Hype's Philosophy Thread

off-topic conversation unrelated to Jane's Addiction
Message
Author
User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Hype's Philosophy Thread

#1 Post by nausearockpig » Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:19 pm

Here we go, a nice little thread just for these types of discussions - rather than watching other threads spiral into unrelated attempts at discussion...

Go forth...

User avatar
kv
Posts: 7902
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#2 Post by kv » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:33 pm

Will never stop him...much like making a kv sass thread...worthless

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#3 Post by nausearockpig » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:47 pm

kv wrote:Will never stop him...much like making a kv sass thread...worthless
Seems the beasts can't be caged eh?

User avatar
perkana
Posts: 5372
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:28 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#4 Post by perkana » Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:07 pm

Why not pm instead? That's the best way to have conversations for me. Hi clickie :wave:

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#5 Post by nausearockpig » Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:11 am

perkana wrote:Why not pm instead? That's the best way to have conversations for me. Hi clickie :wave:
This way lots of us can be involved. Also I hate PMs.. :bigrin:

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#6 Post by Bandit72 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:38 am

So. What subject shall we start with? Let's go for something off the wall which doesn't involve religion or politics.....although i do enjoy religious discourse.

Japhy
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:35 am

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#7 Post by Japhy » Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:45 am

I'm not even remotely clever enough to contribute to these kind of discussions! Whenever it all goes off on other threads, i try to keep up by googling every second word but lose the will pretty quickly...

If it's not related to music, skateboarding or... or... no, pretty much just those two, I'm not much use.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#8 Post by nausearockpig » Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:52 am

Japhy wrote:I'm not even remotely clever enough to contribute to these kind of discussions! Whenever it all goes off on other threads, i try to keep up by googling every second word but lose the will pretty quickly...

If it's not related to music, skateboarding or... or... no, pretty much just those two, I'm not much use.
:lolol:
Some of the conversations can be fairly interesting but can require a fair bit of effort to read (& to be honest most of the time I can't be fucked). I remember one convo (maybe on xiola) that I had to really think hard about what I was trying to get out of my brain and onto the screen.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#9 Post by Bandit72 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:12 am

I like them. For me it's like being back at school sometimes, you're always learning. It's interesting to read stuff by someone who obviously enjoys and is well educated on philosophy.

Everybody's Friend
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:10 am

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#10 Post by Everybody's Friend » Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:32 am

“They muddy the water, to make it seem deep.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Back in Santiago.

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#11 Post by Larry B. » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:28 am

I don't think "conversations" sit well with Mr. Hype. "Writing competitions?" Sure!

The abbreviated version of this thread would be as follows:

Random ANR member: "what do you think of X? I think A, but I understand B. C is just ridiculous."

Hype: "X, Y and Z are interconnected, and A is ergo just as stupid as C, and B is only for idiots. It's actually GHF, as proposed by [old guy on a painting] back in 37 BC"

Random ANR member: "what you're on about? GHF doesn't really have to do much with X"

Hype: "[sarcastic remark], [I have I've read more books than you about this, so I win and I'm not gonna discuss it any further because you're an idiot]"

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#12 Post by mockbee » Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:09 am



"makes me sooooooooooo jealous!" :lolol:





:noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#13 Post by Hype » Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:25 am


User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#14 Post by Hype » Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:28 am

Everybody's Friend wrote:“They muddy the water, to make it seem deep.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:Why do I know a few things more than other people? Why in fact am I so clever? I have never pondered over questions that are not really questions. I have never wasted my strength. Of religious difficulties for instance I have no experience. I have never felt what it is to feel "sinful”. In the same way I completely lack any reliable criterion for understanding what constitutes a prick of conscience: from all accounts, a prick of conscience does not seem to be a very respectable thing. I should hate to leave an action of mine in the lurch; I prefer to disregard adverse outcomes, the consequences, out of the question of the value of an action. When faced by unpleasant consequences one is too ready to abandon the proper standpoint from which an action ought to be considered. A prick of conscience strikes me as a sort of "evil eye”. To honour our failures precisely because it has failed—this is much more in keeping with my morality. ”God”, "the immortality of the soul”, "salvation”, "the beyond”—even as a child I had no time for such notions, I do not waste any time upon them—maybe I was never childish enough for that? I have not come to know atheism as a result of logical reasoning and still less as an event in my life: in me it is a matter of instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questioning, too high spirited to be satisfied with such clumsy answers. God is a too palpably clumsy answer; an answer which shows a lack of delicacy towards us thinkers—fundamentally, even a crude prohibition to us: you shall not think! I am much more interested in another question—a question upon which the "salvation of humanity” depends to a far greater degree than it does upon any piece of theological curiosity: I refer to nutrition. For ordinary purposes it may be formulated as follows: "How precisely must you feed yourself so as to be able to attain to the maximum of strength, of virtu in the Renaissance style—of virtue free from moralic acid”? My experiences in regard to this matter have been as bad as they possibly could be; I am surprised that I set myself this question so late in life and that it took me so long to draw "rational” conclusions from these experiences. Only the absolute worthlessness of German education—its "idealism—can to some extent explain how it was that precisely in this matter I was so backward that my ignorance was almost saintly. This "education” which from first to last teaches one to lose sight of actual things and to hunt after thoroughly problematic and so-called ideal aims as for instance "classical education”—as if it were not hopeless from the start to try to unite "classical” and "German” in one concept. It is even a little comical—try and imagine a "classically educated” citizen of Leipzig! Indeed I can say that up to a very mature age my food was entirely bad—expressed morally it was "impersonal”, "selfless”, "altruistic” for the salvation of cooks and all other fellow Christians. It was through the cooking in vogue at Leipzig for instance together with my first study of Schopenhauer (1865) that I earnestly renounced my "Will to Live”. To spoil one’s stomach by absorbing insufficient nourishment—this problem seemed to my mind solved with admirable felicity by the above mentioned cookery. (It is said that in the year 1866 changes were introduced into this department.) But as to German cookery in general—what has it not got on its conscience! Soup before the meal (still called alla tedesca in the Venetian cookery books of the sixteenth century); meat boiled to shreds, vegetables cooked with fat and flour; the degeneration of puddings into paper-weights! And if you add to this the absolutely bestial drinking habits during meals of the ancients and not only of the ancient Germans you will understand the origin of the German spirit—that is to say, in bad stomachs. German sprit is indigestion; it can digest nothing. But even English diet which in comparison with German and indeed with the French seems to me to constitute a "return to Nature”—that is to say to cannibalism—is profoundly opposed to my own instincts. It seems to me to give the spirit heavy feet— the feet of English women. The best cuisine is that of Piedmont. Alcoholic drinks do not agree with me; a single glass of wine or beer a day is sufficient to turn life into a vale of tears for me;—in Munich I find my antipodes. Although I admit that this knowledge came to me somewhat late, it already formed part of my experience even as a child. As a boy I believed that the drinking of wine and the smoking of tobacco were at first but the vanities of youths and later merely bad habits. Maybe the wine of Naumburg was partly responsible for this poor opinion. In order to believe that wine makes cheerful I should have had to be a Christian—in other words I should have had to believe in what to my mind is an absurdity. Strange to say, whereas small quantities of alcohol taken with plenty of water succeed in making me feel out of sorts, large quantities turn me almost into a sailor. Even as a boy I showed my bravado in this respect. To compose a long Latin essay in one night, to revise and recopy it, to aspire with my pen to emulation of the exactitude and the terseness of my model Sallust and to pour a few swigs of booze over it all—this kind of approach was, while I was a pupil at the venerable old school of Pforta, not in the least out of keeping with my physiology nor perhaps that of Sallust — however much it may have been alien to dignified Pforta. Later on, towards the middle of my life I grew more and more opposed to alcoholic drinks: an opponent of vegetarianism from experience—just like Richard Wagner who converted me back to meat, I cannot stress enough that more spiritual natures are advised to abstain absolutely from alcohol. Water is sufficient. I prefer those places where in all directions one has opportunities of drinking from free flowing founts (Nice, Turin, Sils). In vino veritas: it seems that here once more I am at variance with the rest of the world about the concept "Truth”—with me spirit moves above the waters. Here are a few more indications as to my morality. A heavy meal is digested more easily than an inadequate one. The first principle of a good digestion is that the stomach should become come into action as a whole. A man ought therefore to know the size of his stomach. For the same reasons all those interminable meals should be avoided which I call interrupted sacrificial feasts and which are to be had at any table d’hôte. Nothing should be eaten between meals, coffee should be given up—coffee makes one gloomy. Tea is beneficial only in the morning. It should be taken in small quantities but very strong. It may be very harmful and indispose you for the whole day if it be taken the least bit too weak. Everybody has his own standard in this matter often between the narrowest and most delicate limits. In an enervating climate tea is not a good beverage with which to start the day: an hour before taking it, it is advisable to drink a cup of thick oil free cocoa. Remain seated as little as possible, put no trust in any thought that is not born in the open whilst moving freely about— nor when the muscles are not in festive mood. All prejudices originate in the intestines. A sedentary life as I have already said elsewhere— is the real sin against the holy spirit.

Everybody's Friend
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:10 am

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#15 Post by Everybody's Friend » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:27 am

Hype wrote:
Everybody's Friend wrote:“They muddy the water, to make it seem deep.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:Why do I know a few things more than other people? Why in fact am I so clever? I have never pondered over questions that are not really questions. I have never wasted my strength. Of religious difficulties for instance I have no experience. I have never felt what it is to feel "sinful”. In the same way I completely lack any reliable criterion for understanding what constitutes a prick of conscience: from all accounts, a prick of conscience does not seem to be a very respectable thing. I should hate to leave an action of mine in the lurch; I prefer to disregard adverse outcomes, the consequences, out of the question of the value of an action. When faced by unpleasant consequences one is too ready to abandon the proper standpoint from which an action ought to be considered. A prick of conscience strikes me as a sort of "evil eye”. To honour our failures precisely because it has failed—this is much more in keeping with my morality. ”God”, "the immortality of the soul”, "salvation”, "the beyond”—even as a child I had no time for such notions, I do not waste any time upon them—maybe I was never childish enough for that? I have not come to know atheism as a result of logical reasoning and still less as an event in my life: in me it is a matter of instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questioning, too high spirited to be satisfied with such clumsy answers. God is a too palpably clumsy answer; an answer which shows a lack of delicacy towards us thinkers—fundamentally, even a crude prohibition to us: you shall not think! I am much more interested in another question—a question upon which the "salvation of humanity” depends to a far greater degree than it does upon any piece of theological curiosity: I refer to nutrition. For ordinary purposes it may be formulated as follows: "How precisely must you feed yourself so as to be able to attain to the maximum of strength, of virtu in the Renaissance style—of virtue free from moralic acid”? My experiences in regard to this matter have been as bad as they possibly could be; I am surprised that I set myself this question so late in life and that it took me so long to draw "rational” conclusions from these experiences. Only the absolute worthlessness of German education—its "idealism—can to some extent explain how it was that precisely in this matter I was so backward that my ignorance was almost saintly. This "education” which from first to last teaches one to lose sight of actual things and to hunt after thoroughly problematic and so-called ideal aims as for instance "classical education”—as if it were not hopeless from the start to try to unite "classical” and "German” in one concept. It is even a little comical—try and imagine a "classically educated” citizen of Leipzig! Indeed I can say that up to a very mature age my food was entirely bad—expressed morally it was "impersonal”, "selfless”, "altruistic” for the salvation of cooks and all other fellow Christians. It was through the cooking in vogue at Leipzig for instance together with my first study of Schopenhauer (1865) that I earnestly renounced my "Will to Live”. To spoil one’s stomach by absorbing insufficient nourishment—this problem seemed to my mind solved with admirable felicity by the above mentioned cookery. (It is said that in the year 1866 changes were introduced into this department.) But as to German cookery in general—what has it not got on its conscience! Soup before the meal (still called alla tedesca in the Venetian cookery books of the sixteenth century); meat boiled to shreds, vegetables cooked with fat and flour; the degeneration of puddings into paper-weights! And if you add to this the absolutely bestial drinking habits during meals of the ancients and not only of the ancient Germans you will understand the origin of the German spirit—that is to say, in bad stomachs. German sprit is indigestion; it can digest nothing. But even English diet which in comparison with German and indeed with the French seems to me to constitute a "return to Nature”—that is to say to cannibalism—is profoundly opposed to my own instincts. It seems to me to give the spirit heavy feet— the feet of English women. The best cuisine is that of Piedmont. Alcoholic drinks do not agree with me; a single glass of wine or beer a day is sufficient to turn life into a vale of tears for me;—in Munich I find my antipodes. Although I admit that this knowledge came to me somewhat late, it already formed part of my experience even as a child. As a boy I believed that the drinking of wine and the smoking of tobacco were at first but the vanities of youths and later merely bad habits. Maybe the wine of Naumburg was partly responsible for this poor opinion. In order to believe that wine makes cheerful I should have had to be a Christian—in other words I should have had to believe in what to my mind is an absurdity. Strange to say, whereas small quantities of alcohol taken with plenty of water succeed in making me feel out of sorts, large quantities turn me almost into a sailor. Even as a boy I showed my bravado in this respect. To compose a long Latin essay in one night, to revise and recopy it, to aspire with my pen to emulation of the exactitude and the terseness of my model Sallust and to pour a few swigs of booze over it all—this kind of approach was, while I was a pupil at the venerable old school of Pforta, not in the least out of keeping with my physiology nor perhaps that of Sallust — however much it may have been alien to dignified Pforta. Later on, towards the middle of my life I grew more and more opposed to alcoholic drinks: an opponent of vegetarianism from experience—just like Richard Wagner who converted me back to meat, I cannot stress enough that more spiritual natures are advised to abstain absolutely from alcohol. Water is sufficient. I prefer those places where in all directions one has opportunities of drinking from free flowing founts (Nice, Turin, Sils). In vino veritas: it seems that here once more I am at variance with the rest of the world about the concept "Truth”—with me spirit moves above the waters. Here are a few more indications as to my morality. A heavy meal is digested more easily than an inadequate one. The first principle of a good digestion is that the stomach should become come into action as a whole. A man ought therefore to know the size of his stomach. For the same reasons all those interminable meals should be avoided which I call interrupted sacrificial feasts and which are to be had at any table d’hôte. Nothing should be eaten between meals, coffee should be given up—coffee makes one gloomy. Tea is beneficial only in the morning. It should be taken in small quantities but very strong. It may be very harmful and indispose you for the whole day if it be taken the least bit too weak. Everybody has his own standard in this matter often between the narrowest and most delicate limits. In an enervating climate tea is not a good beverage with which to start the day: an hour before taking it, it is advisable to drink a cup of thick oil free cocoa. Remain seated as little as possible, put no trust in any thought that is not born in the open whilst moving freely about— nor when the muscles are not in festive mood. All prejudices originate in the intestines. A sedentary life as I have already said elsewhere— is the real sin against the holy spirit.
lol - I knew that quoting Nietzsche would drag you out of your foxhole. :wiggle:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#16 Post by Hype » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:44 am

It's funny because I barely consider Nietzsche a philosopher. There are some interesting comparisons between Nietzsche and Spinoza in a few recent books, but other than that, the closest I get to continental philosophy most of the time is some vague nod toward German Idealism or a quip about how strange the French spinozists are (Deleuze, Balibar, Negri, etc). I'm mostly analytically trained, and approach my work in the history of philosophy more or less that way. I also insist that I'm a philosopher first and a historian second, even though my work focuses on stuff between about 1550-1700. My concern isn't genealogy or historiography, but dealing with the quality of arguments, some of which happen to be historical in origin (but perhaps still relevant). However, I also think that excellent work in the history of philosophy realm requires an exceptionally broad set of skills compared with other areas of philosophy. But I say this only because I know you have some familiarity with the terrain.

As for this thread... what the fuck? :lol:

Everybody's Friend
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:10 am

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#17 Post by Everybody's Friend » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:51 am

Hype wrote:It's funny because I barely consider Nietzsche a philosopher. There are some interesting comparisons between Nietzsche and Spinoza in a few recent books, but other than that, the closest I get to continental philosophy most of the time is some vague nod toward German Idealism or a quip about how strange the French spinozists are (Deleuze, Balibar, Negri, etc). I'm mostly analytically trained, and approach my work in the history of philosophy more or less that way. I also insist that I'm a philosopher first and a historian second, even though my work focuses on stuff between about 1550-1700. My concern isn't genealogy or historiography, but dealing with the quality of arguments, some of which happen to be historical in origin (but perhaps still relevant). However, I also think that excellent work in the history of philosophy realm requires an exceptionally broad set of skills compared with other areas of philosophy. But I say this only because I know you have some familiarity with the terrain.

As for this thread... what the fuck? :lol:
An MA = some familiarity, I guess. :boobs:

I knew your thoughts on Nietzsche, so I went to him on purpose. :lol:

I fully admit I've forgotten 2/3 of what once had ready-to-hand (get it??) on a day to day basis back when I was fully immersed but a handful of really core ideas / books really fundamentally have shaped my "worldview" and so I carry them with me in all my interactions / experiences away from the tower. :wave:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#18 Post by Hype » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:12 am

No shame in leaving the tower... you have to be a certain kind of person to get stuck up here, and there's no real reason for anyone else to bother. I see too many people try to get into academia for what I think aren't very good reasons. Things like: "My sibling is at Harvard doing a PhD so I'm going to try too." or "I don't know what else to do with my degree." or "I want to be a professor." All of these are both far too common and not particularly good reasons for pursuing graduate work, which is why it's nice to have terminal MAs, where you can get out before sinking half a decade into something only to realize it's not what you want to do (something I've seen happen in my time now... very depressing imho).

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#19 Post by Bandit72 » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:11 am

Someone please start a discussion :bored:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6883
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#20 Post by Hype » Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:04 am

Bandit72 wrote:Someone please start a discussion :bored:
On this note: I actually believe (on the basis of some arguments) that there's only one possible way the universe could have been and can be now and will be in the future, and that everything is absolutely 100% logically and causally necessary.

Very few philosophers hold a view about causality that strong. It does strange things to moral responsibility and how we think about human action. Some philosophers might accuse me of fatalism (everything is fated) and nihilism (so nothing matters), since if everything is necessary, it seems we can't change things. This is, technically, true. But in practice, the neat thing about living things (in fact, *the* thing about living), is that they respond to their environments in multifarious (many different) attempts to get things to go ways they want, with greater or lesser success. This can drive progress (just as easily as regress), because we don't know precisely what will happen tomorrow -- the causal nexus is too complicated to see clearly (like infinite chess pieces on an infinitely large chess board, with each piece operated by an infinitely complex decision-machine).

There... does that spark any interest? :noclue:

Post Reply