Hoodie Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 I don't really like the Platonic hierarchical view. Like there is some ultimate reality or truth on the top from where everything else descends. Maybe "the higher reality" is an emergent feature of the "shadows". Or maybe the reality is a loop where the higher level and lower level create and keep up each other. Maybe there is nothing but the shadows on the wall. idk fml 2deep4me. i like your idea, reminds me of fractals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poblequadrat Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Your reading of Plato sounds very Heideggerian! Most people think that what we come to know outside of the cave are indeed 'things,' but things that exist in a different way & place than the things we come to know inside of the cave. That is, the stereotypical reading has it that the forms are non-physical timeless, unchanging things, in which all other things similar to the form in the relevant respect somehow 'participate' (usually through resemblance or imitation). I'm surprised about your claim about 'ultimate things' -- for one, what about the discussion of love in the Symposium? Isn't that the paradigm of reconciling a pervasive sense of imperfection, incompleteness and unfulfillment within ourselves alone? Also, I think there's a case to be made that for both Plato and Aristotle (and the presocratics), there is a 'need for an ultimate thing' with respect to explanation -- they all wanted to understand the first principle that would explain why there is a world and why it is the way it is. But maybe that's not what you mean by 'ultimate thing'? Great post! Yeah, it's very Heideggerian! I've had a couple of Heideggerian professors and they've left their mark. But I find Plato very hard - for example I don't know what to make of the Timaeus, specifically because production seems to play a big role in it and I'd like to find a place for it other than the stock response of decrying technical reason. I'm sorry about "ultimate things". That was poorly worded, also because the word "thing" has unintended Heideggerian connotations! What I meant is that the divine/non-divine opposition is different in Ancient Greece than it is in Hellenistic times. But of course the Ancient Greeks, and especially Plato himself are going on about "the most excellent thing", "the best virtue" and so on all the time. The thing is for the Ancient Greeks I think the truth of being is more of a distribution, or a structure, or what underlies the flow of things without flowing itself; while later on it came to be either a matter of factual veracity and practical application (for the Stoics or the Epicureans) or not a structure of the flow of things but a state of being (for the Neoplatonists). So while for Plato being reunited with Being is discussed in terms of love, virtue, knowledge; for Plato or Jamblichus this has to do with literally becoming God. Also, while in Ancient Greece there was a need for determining what is the sovereign discourse that ruled over everything, later on there was a need to determine that being can be consistent and that there exists a consistent state of Being other than misery. But actually there was some of this in Ancient Greece too. Melissos talks about Parmenides' Being while completely shunning doxa, which is a bit strange. And then there is the sophistic distinction between custom and nature (instead of opinion and truth), which can also be found in Democritus. But Democritus still held a classical view on truth, which is maybe his main difference with Epicurus. (i'm not making any sense, i'm sorry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 the idea that there may be some kind of higher level of truth is easy to agree with, in some way or another. whether you apply it to the current understanding of physics and the likely fact that one day 'new physics' will be discovered that explains things in a radically different way, or whether you apply it to ideas about religion, or even some modern ideas about simulations or whatever, it's easy for a lot of people to agree that what we see is not all there is. but the idea that anyone is ever going to actually see the 'truth' is something that there's absolutely no reason to believe. the idea that 'love' somehow 'enlightens' you, is just some hippy dippy poetic sounding bs. i'm not saying there's nothing good about love, or the things these guys defined as 'virtues', but they aren't stats you can level up like this is some rpg. they are vaguely defined abstract concepts (some based on brain chemicals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 plees pardon the quick nature of this writing and the stream of consciousness structure. i have limited time now; i need to get back to my snare rush robot or whatever.. anyway, here u go.. a bit of writing concerning the subject of the allegory of the cave: the world as we know it is not unlike the cave with the shadows. the experience as we have been forced to watch it, as we have been forced to live it is all we have known from birth. to break free of this prison of shadows is painful at first. it seems at first that we must give everything away and we are blinded by the light of true reality outside, it hurts our eyes at first and is uncomfortable. others who have not had an experience past the shadows of the fire do not understand the certainty and concepts of which the one who has communicates from outside and they are confused. the one who saw outside tries to tell them that what they are experiencing is a mere portion of what is to be understood, but they do not believe him/her. so now, because the one who has seen has experienced this new perspective he can not see things the same way as before, i.e. like in this experience as human being, when you see the truth, it is hard to be involved with all the falseness you see all around you in the world. in the cities etc and you never can see things in that dim light, in the same way ever again, you always see them for what they truly are. sometimes you are tempted into old ways of seeing, but if you really see, you never go back all the way. so, the one who has seen cannot accept the fire light any longer, even when he/she looks straight into it, it is not real to him/her; he/she only wants to look back to the light which he/she now knows, the one which seems easier for him/her to experience. then comes the difference between forced change and transitional reality. when someone is trust into the light of truth against their own will they are blinded by that light and will be in pain as they are not able to transition from one reality to the next slowly. sometimes this happens or needs to happen. something (unseen or seen) pushes us where we need to go. the light burns and the experience is uncomfortable. it takes time to get used to the new concepts and the new language of truth after being chained into such a limited perspective for so long. our deductive minds struggle to become comfortable with the new concepts and we feel a tension and even a pain from going too fast; being dragged into the light, something we are unfamiliar with. i'm sure everyone has felt this at one point of another when they are asked to do something that is clearly good like quit smoking cigarettes or some other vice for instance (as an example). trapped in a room or in the wood away from gear or drink or whatever it is that holds on to us, away form the modern world. so there we are and we can see true reality outside the cave and it is bright, two bright for our weak eyes to see clearly.. yet (say) we r being held there against our own will ...and then, time goes by and slowly the pain goes away, we become accustomed to our new environment. we starts to see things clearly, adjusting to the truth outside the cave of what was once all that existed to us inside (the woods is just an example). now we have seen that there is something else and we start to feel ok with at least being able to know it, to know for ourselves that it exists because he can now see it and one assumes in the allegory of the cave that outside he/she can also hear it and feel it and smell it. he/she starts with the indirect light, the moon and the light which is less bright, then he eventually builds up strength and can face the direct light of the truth, or the sun as it is stated in the allegory. the sun (the higher power it would seem) is undeniably the center of all that is happening around him/her. it is the bright light which has its influence on everything and he/she even thinks that it must be the origin of all the experiences that happen back down in the cave, back in the reality he/she used to believe was everything. so, now he/she feels filled with life and inspiration from his/her new experience and the energy that is running through him/her. he/she is overwhelmed with this new experience and he/she thinks back to those still in the cave and he/she longs to help them, to share this wonderful news and this wonderful new revelation with them. he/she feels sorry for them as he/she also might feels sorry for him/herself and how he/she once was before 'seeing the truth'. the allegory then goes on to describe the people back in the cave and how they have an intellectual system not unlike the one on earth that rewards those who are smarter and see things better and who 'play the game' better. plaques on the wall, money, special clubs etc etc. the world we live in now, the cave in the allegory. now, to the one who has seen, none of these things are really relevant or important anymore, the one who has seen outside the cave just wants to live a happy life of simplicity and frolic in the sun etc like it explains in the allegory (the life of the peasants it says). we see this in the world, some people care about worldly thing (cave things) and some people think they are absurd (unnecessary). but if the one that is outside the cave tells the ones inside that their ways are superfluous and irrelevant then the cave dwellers might get angry and try to hold on to all that they know, all that they have ever known. what they consider to be the highest truth, the only way. we who see say " anything but the cave, give me anything but that old warn-out falseness in the cave". those who really see actively run from the cave every chance they get. so now the one who sees goes back down into the cave, he/she is not able to see well anymore, the darkness is too dark and the eyes have not adjusted. so now we are going through the allegory in reverse and we r now surrounded by those who do not understand our lack of interest and lack of intellectual aptitude in the ways of the oid life (the cave) that we left behind. they ridicule us and make fun of our shortcomings and lack of interest in their ways, in their way of life. so, because those in the cave cannot understand where the man/woman in the allegory has been, in the light outside the cave, they assume that it must be a bad place because it makes you not interested in the things that matter in the cave. the only things the people in the cave can understand (the cave perspective). we see this all around us in the world, for one reason or another people do not see past their own obsessions, i.e. money, food, sex, etc etc [enter destructive obsession here]. however, everything in this world, in this dimensional universe hinges on our perspective. perspective is everything. in the end, the one who has seen the new perspective outside the cave only wants to help, but the people inside don't think that it is help, they think that it is going to make things worse for them. they don't understand that they will actually be gaining from leaving their old cave ways behind. it is logical that they would think this as well because to them the person who has been outside seems silly and stupid and simple. to those inside the cave, life without those things they experience inside the cave (i.e. modern society and all its excessive luxury and convenience and materialism) would be unthinkable. this is the same as the generations. the cave is 'the womb' and as we are born into a specific reality (time period etc) in the earth we become accustomed to it as being everything that is important to us, it is all that we are familiar with, all that we have ever known. our perspective is manipulated by this cave that has been constructed around us by the other cave dwellers. if someone tells us that we cannot be the way we have learned to be then we think they are crazy, especially if we do not see imperial evidence that the way (the perspective) we are being given to replace ours (the one we have grown to love, which it so happens is killing everything that is outside the cave) is better. the problem is modern day men and women in cities (caves) r so numbed by the ways of the cave that they can't feel the subtler things, are not satisfied by them and therefor to them these subtler things have no value. take away the toys and you better watch out, we will kill you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usagi Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 i like your idea, reminds me of fractals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triachus Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 plees pardon the quick nature of this writing and the stream of consciousness structure. i have limited time now; i need to get back to my snare rush robot or whatever.. anyway, here u go.. a bit of writing concerning the subject of the allegory of the cave: the world as we know it is not unlike the cave with the shadows. the experience as we have been forced to watch it, as we have been forced to live it is all we have known from birth. to break free of this prison of shadows is painful at first. it seems at first that we must give everything away and we are blinded by the light of true reality outside, it hurts our eyes at first and is uncomfortable. others who have not had an experience past the shadows of the fire do not understand the certainty and concepts of which the one who has communicates from outside and they are confused. the one who saw outside tries to tell them that what they are experiencing is a mere portion of what is to be understood, but they do not believe him/her. so now, because the one who has seen has experienced this new perspective he can not see things the same way as before, i.e. like in this experience as human being, when you see the truth, it is hard to be involved with all the falseness you see all around you in the world. in the cities etc and you never can see things in that dim light, in the same way ever again, you always see them for what they truly are. sometimes you are tempted into old ways of seeing, but if you really see, you never go back all the way. so, the one who has seen cannot accept the fire light any longer, even when he/she looks straight into it, it is not real to him/her; he/she only wants to look back to the light which he/she now knows, the one which seems easier for him/her to experience. then comes the difference between forced change and transitional reality. when someone is trust into the light of truth against their own will they are blinded by that light and will be in pain as they are not able to transition from one reality to the next slowly. sometimes this happens or needs to happen. something (unseen or seen) pushes us where we need to go. the light burns and the experience is uncomfortable. it takes time to get used to the new concepts and the new language of truth after being chained into such a limited perspective for so long. our deductive minds struggle to become comfortable with the new concepts and we feel a tension and even a pain from going too fast; being dragged into the light, something we are unfamiliar with. i'm sure everyone has felt this at one point of another when they are asked to do something that is clearly good like quit smoking cigarettes or some other vice for instance (as an example). trapped in a room or in the wood away from gear or drink or whatever it is that holds on to us, away form the modern world. so there we are and we can see true reality outside the cave and it is bright, two bright for our weak eyes to see clearly.. yet (say) we r being held there against our own will ...and then, time goes by and slowly the pain goes away, we become accustomed to our new environment. we starts to see things clearly, adjusting to the truth outside the cave of what was once all that existed to us inside (the woods is just an example). now we have seen that there is something else and we start to feel ok with at least being able to know it, to know for ourselves that it exists because he can now see it and one assumes in the allegory of the cave that outside he/she can also hear it and feel it and smell it. he/she starts with the indirect light, the moon and the light which is less bright, then he eventually builds up strength and can face the direct light of the truth, or the sun as it is stated in the allegory. the sun (the higher power it would seem) is undeniably the center of all that is happening around him/her. it is the bright light which has its influence on everything and he/she even thinks that it must be the origin of all the experiences that happen back down in the cave, back in the reality he/she used to believe was everything. so, now he/she feels filled with life and inspiration from his/her new experience and the energy that is running through him/her. he/she is overwhelmed with this new experience and he/she thinks back to those still in the cave and he/she longs to help them, to share this wonderful news and this wonderful new revelation with them. he/she feels sorry for them as he/she also might feels sorry for him/herself and how he/she once was before 'seeing the truth'. the allegory then goes on to describe the people back in the cave and how they have an intellectual system not unlike the one on earth that rewards those who are smarter and see things better and who 'play the game' better. plaques on the wall, money, special clubs etc etc. the world we live in now, the cave in the allegory. now, to the one who has seen, none of these things are really relevant or important anymore, the one who has seen outside the cave just wants to live a happy life of simplicity and frolic in the sun etc like it explains in the allegory (the life of the peasants it says). we see this in the world, some people care about worldly thing (cave things) and some people think they are absurd (unnecessary). but if the one that is outside the cave tells the ones inside that their ways are superfluous and irrelevant then the cave dwellers might get angry and try to hold on to all that they know, all that they have ever known. what they consider to be the highest truth, the only way. we who see say " anything but the cave, give me anything but that old warn-out falseness in the cave". those who really see actively run from the cave every chance they get. so now the one who sees goes back down into the cave, he/she is not able to see well anymore, the darkness is too dark and the eyes have not adjusted. so now we are going through the allegory in reverse and we r now surrounded by those who do not understand our lack of interest and lack of intellectual aptitude in the ways of the oid life (the cave) that we left behind. they ridicule us and make fun of our shortcomings and lack of interest in their ways, in their way of life. so, because those in the cave cannot understand where the man/woman in the allegory has been, in the light outside the cave, they assume that it must be a bad place because it makes you not interested in the things that matter in the cave. the only things the people in the cave can understand (the cave perspective). we see this all around us in the world, for one reason or another people do not see past their own obsessions, i.e. money, food, sex, etc etc [enter destructive obsession here]. however, everything in this world, in this dimensional universe hinges on our perspective. perspective is everything. in the end, the one who has seen the new perspective outside the cave only wants to help, but the people inside don't think that it is help, they think that it is going to make things worse for them. they don't understand that they will actually be gaining from leaving their old cave ways behind. it is logical that they would think this as well because to them the person who has been outside seems silly and stupid and simple. to those inside the cave, life without those things they experience inside the cave (i.e. modern society and all its excessive luxury and convenience and materialism) would be unthinkable. this is the same as the generations. the cave is 'the womb' and as we are born into a specific reality (time period etc) in the earth we become accustomed to it as being everything that is important to us, it is all that we are familiar with, all that we have ever known. our perspective is manipulated by this cave that has been constructed around us by the other cave dwellers. if someone tells us that we cannot be the way we have learned to be then we think they are crazy, especially if we do not see imperial evidence that the way (the perspective) we are being given to replace ours (the one we have grown to love, which it so happens is killing everything that is outside the cave) is better. the problem is modern day men and women in cities (caves) r so numbed by the ways of the cave that they can't feel the subtler things, are not satisfied by them and therefor to them these subtler things have no value. take away the toys and you better watch out, we will kill you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 What's this large wall of letters doing in my cave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peace 7 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Well... What I get from ze allegory of ze cave is... (but something not directly alluded to in it) ...ULTIMATELY: Our version of Truth (truth), will always be the shadows. For anyone who's explored Consciousness in and of itself, has meditated, etc.-- this concept becomes more and more apparent. I'm at a point now where I realize that it is not fair for me to judge anyone on basically anything, because they are truly acting from "their shadows". I might feel I know my truth, but I cannot have theirs-- even if I think I do. It's like- Hey, maybe my daughter will be better off on crack and doing porn. And while I do believe there is Truth, I also believe the highest forms can never be perceived; only conceptualized. So in the end, even those willing to improve and find their most sincere Self- will always be looking at shadows. If we ever do find the source of shadows, etc., such truth will 100% ONLY apply to us, and only in the very specific context which such knowledge is used. So basically- we are all lost; we are all enlightened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovalainenFanBoy Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Let's have a WATMM Philosopher of the Month series of threads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 for one thing these ideas were informed by plato's religious beliefs. for another you can't just outright accept his suggestion that what we see are only 'shadows' of something 'more real', because it's just an assumption and hasn't in any way been proven. for yet another this same guy thought fire, earth, wind, and water were fundamental elements, and that they were made of tiny little triangles. on top of all that, even if his allegory somehow applied to reality, there's no proof that anyone has ever seen past the shadows, or ever could. you can spend the rest of your life thinking about this and any other philosophical ideas written down by any other deep thinker, and when you die of old age you still won't be any closer to 'the real truth' than someone who spent that entire time in a coma. but maybe your ability to sound deep while talking about philosophy might have got you laid a few times, or otherwise impressed peers around you or at forums like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poblequadrat Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 the idea that there may be some kind of higher level of truth is easy to agree with, in some way or another. whether you apply it to the current understanding of physics and the likely fact that one day 'new physics' will be discovered that explains things in a radically different way, or whether you apply it to ideas about religion, or even some modern ideas about simulations or whatever, it's easy for a lot of people to agree that what we see is not all there is. but the idea that anyone is ever going to actually see the 'truth' is something that there's absolutely no reason to believe. the idea that 'love' somehow 'enlightens' you, is just some hippy dippy poetic sounding bs. i'm not saying there's nothing good about love, or the things these guys defined as 'virtues', but they aren't stats you can level up like this is some rpg. they are vaguely defined abstract concepts (some based on brain chemicals). Not endorsing anything here, but Plato's eros doesn't "somehow" enlighten you. The love of beauty diverts you from your course (isn't this what "brain chemicals" do?) and turns you towards love for that which, for Plato, is the ontological basis of reality. Also, this very misdirection IS a figure of Platonic dialectics in itself, as it has a lot of what, if I'm not mistaken, constitutes the "eidos of the eidos" for him. His point is not really that some magical hippy feeling "somehow" enlightens you, but that in order to attain truth, first there must be a traumatic encounter. Something extra has to happen for a monkey to start talking, or for mathematics to be discovered, something which hasn't got to do with eating and sleeping. That this might be the result of "brain chemicals" is beside the point! This is why in present-day Platonism, Alain Badiou strangely enough has love as one of the four procedures alongside politics, art and science; or why he says things like "the two of love is the simplest form of communism", where one must note that for him the "eidos of the eidos" is called "the idea of communism", since, unlike Plato's, his ontology is one of diachronic movement and the multiple and thus has a political name. So love isn't really on the same level as the other 3 procedures, but rather is like the basic model of the encounter these procedures are built on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peace 7 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I love to think and do brain stuffs and am very spiritual/philosophical, but this thread reminded me why I don't like to talk philosophy... What have I done, fully reading and participating in this thread?! WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!?!!? Note to self: Don't even open future WATMM threads about Sartre... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 har har peace, it's exactly why I shy away from philosophy: imo it's mostly ego stroking, intellectual frolicking, a dog chasing its tail, trying to find a intellectual solution to a problem that is intellectual to begin with. it's never ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poblequadrat Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 imo these days anti-intellectualism has gone too far and this doesn't stop people from being fucking pretentious cunts, so i'd say the more philosophy the better i ran away in disgust from majoring in architecture where reading a book is considered anathema and will literally get you a bad rap from the profs but everyone is still a bunch of bloody smug chinstrokers and tbh most everything that deals with reason, from music to any sort of technique is done that way nowadays, so fuck that and read some fucking hegel you cunts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poblequadrat Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 also politics: when you see a labour strike nowadays it's the saddest thing, some poor sod with a megaphone saying that people in a top hat are robbing us the supposedly artsy-fartsy days of the 60's philosophically-minded left-wing intelligentsia were simply far more civilised times, and the proliferation of debordian cunts, bearded idiots living hippy lives and jean-luc godard fans is just a small price to pay when you realise where we are now so no, anti-intellectualism is the top most fucking pretentious thing in the world, also shooting yourself in the foot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadameChaos Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 one thing you have to remember about Plato, is that this theory is used to prop up his views on eugenics (the guardian) which are all about there being special people who are better than everyone else and therefore should rule over them and tell them what to do. sound familiar? yes, Hitler's third reich. whenever you get into the special truths that only certain special people can perceive and understand territory you are on dangerous ground indeed. when it comes to the nature of reality i'm far more into Descartes who states that: "As if I were not a man who sleeps at night, and regularly has all the same experiences while asleep as madmen do when awake indeed sometimes even more improbable ones. How often, asleep at night, am I convinced of just such familiar events that I am here in my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire when in fact I am lying undressed in bed! Yet at the moment my eyes are certainly wide awake when I look at this piece of paper; I shake my head and it is not asleep; as I stretch out and feel my hand I do so deliberately, and I know what I am doing. All this would not happen with such distinctness to someone asleep. Indeed! As if I did not remember other occasions when I have been tricked by exactly similar thoughts while asleep! As I think about this more carefully, I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep. The result is that I begin to feel dazed, and this very feeling only reinforces the notion that I may be asleep." the point being that we have no more reason to believe that there is an ultimate reality beyond the one we currently perceive other than by drawing comparisons with other things like dreaming and illusions which are temporary and from which we can actually differentiate from the real world. plus this cave allegory throws up more questions than it answers. such as who is the grand deceiver? is it an all powerful evil being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YangYing Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 This is just how humans work. Don't question it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xox Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 imo these days anti-intellectualism has gone too far and this doesn't stop people from being fucking pretentious cunts, so i'd say the more philosophy the better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Foil Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 This is so deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadameChaos Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 oh no wait, if you apply the theory of the cave to the way the government uses the media to manipulate the opinions of the masses it works perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xox Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 plus this cave allegory throws up more questions than it answers. such as who is the grand deceiver? is it an all powerful evil being? more questions? you're doing it too ;) why would you assume something like that? the grand deceiver! why not the grand enlightener, as most metaphysical philosophers thought? we still have free will and opportunity to choose knowledge, truth and beauty, right? also, isn't the truth beautiful? why wouldn't it be? ...believing in the grand deceiver isn't beautiful at all, right? should we doubt this? we can see where this leading us; into the most perversive corners of metaphysics imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amen Lare Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 also politics: when you see a labour strike nowadays it's the saddest thing, some poor sod with a megaphone saying that people in a top hat are robbing us the supposedly artsy-fartsy days of the 60's philosophically-minded left-wing intelligentsia were simply far more civilised times, and the proliferation of debordian cunts, bearded idiots living hippy lives and jean-luc godard fans is just a small price to pay when you realise where we are now so no, anti-intellectualism is the top most fucking pretentious thing in the world, also shooting yourself in the foot JL Godard used to make great cinema, or at least fragments of such. What it has to do with his left-wing credentials? I'd say a fan of early JLG is a decent cinema enthusiast. I also like Debord's rhetoric, by the way he hated on Godard, claiming him false intellectual. It's not really philosophical of you to do such generalizations on ambiguous subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poblequadrat Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 also politics: when you see a labour strike nowadays it's the saddest thing, some poor sod with a megaphone saying that people in a top hat are robbing us the supposedly artsy-fartsy days of the 60's philosophically-minded left-wing intelligentsia were simply far more civilised times, and the proliferation of debordian cunts, bearded idiots living hippy lives and jean-luc godard fans is just a small price to pay when you realise where we are now so no, anti-intellectualism is the top most fucking pretentious thing in the world, also shooting yourself in the foot JL Godard used to make great cinema, or at least fragments of such. What it has to do with his left-wing credentials? I'd say a fan of early JLG is a decent cinema enthusiast. I also like Debord's rhetoric, by the way he hated on Godard, claiming him false intellectual. It's not really philosophical of you to do such generalizations on ambiguous subjects. I'm a big Godard fan, Pierrot le Fou, Masculin Femenin and La Chinoise are amongst my favourite films ever. I've read a fair bit of Debord too, both from the Letterist and the Situationist days but eventually became very disappointed with him (not least of all because 33% of what he did was say "look, Lukacs without Lenin is the answer to everything", without further argumenting how you're supposed to de-Leninise Lukacs; 33% was "I single-handedly started May 68"; and the other 33% is insults, such as the "JLG le plus con des suisses pro-chinois" you refer to. The Situationists' views on cinema were abysmal sometimes, I remember this article where they bash Marienbad just because it doesn't follow their Isou-esque reminiscences of purging words from cinema.) I just was referring in an unfortunate way to snobbery. I'm sorry for the poor choice of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 imo these days anti-intellectualism has gone too far and this doesn't stop people from being fucking pretentious cunts, so i'd say the more philosophy the better i ran away in disgust from majoring in architecture where reading a book is considered anathema and will literally get you a bad rap from the profs but everyone is still a bunch of bloody smug chinstrokers and tbh most everything that deals with reason, from music to any sort of technique is done that way nowadays, so fuck that and read some fucking hegel you cunts It seems that I've touched a nerve. Having a masters in psychology, I am intellectually capable enough to say that this probably stems from a defence mechanism of your ego, where the confrontation with the fact that the intellect (which goes hand in hand with the ego) isn't all there is to your being, is threatened. Therefore I am an anti-intellectualist. A cunt, if you will. I'm not. I just see the intellect as a tool. A tool to the soul. Nothing more. Debates like this can't really be solved, because as I had asked before: "Who says the flame isn't another shadow?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poblequadrat Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 imo these days anti-intellectualism has gone too far and this doesn't stop people from being fucking pretentious cunts, so i'd say the more philosophy the better i ran away in disgust from majoring in architecture where reading a book is considered anathema and will literally get you a bad rap from the profs but everyone is still a bunch of bloody smug chinstrokers and tbh most everything that deals with reason, from music to any sort of technique is done that way nowadays, so fuck that and read some fucking hegel you cunts It seems that I've touched a nerve. Having a masters in psychology, I am intellectually capable enough to say that this probably stems from a defence mechanism of your ego, where the confrontation with the fact that the intellect (which goes hand in hand with the ego) isn't all there is to your being, is threatened. Therefore I am an anti-intellectualist. A cunt, if you will. I'm not. I just see the intellect as a tool. A tool to the soul. Nothing more. Debates like this can't really be solved, because as I had asked before: "Who says the flame isn't another shadow?" The ad-hominem rabbithole is a dangerous one and I'm not following it, sorry. I wasn't specifically talking about you, either, so sorry if the harshness offended you! If you want more details of what I was talking about I can PM you. (i was also going for a "come on you slags let's drop some aphex acid" vibe, but it was inapropiate. i'm sorry about that!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.