sarcastic

He's a philosophy major

quote:

Originally posted by Lews He was being sarcastic He's a philosophy major

Was.

I've put that silliness behind me.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions Was. I've put that silliness behind me.

You're going to do something usful with your life now?




I'm either going to add Philosophy as a second major or a minor, myself.

What have you switched to?

I graduated a couple years back, with a Phil. major.

Looking back I wish I had gone for CS or CS + math.

Philosophy is mostly a bunch of impressive-sounding puffery with precious little intellectual content. That's my take anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions I graduated a couple years back, with a Phil. major. Looking back I wish I had gone for CS or CS + math.

Ahh. I was going to say, I thought you had graduated

Philosophy is always interesting, at least!

Couldn't sleep last night so I started re-reading Moby Dick. Been a while since I last read it...I love the way Melville writes. so good

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions I graduated a couple years back, with a Phil. major. Looking back I wish I had gone for CS or CS + math. Philosophy is mostly a bunch of impressive-sounding puffery with precious little intellectual content. That's my take anyway.

are you JBJ?

depends what type of philosophy you're doing really, and what you expect to get out of it. If you want to get a 'real job', then its not particularly helpful in areas outside academia, but this is more to do with social valuation of philosophy imo... I wouldn't consider it empty of intellectual content at all, but again, it depends where you're looking, and what your approach to it is...

If you don't want to stay in academia its silly to do just philosophy (hence politics/phil double for me), but at the same time I think that philosophy should be mandatory for any student at university. Teaches you basic critical thinking, which god knows everyone needs a bit more of

Watching Brief: Reflections on Human Rights, Law and Justice- Julian Burnside


Very interesting so far considering Australia hasn't progressed on their stance/treatment of asylum seekers.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII are you JBJ? depends what type of philosophy you're doing really, and what you expect to get out of it. If you want to get a 'real job', then its not particularly helpful in areas outside academia, but this is more to do with social valuation of philosophy imo... I wouldn't consider it empty of intellectual content at all, but again, it depends where you're looking, and what your approach to it is...

I once read that big companies hire philosophers quite regularly (applied ethicists, for example).

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII If you don't want to stay in academia its silly to do just philosophy (hence politics/phil double for me), but at the same time I think that philosophy should be mandatory for any student at university. Teaches you basic critical thinking, which god knows everyone needs a bit more of

I couldn't agree more with you.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII yeah but its not as simple as that, and suggesting it is IS the misreading, which is what I was saying

You (two) are cheating

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII I know you realised this, but blaming Nietzsche for people being too dumb to read him 'properly' is a bit silly

Indeed, but maybe this is one of the few dogmas I hold: if you want to explore new ways of thinking, you should always strive for clarity. Even though I'm well aware of how similar a fate Nietzsche shares with some of the people who have influenced the most (such as William James), at least in their case a misreading of their work makes them look empty (I'm the first to complain about Harris' misinterpretation of pragmatism because he takes everyone to be like a stereotyped version of Rorty), in Nietzsche's case it has the consistent tendency to be catastrophic.

I admit this argument is weak, not at all convincing, and a result of some pseudo-philosophical prejudices, as I think it would be too pretentious to even call myself anything close to a philosopher. But, as a scientist, I really think that's a terrible way to put forth one's thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII also, the nazis didn't use Nietzsche's work- he was expressly anti-nationalistic throughout his works: What they used is a VERSION of the will to power which his sister compiled from random sections of his diaries which he didn't want published, into a fascistic text... They never read any 'real' nietzsche as far as I'm concerned, reading only his sister's fascist tendencies.

Yeah, I know the backstory, his sister marrying an anti-Semitic loony who went all the way to Paraguay to help form a new Deutschland... and then failing epically

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I once read that big companies hire philosophers quite regularly (applied ethicists, for example). I couldn't agree more with you. You (two) are cheating Indeed, but maybe this is one of the few dogmas I hold: if you want to explore new ways of thinking, you should always strive for clarity. Even though I'm well aware of how similar a fate Nietzsche shares with some of the people who have influenced the most (such as William James), at least in their case a misreading of their work makes them look empty (I'm the first to complain about Harris' misinterpretation of pragmatism because he takes everyone to be like a stereotyped version of Rorty), in Nietzsche's case it has the consistent tendency to be catastrophic. I admit this argument is weak, not at all convincing, and a result of some pseudo-philosophical prejudices, as I think it would be too pretentious to even call myself anything close to a philosopher. But, as a scientist, I really think that's a terrible way to put forth one's thoughts. Yeah, I know the backstory, his sister marrying an anti-Semitic loony who went all the way to Paraguay to help form a new Deutschland... and then failing epically

HA! I didn't know that about paraguay, that's ridiculous! His sister was one crazy bitch- Nietzsche didn't leave the books to her, pretty sure she sued, or some other way managed to get them back from the guy he left them to, then messed it up all good & proper :l

I agree he can be misread, but as I said, its the readers fault, not his. This is especially true for Nietzsche because he didn't intend the plebs to get what he was saying. He was an elitist, and his works were written for people who were capable of understanding what he was 'really' saying... He wasn't trying to make himself understood, 1: since scientific/rational understanding is bereft of meaning, and 2: because he thought wasting words on the plebs was idiotic- One of my lecturers said it well: Nietzsche doesn't explain, he POINTS... Truth is beyond words, beyond rational systems; speaking about it destroys it (you'll love this Lira ); so he can't speak about it- He can only hedge around the issue, and if you as the reader are capable you can figure out what he's pointing at... This is why his method is MOSTLY destructive- Denying all polar theses (free will/determinism, idealism/scientific mechanism, and of course: Good & Evil etc), instead of constructive: (X is Good, and Y is how to find it)...

I completely get what you're saying, but in Nietzsche's case its simply beside the point. If you understand what he was trying to do, you wouldn't think he had done it badly
I appreciate that he's not overly accesible, but that's just the point!

anyway, this is exactly why the analytics hate continentals. Russel etc love saying the type of 'unclear' philosophy is 'poetry', or 'literature', and not philosophy (as i said to you the other day he levelled this against Bergson who had a semi-Nietzschean view of consciousness). But it depends what you think life is about : if it can be boiled down to systems we can talk about, or whether experience is more than that...

Sorry bout the rambling too Lira; I did an essay fairly similar to this not long ago so I have a lot of built up BS in my brain, and think you MIGHT be interested... Feel free to disregard all anyway

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII are you JBJ?

Slow Egos is slow

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Slow Egos is slow

true that

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII HA! I didn't know that about paraguay, that's ridiculous! His sister was one crazy bitch- Nietzsche didn't leave the books to her, pretty sure she sued, or some other way managed to get them back from the guy he left them to, then messed it up all good & proper :l

Read about it, the story is priceless!

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII I agree he can be misread, but as I said, its the readers fault, not his. This is especially true for Nietzsche because he didn't intend the plebs to get what he was saying. He was an elitist, and his works were written for people who were capable of understanding what he was 'really' saying...

Yeah, I remember he wasn't the most democratic person in history of humanity

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII He wasn't trying to make himself understood, 1: since scientific/rational understanding is bereft of meaning, and 2: because he thought wasting words on the plebs was idiotic- One of my lecturers said it well: Nietzsche doesn't explain, he POINTS... Truth is beyond words, beyond rational systems; speaking about it destroys it (you'll love this Lira )

"Speak and destroy"? I totally love it

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII so he can't speak about it- He can only hedge around the issue, and if you as the reader are capable you can figure out what he's pointing at... This is why his method is MOSTLY destructive- Denying all polar theses (free will/determinism, idealism/scientific mechanism, and of course: Good & Evil etc), instead of constructive: (X is Good, and Y is how to find it)...

Hmm....

*strokes chin*

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII I completely get what you're saying, but in Nietzsche's case its simply beside the point. If you understand what he was trying to do, you wouldn't think he had done it badly

I often try defend authors using the "blenders are not fans" argument: I can't complain an author doesn't do what he's not aiming for, the same way it's unfair to complain a blender can't cool down a room with its blades.

I'm not saying Nietzsche failed to do what he meant to (if it sounded like it, I apologise for being myself unclear). It's his project that I'm sceptical about... and maybe unfairly, as you say.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII anyway, this is exactly why the analytics hate continentals. Russel etc love saying the type of 'unclear' philosophy is 'poetry', or 'literature', and not philosophy (as i said to you the other day he levelled this against Bergson who had a semi-Nietzschean view of consciousness). But it depends what you think life is about : if it can be boiled down to systems we can talk about, or whether experience is more than that...

I do have some sympathy regarding continental philosophy because even though, as far as I know, Quine and the late Wittgenstein brought analytic philosophy to its knees and post-modernism imploded the continental tradition, Quine and Wittgenstein had fairly interesting views on language that weren't necessarily a disaster - however, Derrida's take on Saussure, which seems to have fuelled much of the post-modern critique of the continental tradition, was based on a misconception of Saussure's ideas (as a linguist, I'm much confident I know what Saussure was talking about)... so it was, in the end, extremely unfair.

Probably the appropriation of post-Nietzschean concepts by Derrida is one of the reasons for my anti-Nietzschean tendencies, but like I said before, I'm prepared to say this judgement is perhaps unfounded.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Sorry bout the rambling too Lira; I did an essay fairly similar to this not long ago so I have a lot of built up BS in my brain, and think you MIGHT be interested... Feel free to disregard all anyway

I demand a PDF!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'm not saying Nietzsche failed to do what he meant to (if it sounded like it, I apologise for being myself unclear). It's his project that I'm sceptical about... and maybe unfairly, as you say. I do have some sympathy regarding continental philosophy because even though, as far as I know, Quine and the late Wittgenstein brought analytic philosophy to its knees and post-modernism imploded the continental tradition, Quine and Wittgenstein had fairly interesting views on language that weren't necessarily a disaster - however, Derrida's take on Saussure, which seems to have fuelled much of the post-modern critique of the continental tradition, was based on a misconception of Saussure's ideas (as a linguist, I'm much confident I know what Saussure was talking about)... so it was, in the end, extremely unfair. Probably the appropriation of post-Nietzschean concepts by Derrida is one of the reasons for my anti-Nietzschean tendencies, but like I said before, I'm prepared to say this judgement is perhaps unfounded. I demand a PDF!

Love the blenders as fans analogy
yeah sorry, I think i misunderstood what you meant-- If you just don't agree etc thats fair enough really, I DID think you were more having a go at his method (ambiguity of points etc)
Derrida's an interesting figure in the divide for sure: There was huge controversy when he was offered a honorary doctorate from (i think) cambridge... An analytic philosopher said he didn't deserve it and there was a big uproar, since the faculty can't give one out unless people agree to it
Derrida didn't really consider himself a continental philosopher, but the analytics really hated him, and considered him a non-philosopher (not all of them of course, but its interesting that he was so disliked that a philosopher would attempt to deny him an honorary doctorate...)

Wittgenstein is really interesting because both sides claim him; he was one of the first 'analytic' philosophers (even before Russel really delineated 'good' and 'bad' philosophy), but in modern times most people consider him a kind of phenomenologist, so its not really as clear cut as some of the more extreme phenomenologists and analytic guys whose allegiances are really clear... Its one of the reason ol' ludwig remains intreresting though, as its an area of debate, but he no doubt would have considered the divide retarded

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Love the blenders as fans analogy

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Derrida didn't really consider himself a continental philosopher, but the analytics really hated him, and considered him a non-philosopher (not all of them of course, but its interesting that he was so disliked that a philosopher would attempt to deny him an honorary doctorate...)

So, what did he take himself to be?

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Wittgenstein is really interesting because both sides claim him; he was one of the first 'analytic' philosophers (even before Russel really delineated 'good' and 'bad' philosophy), but in modern times most people consider him a kind of phenomenologist, so its not really as clear cut as some of the more extreme phenomenologists and analytic guys whose allegiances are really clear... Its one of the reason ol' ludwig remains intreresting though, as its an area of debate, but he no doubt would have considered the divide retarded

The bit I like the most about him is when he notices he's getting too close to pragmatism (in his later years) and starts getting all worked up about it

Never thought of him as a phenomenologist. Even in the Tractatus?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira So, what did he take himself to be? The bit I like the most about him is when he notices he's getting too close to pragmatism (in his later years) and starts getting all worked up about it Never thought of him as a phenomenologist. Even in the Tractatus?

yeah sorry didn't make myself too clear-- I think Derrida considered himself neither, as he directly engaged with both sides, but analytics (who are more into what is and is not philosophy (even at my uni its ridiculous! Analytics be crazy!)) really didn't like him, and considered his work irrelivant (most likely similar to what you said about his stuff on the linguist, which might be entirely accurate, but its interesting how upset they get about it more than anything )

and about luddy, no, really only in investigations sorry, mostly because of his focus on everyday experience, private language arguments etc... for example, he thought that the existence of other minds was given before we came to prove it, since its written into our very experience of the world... Can't conceive of the world without other people etc... that's rough obviously, but is a very phenomenological approach to 'proving' things in the world... Basically he uses intersubjectivity and a kind of transcendental argument, which analytics generally don't like, but phenomenologists LOVEEEE long time!

If you're interested, Soren Overgaard has done a number of papers on Wittgenstein as a phenomenologist, mostly focusing around his take on mind (think he might have even done a whole book on it)-- I've read 2 of the papers, which are both really good, one is from 05 and is about witty & Levinas, and another is from 06, which I would recomend if you're interested
titled: "The Problem of Other Minds: Wittgenstein's Phenomenological Perspective." Compares Wittgensteing with Merleau-Ponty and others, and is pretty good
If you can't find it I can email it over to you too

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.