N
nomadologist
Guest
pssst Dial--I wasn't serious about this. it was a joke.
Please help.
- Thread starter Jaie Miller
- Start date
pssst Dial--I wasn't serious about this. it was a joke.
Bizarre but telling to suggest that the historical chronology of Descartes and Leibniz needs 'looking up' - by anyone. The chronology/philosophical relations from Leibniz to Christian Wolff to Kant is hardly an obscure period in the history of philosophy. To confuse Descartes' work/chronology with Leibniz is just ... odd (no matter what model of 'history' or 'textuality' you prefer).
Heidegger's thought was not "eventually swallowed up by the Nazis," he openly supported them from at least '33 onwards. There is his nasty, nasty rector's speech in favor of Hitler's regime, and plenty of other evidence, for starters. Or his refusal publicly to apologize. Or his letters later in life, which reveal a duplicitous character still unable to take responsibility for his 'error.' This is all well known to everyone who bothers to learn about it. However, the critique of historical linearity was well underway from many quarters before post-structuralism delivered more popular (though very valuable) versions of it - and much of that critique of linearity drew on the thought of Nietzsche and Heidegger. This isn't a particularly controversial point.
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
Of course, the extent to which Heidegger "sympathized" with the Nazis from "at least '33" onwards is the subject of much debate, as you may realize.
"well underway", eh? I would say that until the post-structuralists, people like Heidegger were essentially in league with MODERNISTS, and while post-modernism and post-structuralism developed alongside modernism in some key ways, it wasn't until Lyotard that you can really say anyone talked about "linearity" or "narratives" in the way we have been.
N
nomadologist
Guest
What is so weird about it? You say these things, but you don't substantiate them at all.
Maybe you spend too much time reading Leibniz and Descartes...
N
nomadologist
Guest
ever read Safranski's Heidegger bio?
P.S. I just looked up Leibniz and Descartes major publication dates--both are considered preeminent 17th century rationalists, as I thought. There's a whopping difference of about 30-40 years between their best known works. A truly significant amount of time during the Enlightenment, thanks so much for being a stickler there.
P.S. I just looked up Leibniz and Descartes major publication dates--both are considered preeminent 17th century rationalists, as I thought. There's a whopping difference of about 30-40 years between their best known works. A truly significant amount of time during the Enlightenment, thanks so much for being a stickler there.
Last edited:
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Yeah, such hard-wired knowledge has recently been isolated by molecular biologists and geneticists in the 150 millionth coded gene sequence TAG, AGT, GTA, in chromosone 1, it being bizarrely recessive among a majority of those who have studied philosophy, and yet dominant in the minority with an equally bizarre aversion to sarcasm and an obsessive-compulsive need to turn discussion threads into train wrecks
N
nomadologist
Guest
*chuckle*
I'm proud I didn't know Descartes' fucking b-day.
To think that this started because Swears posted an IM session... This is turning into a passage from a shitty Danielewski novel.
I'm proud I didn't know Descartes' fucking b-day.
To think that this started because Swears posted an IM session... This is turning into a passage from a shitty Danielewski novel.
N
nomadologist
Guest
*waits for Tate to log on and tell dssdnt that it was in fact 1934, not 1933, when Heidegger first expressed his Nazi-sympathies in public, and to mock my flagrant disregard for grammar and capitalization*
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
And now that we've dischronically moved into post--post-structuralism, we are only permitted to reconsider and revisit pre-structuralism, structuralism, and post-structuralism only when we correctly recall the sequence in which Heidegger blew out all of his cake candles on his 50th birthday.
Oh sure, hence the 'benign'
but it wouldn't hurt to give Swears some serious suggestions if the poor man really feels he has to work his way through the history of philosophy. Such as this...
I expect that, like its predecessor, the writing will be somewhat stodgier than its subjects, yet, nonetheless, engaged and clear.
And here's a link to the Preface:
http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/best8.htm
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
So ... instead, in the meantime, continue to ridicule it?
Dial said:
The Sopranos and Philosophy, Harry Potter and Philosophy, The Beatles and Philosophy, The Simpsons and Philosophy, Seinfeld and Philosophy, Star Wars and Philosophy, and The Matrix and Philosophy, and many more [all 2001-2007]. Or perhaps, "Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge Nudge, Think Think!", to assist the "poor man" on his way to enlightenment:
An emblematic approach can be found in Gary L. Hardcastle's article "Themes in Contemporary Analytical Philosophy as Reflected in the Work of Monty Python," a chapter in Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge Nudge, Think Think!, a 2006 book in the Open Court series. Hardcastle, an assistant professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, unpacks the 20th-century epistemological debate between verificationism (logical positivists like M. Schlick, R. Carnap, and A.J. Ayer), and semantic holism (W.V. Quine, Thomas Kuhn, and the later Wittgenstein) by using the famous Python parrot sketch and the Black Knight dismemberment fight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In the parrot sketch, John Cleese (Mr. Praline) attempts to return a dead parrot to the pet store where he purchased it, and Michael Palin (the shopkeeper) uses an infuriating casuistry to deny the deceased state of the parrot. Hardcastle has to do a fair amount of real philosophy before we can appreciate this point, and when he analyzes the sketch, it actually sheds some light on the philosophical debate.
Hardcastle explains that "Mr. Praline, the man attempting to return the parrot, is our verificationist, as is evidenced by his attempt to verify the death of the parrot by reference to experience, such as seeing that it's motionless, its falling to the ground when sent aloft, its being nailed to its perch, and so on. The shopkeeper is our philosophically more sophisticated holist. He knows that maintaining the truth of other statements, concerning for example the bird's strength and its affection for the fjords, will allow him to maintain that the parrot is alive."
Notice that the shopkeeper is like the famous Black Knight from Holy Grail, who, despite having his limbs successively chopped off, continues to define himself as the victor in his battle with King Arthur. The holist shopkeeper need never accept that the parrot is dead, if he keeps explaining the observation of its motionless state by appeal to increasingly elaborate theories.
Hardcastle explains that "Mr. Praline, the man attempting to return the parrot, is our verificationist, as is evidenced by his attempt to verify the death of the parrot by reference to experience, such as seeing that it's motionless, its falling to the ground when sent aloft, its being nailed to its perch, and so on. The shopkeeper is our philosophically more sophisticated holist. He knows that maintaining the truth of other statements, concerning for example the bird's strength and its affection for the fjords, will allow him to maintain that the parrot is alive."
Notice that the shopkeeper is like the famous Black Knight from Holy Grail, who, despite having his limbs successively chopped off, continues to define himself as the victor in his battle with King Arthur. The holist shopkeeper need never accept that the parrot is dead, if he keeps explaining the observation of its motionless state by appeal to increasingly elaborate theories.
Maybe like this thread, not dead, alive at the zero level ...