Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Palumboism on October 12, 2020, 02:34:30 PM
-
Modern Philosophy is Rene Dscartes to the end of World War 2.
DESCARTES ( 1596-1650)
Spinoza ( 1634-1677)
LEIBNIZ ( 1646-1716)
JOHN LOCKE ( 1637-1704)
DAVID HUME ( 1711-76)
JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU ( 1712-1778),
Immanuel Kant ( 1724-1804)
Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854)
Johan Ficthe (1762-1814)
Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Hegel (1770-1831)
Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Husserl (1859-1938)
Hidegger (1889-1976)
Post Modern Philosophy is all the Philosophers after World War 2 ended.
Sarte (1905-1980)
Emmanuel Levinas (1905-1995)
Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961)
Foucault ( 1926-1984)
Derrida (1930-2004)
Guilles Deleuze (1925-1995)
Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007)
-
This is what we need now in 2020+
Imagine if the libs and BLM:ers were a tad more philosophical
-
Jordan Peterson and Noam Chomsky have been very critical of Post Modern philosophy. Anyone who really understands Post Modern Philosophy can clearly see they have no idea what they're talking about. They don't understand Foucoult or Derrida at all.
-
Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism:
-
This is what we need now in 2020+
Imagine if the libs and BLM:ers were a tad more philosophical
Post modern philosophy has wrongly been lumped into leftist liberal philosophy. That understanding of Foucault, Derrida and other post modern philosophers is wrong. Anyone who takes the time to understand their work can see this.
Take for example Deconstructionism, Friedrich Nietzsche was the Great Grand father of Deconstructionism and Hiedegger was the Grand Father, with Dierrida being the father. Jordan Peterson is a fan of Nietzsche, but criticizes Dierrida for being a Deconstructionist. In my opinion that shows he doesn't know what either of them was doing. Dierrida and Foucoult are just continuations of Nietzsche.
-
Debate Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault - On human nature [Subtitled]
Both brilliant in their own way, but as a Philosopher, Chomsky's not in the same league as Foucault. To this day Chomsky is still critical of Post Modern Philosophy.
-
Jean Baudrillard is my favorite Post Modern Philosopher. His book Simulacra and Simulation is the basis for the movie the Matrix. In fact the book is even shown in the movie.
My opinion is no Philosopher better predicted the effects of the internet and media on world and US culture better the Baudrillard.
What did Baudrillard think about The Matrix?
-
My second favorite Post Modern Philosopher is Gilles Deleuze. A Thousand Plateaus is a trip. This videos is the Rhizome chapter. Rhizome is plant based, but it also describes how the internet works and how capitalism works. There is no center and no central authority. That's why the Internet and Capitalism are so powerful and I found Deleuze's description of the Rhizome to be very insightful as a way of understanding non centralized structures.
A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari
-
Not too knowledgeable regarding the post modern hard core philosophers, but definitely into post modern approach to literature (e.g., Roland Barthes). Also, while the therapeutic community debunk Sigmund Freud from a diagnosis and treatment standpoint these days, he is still the main man in my book (again using literature and film as examples).
-
This is all the philosophy a Getbigger needs...
-
This is all the philosophy a Getbigger needs...
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/fd1c77ed6ccae272d19829c0b0c7eff4/9a26e3577ddf8789-09/s1280x1920/13a1710758c40e2420847f74b4f180ec9a2fe708.gifv)
-
Not too knowledgeable regarding the post modern hard core philosophers, but definitely into post modern approach to literature (e.g., Roland Barthes). Also, while the therapeutic community debunk Sigmund Freud from a diagnosis and treatment standpoint these days, he is still the main man in my book (again using literature and film as examples).
I would classify Roland Barthes as a post modern philosopher. The post modern approach to literature is Post Modern Philosophy and post-structuralism is post modern philosophy. Derrida taught at the Yale literary school.
You already understand post modern philosophy better than Jordan Peterson and Noam Chomsky. :D
-
I would classify Roland Barthes as a post modern philosopher. The post modern approach to literature is Post Modern Philosophy and post-structuralism is post modern philosophy. Derrida taught at the Yale literary school.
You already understand post modern philosophy better than Jordan Peterson and Noam Chomsky. :D
What little I know of those two, they seem boring. Chomsky’s everybody has the same underlying grammar, OK fascinating? Plus very left wing, isn’t he? Peterson, whom I don’t know, very right wing, NO? Do politics and philosophy mix? Well, I guess yes with Marx, or after the fact interpretations of Nietzsche, but not into all that, including Sartre.
-
Listened to some of the video above (Chomsky, Foucault). As predicted, Chomsky seems to put the listener to sleep. Totally related to Foucault’s concept of new break-throughs removing obstacles to understanding on the one hand, and then creating parallel new obstacles at the same time. This seems applicable to everyday life today, including current political/cultural “woke-isms”
-
Listened to some of the video above (Chomsky, Foucault). As predicted, Chomsky seems to put the listener to sleep. Totally related to Foucault’s concept of new break-throughs removing obstacles to understanding on the one hand, and then creating parallel new obstacles at the same time. This seems applicable to everyday life today, including current political/cultural “woke-isms”
Chomsky along with Ferdinand Saussure are the fathers of modern linguistics. One of the most interesting things I heard Chomsky say was that the primary purpose of language is internal thought, not communication as most would assume. I said in every case in language development where there was a choice between ease of communication vs internal thought, internal thought won out.
Saussure has some interesting revelations... signifyer, signified, and the arbitrary nature of language ie a tree could be call something different and is in other languages. The Structuralism he created had a huge impact in Europe because the concept was applied to many different fields.
Chomsky's still whining about post modern philosophy and Faucault forty years later.
Chomsky whining.
-
The back and forth between Chomsky and Slavoj Zizek is truly comical and on the level of Get Big.
Zizek states Chomsky is behind him being labeled a racist and Zizek says he's never seen somebody be so wrong about so many things as Chomsky. He uses Chomsky's support of the Khmer Rouge as an example. Chomsky defends his support by saying they didn't have enough information and Zizek responds by saying you had enough information to know they were up to no good and not support them.
My personal opinion is Slavoj Zizek is the best philosopher alive today and there's nobody close to him.
-
Well, I listened about one quarter of the way and I liked him better. He has a point about the gobble-dee-gook aspect. A year or two ago, I enjoyed hearing about that nonsense article that got published in an academic journal without anyone realizing it was nonsense. All I can say is that when I read Barthes (for example), a lot of it is, in fact, not understandable to me (Chomsky talks about the protective seal these guys create for themselves because “nobody can understand them”), yet I come away with a much deeper feeling about the piece of writing and I go, “Wow, look at what is going on. I bet the writer himself wasn’t even fully conscious, but look at what’s going on”.
-
Well, I listened about one quarter of the way and I liked him better. He has a point about the gobble-dee-gook aspect. A year or two ago, I enjoyed hearing about that nonsense article that got published in an academic journal without anyone realizing it was nonsense. All I can say is that when I read Barthes (for example), a lot of it is, in fact, not understandable to me (Chomsky talks about the protective seal these guys create for themselves because “nobody can understand them”), yet I come away with a much deeper feeling about the piece of writing and I go, “Wow, look at what is going on. I bet the writer himself wasn’t even fully conscious, but look at what’s going on”.
You have to first remember it's being translated from another language and there are some things that don't translate well from one language to another.
Derrida and Faucault are both notoriously difficult to read. Philosophy in general is difficult to read, that's why you need helper texts. I have no problem cheating with Youtube video's as well.
Derrida purposely made his text difficult to make his point that the interpretation of a text is not fixed and when you really understand all of his point about post structuralism, it makes sense why.
My problem with Chomsky and Peterson is they don't even make an attempt to understand what the post modern philosophers are talking about and then they criticize them. To properly do philosophy you first have to understand what the philosopher is saying without rejecting it. Once you have an understanding of it and can reasonably explain the Philosophers point, then you can argue it. How can I criticize your point when I don't even understand what your point is.
Take Jordan Peterson's criticism of Derrida by name for Deconstructionism while simultaneously praising Nietzsche as a genius. Meanwhile Derrida is just continuing what Nietzsche started. Nietzsche is the foundation for French postmodern philosophy in particular he was the primary influence for Foucault.
-
Jordan Peterson has an axe to grind (I only listened a little ways into his video and he made me angry, so I am no expert whatsoever on him). I don’t think Chomsky was disrespectful to Foucault in the other video. I simply think they are on different planes, and I agree with Chomsky that there is a haziness about post modern writers (even in original language, for example Barthes for me in French). But that haziness doesn’t make me respect it any the less. And I get your point that I would probably find a similar haziness with Spinoza or Descartes, whom I have never touched.
-
Jordan Peterson has an axe to grind (I only listened a little ways into his video and he made me angry, so I am no expert whatsoever on him). I don’t think Chomsky was disrespectful to Foucault in the other video. I simply think they are on different planes, and I agree with Chomsky that there is a haziness about post modern writers (even in original language, for example Barthes for me in French). But that haziness doesn’t make me respect it any the less. And I get your point that I would probably find a similar haziness with Spinoza or Descartes, whom I have never touched.
I wish I could read French just for the French philosophers and Prost.
Derrida's point is there's always haziness in every text because every word has multiple shades of meaning and possible intentional and unintentional connotations.
Foucault:
"It is true, it seems to me that modern philosophy perhaps since Kant rasied the question ‘What is Enlightenment? That is, ‘What is our actuality?’ What is happening in our present?
Since then it seems philosophy has acquired a new dimension or a certain task opened up which was ignored or not known before, and that is, to tell us who we are, and what our present is, what it is today.
It’s a question that would not have had meaning to Descartes.
It’s a question that begins to mean something to Kant when he asks what is the enlightenment.
It’s a question that has meaning for Hegel."
Foucault starts at 2:40
This is a great quote by Foucault because it shows his deep understanding of all the philosophers that came before him as well as his own personal analysis of how things have changed and the present.
There is no haziness of thought or of language. For me, the thinking is clear and profound.
-
i found Philosophy so interesting in 2015
Stoicism first for me (Seneca)
then fredrick neichze = amazing stuff
-
i found Philosophy so interesting in 2015
Stoicism first for me (Seneca)
then fredrick neichze = amazing stuff
For those interested in Nietzsche, Robert Solomon and his wife have a series of lectures on the channel linked below. Dr Solomon explains Nietzsche better than anyone.
-
Must say I am getting to know Foucault a bit (no homo) who I always heard about but never read or listened to. He is clear like you say and smooth to listen to. Ah Proust, read him straight through 6 or 7 years ago. Talk about hazy and long winded, but in top several writers of all time. Swann’s love for Odette right up there with the best of them.
-
For those interested in Nietzsche, Robert Solomon and his wife have a series of lectures on the channel linked below. Dr Solomon explains Nietzsche better than anyone.
thank you. will watch later
-
This is what we need now in 2020+
Imagine if the libs and BLM:ers were a tad more philosophical
He was "predicting" aviation industry mega boom in 2o2o ............... ;D
-
(https://external-preview.redd.it/Lppbr7mUatlqYJ5mTWKwgsQ8PnAbPs7dcgG6fyekIzs.jpg?auto=webp&s=0c55381ab9bfb9f99ed6cfa056c5d238be8e7188)