EPTi don't see why you feel entitled to make comments on a pretty widely acclaimed book.
What Are You Reading 2015 - Page 20
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't see why you feel entitled to make comments on a pretty widely acclaimed book. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On April 10 2015 08:16 Nyxisto wrote: And what about first person concious experience? Shouldn't we have turned into some kind of concious hivemind if we're just 'interacting processes?' I'm not sure I understand the worry. Why couldn't interacting processes be capable of internal differentiation? For example, the cells in your body. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On April 10 2015 09:25 oneofthem wrote: not going to continue this, i've made the arguments already. yes, and very eloquently too <3 On April 10 2015 09:22 Nyxisto wrote: Well I just wouldn't think that the conciousness would appear as absolute and distinct as it does if it wasn't in some way real. Why do I actually experience reality from my distinct perspective if "I" is just some arbitrary concept that doesn't actually exist? Seems like it totally contradicts everybody's most fundamental experience. I don't know, I can't speak for the other guy. I think consciousness is completely "real", it's just not a thing, because there aren't any things. I think you would readily agree that you are not identical with yourself over time, which is just to say that you are always changing. If you need consciousness to be a "thing" in order be real, this would be a problem - but since we know that there is no such "Being Nyxisto," but only a "becoming-Nyxisto,' it doesn't bother us  Basically I think the entire mind-body problem as it is pursued in analytic philosophy and pop-philosophy is just an artifact of a bad ontology. I don't claim to understand what the right ontology would be, but I do think that it is precisely armchair metaphysics, and not experimental science, which is called for here. Which is not to say that reading about neuroscience might not be useful in this endeavor. | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
| ||
|
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
I might tackle Benjamin sometime soon though, because my Cinema and Law teacher can't stop talking about him, and it sounds like something I might enjoy. Plus, I have a huge crush on her, so I don't want to look like an uneducated twit. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
You could also start with 'on the concept of history' | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On April 10 2015 09:46 dmnum wrote: These discussions always make me want to read more philosophy, but I always return to my bedtime stories after getting burned out from reading one philosophy book. I might tackle Benjamin sometime soon though, because my Cinema and Law teacher can't stop talking about him, and it sounds like something I might enjoy. Plus, I have a huge crush on her, so I don't want to look like an uneducated twit. Make sure you have some maconha for the ride if possible | ||
|
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
Edit: Thanks for the tip farva, I'll make sure I get some erva. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not that you shouldn't read benjamin but if you have a hard time making the forest from the trees there's other flavors to try. having a crush on cute instructor is always a huge motivating factor. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On April 10 2015 05:07 bookwyrm wrote: That article says the same "thing": "Metzinger, in the first sentence of the book, states his aim straightforwardly as "to convince us that there is no such thing as a self" because, "contrary to what most people believe, nobody has ever been or had a self"" All of this depends on the assumption that we have an ontology which is based on the idea of "objects" - it's assumed by the grammar of "Being" and "Having". You can "be" someTHING, you can "have" someTHING. But there aren't any things in the world, only processes: everything which we experience as an 'object' is only such in virtue of the fact that it is a process which is always reproducing itself more or less successfully (i.e. we mistakenly believe that *attractors* are *objects*). In formal logic you have these entities called "logical objects" which are empty pegs on which you can hang predicates (the "x" in F(x)), but there's nothing in a (correct) ontology to which this "logical object" corresponds (as Hegel showed in the beginning of his Phenomenology). So once you realize this, it's sort of an empty claim to say that there's no such "thing" as a self, because we already know that there's no such "thing" as a "thing." There are, however, *processes of becoming* and therefore there are "becoming-selves" - which is no different from the realization that all things are actually processes of becoming-themselves. which is not to say that he's wrong, just... duh! but maybe i should read the book Why are you arguing this with Hegel! https://www.academia.edu/6404712/Nietzsche_and_19th_Century_Linguistics | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
My phase was looking into Bertrand Russel's history of philosophy that my father had bought for himself, skimmed the first page, fell asleep, and haven't touched a lot of other philosophy since. As a student taking a class on critical theory, obviously I've read some essays, and there have been philosophy readings in some of my other classes too as well as trying to touch some of it now, but I always really regret not making a more concerted effort to have read a bit more when I was in that short and excited phase that lasted like two minutes. T_T; | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 10 2015 11:43 Zergneedsfood wrote: I'm always unhappy with the "philosophy" period I went through. I know everyone has their philosophy phases (some people go on for longer, some people are way more consistent, obviously, but I think everyone goes through at least a short phase). My phase was looking into Bertrand Russel's history of philosophy that my father had bought for himself, skimmed the first page, fell asleep, and haven't touched a lot of other philosophy since. As a student taking a class on critical theory, obviously I've read some essays, and there have been philosophy readings in some of my other classes too as well as trying to touch some of it now, but I always really regret not making a more concerted effort to have read a bit more when I was in that short and excited phase that lasted like two minutes. T_T; I think philosophy, for myself at least, is more like a quest you're on for your whole life, searching for meaning and answers to questions. I think of my own phases and I think I approached stuff that fit with my attitude at the time - maybe in your case Russel's particular book just didn't click for you and where you were as a person. Don't be too worried about not reading the classics or being in on all the heady discussion (I feel that way when people talk about stuff like Derrida or Deleuze or w/e). | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On April 10 2015 05:54 farvacola wrote: Ahh but you and I have the next best thing, which is the enchanter that already exists in our heads! He just needs the right incantations, naturally.  He's called Imagination isn't he ? Cool guy. Also oneofthem seems to be what JonnyBNoHo would become if he started to read books. I don't think the world needed that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
