Serious Discussion about Existentialism - Page 2

On June 19 2008 02:54 zulu_nation8 wrote:
this discussion has potential

On June 19 2008 02:53 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
what?

He just denounced philosophy and generalized it into a single sentence. That guy has fucking amazing potential. He even got "word[ed]" for it. Which makes the statement even greater.. someone is dumb enough to agree.

On June 19 2008 03:18 nA.Inky wrote:
I'd love to talk philosophy, but I am one of those folks who hasn't read a lot of philosophy. I also know, however, that one can have very deep philosophical conversations without having read particular authors.

I'm slowly beginning to read some stuff, starting with Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, which is fantastic so far, and speaks to a lot of the thoughts I've had for some time, particularly in being critical of the subject and critical of our ability to know the world.

So, I think that if you are interested in a more meaningful discussion, you ought to erase the barriers to entry (the need to have read particular philosophers) and put the problems you want to discuss in language that is more accessible to this audience. I'd definitely be interested in this discussion if I knew in particular what you are comparing or interested in discussing.

On June 19 2008 03:18 nA.Inky wrote:
I'd love to talk philosophy, but I am one of those folks who hasn't read a lot of philosophy. I also know, however, that one can have very deep philosophical conversations without having read particular authors.

I'm slowly beginning to read some stuff, starting with Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, which is fantastic so far, and speaks to a lot of the thoughts I've had for some time, particularly in being critical of the subject and critical of our ability to know the world.

So, I think that if you are interested in a more meaningful discussion, you ought to erase the barriers to entry (the need to have read particular philosophers) and put the problems you want to discuss in language that is more accessible to this audience. I'd definitely be interested in this discussion if I knew in particular what you are comparing or interested in discussing.

On June 19 2008 03:22 crabapple wrote:




THIS is a comment that deserves a "word".

word

and yes, please explain existentialism at the very least, in a couple of sentences. it's not like catholicism is it? where only special people are allowed to explain it?

On June 19 2008 03:19 RavenWrath wrote:



people like you were/are the greatest philosophers of all times. No idea of anything but addicted to attention. So what to do?! Being bumptious enough to gather a small group of other people too dump to make something up themselve but lazy enough to prefer follwing your words to doing something of worth. Oh I forgot. To be a potent philosopher you have to be naiv enough to think that your bullshit changes anything/solves any problems/is of any worth at all. Imagine the hardcore philosphers even thought they reached anything in life right before the reaper gets them. Well I guess the right term is stubborn, not hardcore.

On June 19 2008 03:42 nA.Inky wrote:
If the goal is to get people to express their complete lack of knowledge and confusion, possibly so you can feel knowledgeable and well read, then congrats, you seem to have succeeded! If the goal is to get people's thoughts on some issue, you might try changing your approach.

On June 19 2008 03:42 nA.Inky wrote:I intend for this to be a purely constructive post and mean no offense. Like I said, I'd love to talk philosophy.

On June 19 2008 05:08 Newbistic wrote:
I haven't read any of Kierkergaard's stuff, but at least I think heidegger's ideas are full of shit.

Talking about unsubstantiated philosophical theories is just too fucking easy. Yes, i guess the world could be interpreted as "something" and "nothing" as heidegger believes it, but there is no practical purpose whatsoever in doing so. He basically holds the view that science isn't as important as the exploration of "dasein" which is somehow underneath all reality, despite the fact that science has lead to technology, which has in turn infinitely benefited mankind while his philosophy doesn't have any practical potential at all.

Having said that, my ultimate point is probably that heidegger's idea of transcendence, which is to embrace the existence of "nothing" and "dasein" is just too limited because there is no practical purpose. There are too fucking many philosophers who believe their views are worth half a piece of turd (and unfortunately, a lot of other people also see it that way -_-), but ultimately they're simply highly personal and highly personalized interpretations of the world developed for their own personal usage.

On June 19 2008 05:09 MiniRoman wrote:
I personally think existentialism is the ideal belief set for today's world. Live by what is right for you, own up to things you've chosen to do. Everything in your life is a product of yourself choosing to accept what is.Far too often people bitch about not having a choice when they are truly the only one who has the power to live their lives.