EPTAlso:
A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
We know for sure only B.
A and C can't be proven right nor wrong.
Philosophy of Knowledge - Page 2
| Blogs > Oreo7 |
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
Also: We know for sure only B. A and C can't be proven right nor wrong. | ||
|
dapanman
United States316 Posts
On June 27 2011 17:06 Torte de Lini wrote: I prefer you disagree than agree with me :3! I originally hated Foucalt, thinking it was just religious shit about confession, but the reality of it all is that it's not really religious related, but rather a form of identifying oneself via confession and truth, leading to further knowledge about yourself and your own life. But I'm poorly paraphrasing. Derrida, for me, is throwing too much that I know and completely approaching every single basic aspect of society's mainstream views in a whole new way I can't conceive yet. Too much man, just too much. I'm not sure what bit of Foucault you are referencing but it sounds like History of Sexuality. Am I close? The part in there about confession, I agree, has nothing to do with religion. I'm pretty sure Foucault wasn't religious at all, he may have even been homosexual from what I remember. In HoS Vol. I, his reference to confession was more of a critical one, I think he hates that we can 'identify ourselves.' He seemed to blame confession for the loss of our reverence to truth; we no longer find truth in experiences, artisans and craftsmen cease to exist and we get technicians instead. Truth is replaced by knowledge and we desire to accumulate knowledge rather than experience truth. Basically, truth is artistic and knowledge is scientific; being a Continental he will go for the art every day. As for Derrida, the best laugh I ever got from Searle was saying "So he's the philosophical equivalent of dancing in a flower field and calling it science?" | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
I have the PDF for it if you want. He talks about duties towards self, exomologesis, exagoreusis, Christianity and Confession. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
Let me see if I can get you the PDF. edit: or is it Politics of Truth | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
Politics of Truth - Confession and Christianity. | ||
|
dapanman
United States316 Posts
Edit: I see you found it, reading. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On June 27 2011 17:33 dapanman wrote: I recall a section in Vol. III of History of Sexuality regarding confession and the self. You probably read one of the lectures he gave at Cal right before he died (i.e. not published by him). Edit: I see you found it, reading. Nah, this was during my Sociology classes awhile back, so I guess my memory is hazy. I posted the PDF, can you see it? Edit: oh terrific! Let me know what you think. It's nearly 5 a.m here, so I might be asleep. But I would love to hear what you think! | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it. A religeous point of view however is that everyone is under the servitude of god, and there is nothing special about life other than that it is the prelude and chance to prove yourself for the eternal afterlife. I know which one I find more uplifting. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it. This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be... | ||
|
dapanman
United States316 Posts
On June 27 2011 17:35 Torte de Lini wrote: Nah, this was during my Sociology classes awhile back, so I guess my memory is hazy. I posted the PDF, can you see it? Edit: oh terrific! Let me know what you think. It's nearly 5 a.m here, so I might be asleep. But I would love to hear what you think! I actually realized I've read this before, skimmed it again. Even here Foucault references the issue he had with confession, but instead of pinning it all on confession, he elaborates and shows that we've been using confession wrong in the modern age. We lost the ritual self-sacrifice (the art if you will) of confession while keeping the Catholic obligation to 'tell the truth.' We kept the telling the truth part because its fun. We like the hermeneutics, the interpretation of ourselves, we like talking about ourselves and we like hearing about others. Reality television is a perfect example; we like scandal and drama, we like to be intimate and to gossip. All of these things have the exagoreusis, but we remove the self-sacrifice by divorcing these acts from sin. Confession in this way is no longer self-sacrificing because there isn't the exomologesis, the ritual. Confession is removed from its context in religion and has lost all its power of revealing our being (teasing Foucault's Heideggerian influences). On June 27 2011 17:40 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people quoting sources rather than discussing the contents of what they have read. That's because we've read. :| | ||
|
Sarmis
United States58 Posts
Actually, scrap that. Get Russell's History of Western Philosophy, and read that, as a basic primer. You aren't going to believe in some kind of god unless you really believe, so there is no point in Pascal's wager. You can't talk yourself into a leap of faith, so instead go and read a Kaufman translation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. You won't understand what it really means, but you'll enjoy it and think you do. Than read Kaufman's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. After that, you should be able to know what you should read next, based on whatever you are currently interested at the time (which is the reason for reading the survey). Stay far, far away from Derrida and Foucault until you have a much much bigger background in philosophy. In fact, just stay away from Derrida entirely. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On June 27 2011 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote: This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be... There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination. I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy? On June 27 2011 18:00 dapanman wrote: That's because we've read. :| Discussing the points shows you understand the issue. Throwing in famous philosophers and books titles only shows that you are trying to back your argument by using heavyweight names. So you've read, but have you thought? ps: I can quote you Bertrand Russel and Dawkins for days if that makes you happy. | ||
SirJolt
the Dagon Knight4016 Posts
On June 27 2011 16:55 Torte de Lini wrote: Nah, I love Derrida. I actually find Derria enlightening, shattering to the very core concepts I have ever considered about the basics of things: signs, symbols, words even. I'm not going to make any more impact in the thread, I fear, but I'd highly recommend reading some de Saussure and, if you have the time, maybe some Worf. They're both fundamentally fascinating with approaches to language  | ||
|
Sarmis
United States58 Posts
On June 27 2011 18:10 deathly rat wrote: There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination. I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy? Discussing the points shows you understand the issue. Throwing in famous philosophers and books titles only shows that you are trying to back your argument by using heavyweight names. So you've read, but have you thought? I assure you that people who read philosophy have thought quite a lot about what they were reading. And after we've put in a lot of time reading the relevant philosophers and discussing them with people who have read them, it's kind of a waste of time to discuss things with people who just want to sit around and pontificate their deep thoughts, which are neither original or deep. There aren't shortcuts to actual understanding. | ||
|
wonderwall
New Zealand695 Posts
| ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On June 27 2011 18:32 Sarmis wrote: I assure you that people who read philosophy have thought quite a lot about what they were reading. And after we've put in a lot of time reading the relevant philosophers and discussing them with people who have read them, it's kind of a waste of time to discuss things with people who just want to sit around and pontificate their deep thoughts, which are neither original or deep. There aren't shortcuts to actual understanding. I don't find "you should read kant!" "you should read Derrida!" "you should read Descartes!" particularly enlightening or interesting. More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background. I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. (btw, saying that you understand doesn't really prove anything) | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
My view of the OP is that what you are missing from your rational view of life is how incredibly unlikely your existence in the world was (and how lucky you are to have it), and how you are not under the servitude of some higher being. Life is an incredible chance to do whatever it is you want to do, and its the only chance you'll ever get so you better make the most of it. This is a great point of view for when you are young. But what after you did everything that you wanted to do and you know most of your life is done. What then? Don't you want to have some hope of something bigger than what little thing you did in life? You think that creating a family and having a job is the ultimate thing in life? It better not be... There are more worthwhile things to do with your life than you can ever have time for, much more than making a family and having a job. It's really up to your own imagination. I'm curious as to what it is that you are so looking forward to after you die. What is it that you can do then that you can't do now? Are you going to have happiness pumped into you like heroin? Or maybe you always wanted to have super-powers and you can never be happy without them? Are people waiting for the after life just procrastinating and waiting to be make themselves happy? I don't hope for anything in specific, but I do want to hope that something is going to happen. It's part of believing. Also, I have many (aggressive) atheists around me, that constantly want to engage me into discussions about religion just to prove how naive I am, but what I have learned about them is that they are more empty inside than I am. I better be naive and have hope in something that gives me blindly strength than to pretend I know the truth and be completely depressed and sad about life in general. | ||
|
Sarmis
United States58 Posts
I remember reading one of his papers, that was pretty much entirely "blah blah blah but no blah blah blah but no blah blah blah but no you can't understand what I'm saying anyways and it has no meaning" | ||
| ||
