bullshit on stilts

"Don't post anything racist/misogynistic/pornographic, loli images, or any animated GIFs and you should be fine, haha!" The Raytownian

Moderator: xome

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:13 am

i probably didn't read far enough to explicitly say they were different.


OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
Refund
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by Refund » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:18 am

jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
yep.

I'm glad to hear this, you seems like a really intelligent guy and I wondered why you bothered talking to clemon at all given that you seemed smarter than that.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2772
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:40 am

clemon!09. wrote:i probably didn't read far enough to explicitly say they were different.


OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.
So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.

Closer than Spinoza - NO.

Phenomenology moves through philosophy one might argue as a direct opposite of Bergson / Spinoza et al - being critical of metaphysics. (And is immune to science.)
e.g. Heidegger's Dasein is nothing to do with psychology - the phenomenologist's objects likewise - or to do with physics.

Only with Deleuze and Badiou do we see a return to metaphysics within continental philosophy which was via Heidegger - Derrida et al critical of it. And the recent speculative realists are again attempting metaphysics.

Adorno in his introduction runs through the history of philosophy - shows where attempts to make a metaphysics or break out of positivism were attempted - yet failed.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2772
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:41 am

Refund wrote:
jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
yep.

I'm glad to hear this, you seems like a really intelligent guy and I wondered why you bothered talking to clemon at all given that you seemed smarter than that.
Makes me work... i know it seems crazy - like when i see RJ trying to explain poetic thought - i guess its a challenge... even if hopeless....

User avatar
Palimpsest
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:47 pm

Post by Palimpsest » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:48 am

Why don't you just read the rest now?

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:11 am

Refund wrote:
jliat wrote:You haven't hurt my feelings as now I and everyone else is used to your posting.
yep.

I'm glad to hear this, you seems like a really intelligent guy and I wondered why you bothered talking to clemon at all given that you seemed smarter than that.
vile.
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:14 am

jliat wrote:
clemon!09. wrote:i probably didn't read far enough to explicitly say they were different.


OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.
So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.

Closer than Spinoza - NO.

Phenomenology moves through philosophy one might argue as a direct opposite of Bergson / Spinoza et al - being critical of metaphysics. (And is immune to science.)
e.g. Heidegger's Dasein is nothing to do with psychology - the phenomenologist's objects likewise - or to do with physics.

Only with Deleuze and Badiou do we see a return to metaphysics within continental philosophy which was via Heidegger - Derrida et al critical of it. And the recent speculative realists are again attempting metaphysics.

Adorno in his introduction runs through the history of philosophy - shows where attempts to make a metaphysics or break out of positivism were attempted - yet failed.
well it's a meaningless question you asked anyway.

by your logic, 95% of the history of philosophy is "the direct opposite" of phenomenology. it's meaningless because you can find both affinities and contradictions, and how would you weight them?
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2772
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:17 am

clemon!09. wrote:
jliat wrote:
clemon!09. wrote:i probably didn't read far enough to explicitly say they were different.


OMFG MYSTERY SOLVED
but i am familiar enough with Berg. to know he's not a phrenologist and never claimed otherwise.
bergson i already replied to - he wasn't a phenomenologist but something like it
closer to phenomenology than, say, spinoza.
So you do get it. No wait you don't - no nothing like it.

Closer than Spinoza - NO.

Phenomenology moves through philosophy one might argue as a direct opposite of Bergson / Spinoza et al - being critical of metaphysics. (And is immune to science.)
e.g. Heidegger's Dasein is nothing to do with psychology - the phenomenologist's objects likewise - or to do with physics.

Only with Deleuze and Badiou do we see a return to metaphysics within continental philosophy which was via Heidegger - Derrida et al critical of it. And the recent speculative realists are again attempting metaphysics.

Adorno in his introduction runs through the history of philosophy - shows where attempts to make a metaphysics or break out of positivism were attempted - yet failed.
well it's a meaningless question you asked anyway.

What question? You asked if Bergson was like a Phenomenologist - i answered in some detail. No he is not - and you made the mistake in claiming similarity. easy done if you dont read around the text.

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:19 am

there are some affinities - i was pointing out specific ones.
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:19 am

easy done if you don't read around the text.
nothing you said is earth shatteringly esoteric. it was a bad example choosing spinoza .

but yeah, i don't think he's not like the absolute foil of phenomenology, in any sense
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2772
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:50 am

clemon!09. wrote:
easy done if you don't read around the text.
nothing you said is earth shatteringly esoteric. it was a bad example choosing spinoza .


But you CAN understand his philosophy.

Ha ha ha....

clemon!09. wrote:
but yeah, i don't think he's not like the absolute foil of phenomenology, in any sense


I think you got that wrong... he is used by some of the OOO / OOP mob precisely for that...


OOP claim phenomenologists cant know the REAL only the human correlation - Spinoza and his Principle of Sufficient reason claims an absolute knowledge of the real.

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:56 am

oh well it was a bad example.

no i am not sure if i could understand spinoza. can you??

actually i read the ethics, maybe? it didn't effect me anyway.
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
clemon!09.
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 pm

Post by clemon!09. » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:57 am

I think you got that wrong... he is used by some of the OOO / OOP mob precisely for that...
perhaps, perhaps not.

it was a bad example...
I'm just going to fuck with you... so get used to it man

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2772
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:50 am

jliat wrote:...


OOP claim phenomenologists cant know the REAL only the human correlation - Spinoza and his Principle of Sufficient reason claims an absolute knowledge of the real.
That's clearly my mistake - i'm referencing Leibniz - and PSR - sorry. And NOT Spinoza

As for phenomenology and 95% of philosophy - it was very recent, though important. But it depends on what you mean - the so called medieval scholastic philosophers were around for 200-300 years - modern philosophy only beginning with Descartes and Kant really. More like Kant as he didn't use dogmatic metaphysics.

Spinoza was still a metaphysician - though. So nothing like phenomenology in my opinion.

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 13337
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Post by xdugef » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:27 am

Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests