Interesting word****ery below, tsoa.

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

Though possibly over dependent on there being a coherent single self of which we express facets according to context, rather than self being an amorphous incoherent contradiction which is perpetually reconstructed.

[the splendor of antigone]

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

I called you a Kant.

When perusing AWIMB one should always endeavour to pronounce the posts, in one's head, in a broad cockney accent.

I once deconstructed the Kantian sublime. It's a shocking pile of elite white male intellectual self-back-patting aren't-we-great-ism. He was better when he was just telling people to be nice to each other.

[JohnnyPuma]

[the splendor of antigone]

Can I read it? :-)


I was always more of a Hegelian

[Ashberto]

Get an enclosed three-dimensional space bounded by six, or possibly more, solid plane surfaces, at least one of which will contain a portal to enable a temporary cessation of solidity of the boundaries to enable access.

[JohnnyPuma]

[Ashberto]

I see him as a man of science and technology who would only resort to technical vocabulary when describing the tools of the trade, in the course of implementing said technology to add material value to the world.

Any philosophy, OTOH, which cannot be articulated in terms understandable to an intelligent laymen is little more than a pile of ****house bantery imo.

[the splendor of antigone]

Quote:



A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in this way a human being is still not a self.... In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation; thus under the qualification of the psychical the relation between the psychical and the physical is a relation. If, however, the relation relates itself to itself, this relation is the positive third, and this is the self

[7evens]

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

Who wasn't entirely layman-friendly.

In philosophy, the boundaries of language are themselves an issue. Dismissing any abstract thought that doesn't cater to the layman, that doesn't expect everything to be simple and easy to understand, is the route of the anti-intellectual. That's the path the Daily Heil likes to tread.

You wouldn't expect your theoretical physics to be expressed entirely in terms your average bloke in the pub could understand, would you?

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

[the splendor of antigone]

[the splendor of antigone]

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

I'm not sure if I've still got a copy in any format available to modern digital technology...

It was a shocking pile of right-on lefty intellectual self-back-patting aren't-we-great-ism.

I've never quite got on with Hegel. I always find it incredible how much influence he had on 20th century thought. Some good ideas, but always seemed to push for a synthesis that wasn't entirely supported.

Was more into Heidegger, though obviously without the Nazism.

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

Lad.

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

Wenger out.

[JohnnyPuma]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

[Ashberto]

Your average bloke down the pub doesn't need to build a particle accelerator but it might help to explain historical materialism without him needing to take a three-year course in the vocabulary required to discuss it.

I'm not saying that there should be no vocabulary which describes specific concepts, but I am saying that intellectuals are frequently guilty of laziness in seeking metaphors which can easily convey the idea without using a made-up word every time.

It's not dumbing-down to avoid the high-priest exclusivity of language that is intended to preserve power for those who understand it.

"The law is for all!" - Aleister Crowley.

[Ashberto]

HA being an excellent example of a high priest preserving his power by use of exclusive language.

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

It's to do with precision, accuracy, logical coherence.

To use metaphor is to argue by similarity. Yes, it can be helpful in explanation of what you mean, but every metaphor has its limits and arguing by metaphor is simply shoddy work. That's the sort of crap theologians do.



Now Marx also had a political agenda - and that's a place where metaphor and rhetoric thrive. The lad could have done better there.

[redgunamo]

Otherwise, how are we to feel about football managers, for instance?

Back in the days when almost everyone could blandly claim a certain knowledge and understanding of the game and we all knew that it was all just a couple of dozen blokes trying to run off their hangovers, we didn't pay team bosses millions of pounds a year, did we.

[Ashberto]

expression.

As you suggested, the Kierkegaard piece might have lost something in translation but as it stands there it is spectacularly opaque and badly-written. : "a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation"? f**k off.

As someone who has to regularly explain technical concepts to a non-technical audience, sometimes a bit of effort goes a long way.

But your last point about Marx - yes, we agree on that.

[redgunamo]

understand what you're supposed to be doing but are happy that at least you appear to.

[the splendor of antigone]

That's why I brought it up. He was a proper banterer

[Ashberto]

The role of the senior civil servant was to convince the government that only *they*, the civil service, had the tools and the knowledge to run the country.

Then that ghastly pleb Thatcher came along with the notion that it could be contracted out to the lowest bidder. Good Lord!

[Ashberto]

When I'm involved in procuring system development I might be able to batter the supplier down to half their original quote because I know they're bull****ting and let them know that I know that.

Elsewhere in the company, where I'm not involved, the same supplier takes us to the cleaners because the people buying it don't have a clue what's actually happening.

[redgunamo]

the more money they have to pay us.

[redgunamo]

[redgunamo]

and not allowing any old bloke down the pub to chip in and damage the construct of long-held professional standards.

It's like asking a top chef for the recipe for the delicious starter you've just enjoyed: A whole lifetime of love, training and experience to produce this masterpiece but, hey, no worries, I'll just jot it down on this napkin for you. That is, if you don't happen to have an old fag packet handy :banghead:

[Berni]

but only ten people in the world know how to drive it.

Ultimately, the failure to communicate its ideas - preferring instead to take refuge in the comforting, elite circle jerk of sesquipedalian jargon - is a shameful abdication of responsibility on the part of philosophers and leaves the real world open to those of who are actually able to communicate ideas successfully - journalists, PR men, marketeers, politicians, etc, etc.

An idea is only as good as your ability to disseminate it. Everything else is just hot air. Language and the ability to use it properly - ie to make oneself understood - is all that matters.

So philosophy better get demotic or stay irrelevant. The world belongs to good communicators.

[Bergkamp's Brain]

[Classic Jorge]

I dunno, he comes back here and clogs the place up with Scandinavian dialectic and Hegelian posturing.

He's bantered us all off with utter Schopenhausery.

[eastgermanautos]

different things. the romantic movement is absolutely splendid, and kant added majorly to it. can't just be relying on longinus and that british guy, I forget his name, for one's understanding of the concept of the sublime. kant pioneered the notion.

[eastgermanautos]

rewarding. one has at least to follow the basic argument of something for it to pay off.

[eastgermanautos]

convince people. it is the spiritual contrapposto of the artist.