Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: FeliX Leonhart on 2011-06-01 17:07:46
-
In terms of commonplace erudition each local individual, internalizing abstraction, should not neglect the criteria of utopian subjectivity!
-
In terms of commonplace erudition each local individual, internalizing abstraction, should not neglect the criteria of utopian subjectivity!
Whoever said that must have been really out of it.
-
.
-
In terms of commonplace erudition each local individual, internalizing abstraction, should not neglect the criteria of utopian subjectivity!
anyone willing to argue for or against this statement?
-
Does anyone know such complicated sentences? Knowing them is good for blowing the minds of the listeners:P
-
my dad was drunk often, and some of the things he'd say was:
"go get me a monkey before i smack your brother"
"if you ever turn gay, i'll stab you in the colon"
then again, the worst thing he did when he was drunk, he never said a word.
-
In terms of commonplace erudition each local individual, internalizing abstraction, should not neglect the criteria of utopian subjectivity!
I'm not native english so that sentence just blows my mind; and i find myself quite keen at english.
-
I'm not native english so that sentence just blows my mind; and i find myself quite keen at english.
The sentence blows your mind because it's absolute nonsense.
One of the favourite tricks of philosophical charlatans is to write sentences filled with big words that sound very intelligent indeed, but are actually meaningless. They hope that you'll be too awestruck to notice that the sentence is nonsense, or that you'll be embarrassed to admit that you can't make sense of it.
I'm sure that Mr Leonhart is not a charlatan himself, and is just making fun of these people. 8)
-
hehe >_>
-
One of the favourite tricks of philosophical charlatans is to write sentences filled with big words that sound very intelligent indeed, but are actually meaningless.
Paging Mr. Heidegger.
Actually, I'm willing to put just about any 20th century continental philosopher in my sights for this. Deconstructionists especially.
-
Actually, I'm willing to put just about any 20th century continental philosopher in my sights for this. Deconstructionists especially.
I love how your political and philosophical ideas have been shifting closer to mine over the past few months. ;D
-
.
-
Explain the last two posts for the Non-Educated.
20th century French philosophers wrote complete bullshit and hoped no-one would notice because they used lots of big words.
-
.
-
Posting in the most enlightening thead of all time.
Yup. You now know the dark secret behind (post)modern philosophy. Use this knowledge wisely, my child.
-
.
-
In terms of commonplace erudition each local individual, internalizing abstraction, should not neglect the criteria of utopian subjectivity!
I'm not native english so that sentence just blows my mind; and i find myself quite keen at english.
I am ashamed to admit I Wikipedia most of these words! Then I had a couple of drinks and viola! Made perfect non-sense :P Pertaining to the topic...
I am often intoxicated, the "phrases" that usually follow can not be understood by humans :)
-
Explain the last two posts for the Non-Educated.
Deconstructionists are a group of post-structuralist European (mostly French) philosophers who believe that, since the Greek tradition, Western philosophy has made excessively bold assumptions about the power of the 'logos' or sign. Deconstructionists have little faith in the ability of language to communicate, because any sign X only exists by virtue of being opposed to the sign not-X. They have a suspicion of dichotomies (where 'things' can be divided into pairs of broad categories) and, like post-modernists, reject the idea of teleology and 'grand narratives' (big narratives that transform lots of little concrete historical events into 'movements' towards an abstract goal. Marxism, where all material events lead to an inevitable revolution via dialectical materialism, and Christianity, where all things lead to the fruition of a prophecy, are both examples of 'grand narratives').
-
Deconstructionists are a group of post-structuralist European (mostly French) philosophers who believe that, since the Greek tradition, Western philosophy has made excessively bold assumptions about the power of the 'logos' or sign. Deconstructionists have little faith in the ability of language to communicate, because any sign X only exists by virtue of being opposed to the sign not-X. They have a suspicion of dichotomies (where 'things' can be divided into pairs of broad categories) and, like post-modernists, reject the idea of teleology and 'grand narratives' (big narratives that transform lots of little concrete historical events into 'movements' towards an abstract goal. Marxism, where all material events lead to an inevitable revolution via dialectical materialism, and Christianity, where all things lead to the fruition of a prophecy, are both examples of 'grand narratives').
for the Non-Educated
:o
-
.
-
Isn't a grand narrative just something for your followers and true believers to point at and say, "See, things will be okay if we just listen to the authorities and keep trying to kill the right people"?
I wouldn't quite say that. A grand narrative is just a sort of 'wrapper' of meaning around smaller events that poses them as precursors to some eventual end. It's actually fairly natural - human beings are good at finding patterns and chains of causality. If I see three events, I'm tempted to believe the first and the second led to the third. This isn't too far away from the thinking behind grand narratives, called teleologies.
Here's a good example of a teleology. If I look at lots of events in Syria over the past decade, and think of them in terms of how they eroded Gadafi's power base, I'm creating a teleology where all events in the past marched inexorably towards one in the future (Gadafi being deposed). If I then extend that teleology to make the Syrian issue a larger narrative of 'the birth of Arab democracy', and then go even further to suggest that all societies proceed inevitably towards democracy, then I am applying a grand narrative, and probably falsely.
Deconstructionism and postmodernism tend not to like grand narratives. The problem is they're also suspicious of almost anyone who finds a chain of causality, no matter how well-reasoned.
-
.
-
Bit of a tangent, but I don't think it's trivial to go from 'measurable biological data' to 'radical conclusions about politics and society'.
As for your example, I'm suspicious of the assumptions that
a) human beings can recognize 'stability' (pretty abstract) on a biological basis, and likewise react to it. How on earth would this mechanism work?
b) human beings haven't benefited from social stability for reproductive purposes
c) stability leads to extinction. Organisms only adapt because they aren't currently well-suited to their environment - 'adapting' doesn't provide 'strength' in its own right.
d) wars are about genetic strength rather than diplomatic, material and geographical advantages
Not to be rude, but if I were you, I wouldn't take my opinions from sci-fi writers. They write for entertainment, not for serious discussion. I'd also remember that practically every ideology has made a claim on 'measurable biological data' - even aristocratic societies looking at social animals like ants.
-
.