pipeline_mike Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/06/philosophy-is-a-bunch-of-empty-ideas-interview-with-peter-unger.html Anyone else notice the winds of anti-philosophy sentiment lately? (I mean above and beyond the general environment of non-thought...)
Freedomain Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 I glanced at it and it sounds like he's talking about academic philosophy... which I'd completely agree about. Academic state funded philosophy is irrelevant.
shirgall Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 The dying big guy is mankind, the girl is academic philosophy: The great thing about that scene in particular is that it's echoing Beckett's Waiting for Godot, and performed by an actor famous for performing Beckett: http://observationdeck.io9.com/waiting-for-got-dot-1578297724 When in doubt, you can be sneaky and stick in some philosophy when they aren't expecting it.
Anuojat Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Not winds of anti-philosophy, winds of anti-sophistry glued together in the halls of statist academia. There's no philosophy without connection and honesty, a conversation, only word magic and trivial circle jerk which is stupefying. It tells everything that people outside academia know hardly anything about who they are and what they do, not to mention they'd had anything to say about subjects these "philosophers" push through for each others, to get some nice publication points and level up on the road to get titles and university posts. The dying big guy is mankind, the girl is academic philosophy: Ummm wait huh? What in that sentence doesnt make sense? The fact that nothing (no life for instance) can actually be worse and Arya is just being uber emo?
Lians Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Ummm wait huh? What in that sentence doesnt make sense? The fact that nothing (no life for instance) can actually be worse and Arya is just being uber emo? She states that ascribing qualifiers to non-existent entities (nothing) is meaningless and then puts forward half of the law of identity as if she's achieved something. All of this without any useful philosophical context. And while she's playing Captain Obvious, the guy is dying. I'd say she's better than academic philosophers because at least the guy is not dying because of her. Or is he? I'm not following the show.
greekredemption Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 It doesn't make sense to speak in abstractions when people are bleeding to death. Could you please elaborate on this?
Sal9000 Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Academic state funded philosophy is irrelevant. I think this has to be judged on a case to case basis. When Hoppe developed the theory of performative contradictions as the foundation of political philosophy for his Phd thesis (http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/Kritik_kaus.pdf) he was employed by a German university (He worked under Habermas at the so called Frankfurt School of Philosophy). When he applied that theory to Austrian Reasoning (http://docs.mises.de/Hoppe/Hoppe_Eigentum_Anarchie_Staat.pdf) he got a research grant from the German state to finish this post doc work.
Anuojat Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 She states that ascribing qualifiers to non-existent entities (nothing) is meaningless and then puts forward half of the law of identity as if she's achieved something. All of this without any useful philosophical context. And while she's playing Captain Obvious, the guy is dying. I'd say she's better than academic philosophers because at least the guy is not dying because of her. Or is he? I'm not following the show. Ahh right. Well in this scene Arya is obviously being, witdrawn almost as if shes talkign to herself really. And no she didnt kill him the mans dying from haywaymen/bandits/soldier looting people. But yeah totally callious after being herself subjected to horrors and having seen so many of whom she cares about dying. So essentially shes trying to rationalize her pain and not be gentle (or have energy for it anymore).
cynicist Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 She states that ascribing qualifiers to non-existent entities (nothing) is meaningless and then puts forward half of the law of identity as if she's achieved something. All of this without any useful philosophical context. And while she's playing Captain Obvious, the guy is dying. I'd say she's better than academic philosophers because at least the guy is not dying because of her. Or is he? I'm not following the show. That graphic takes what she said entirely out of context. Here is how the conversation actually went: *Girl and her companion inquire as to why the dying man has not ended his suffering* Dying man: Maybe nothing is worse than this. Girl: Nothing isn't better or worse than anything, it's just nothing. So in the show, she's the rational one. It doesn't make sense to speak in abstractions when people are bleeding to death. The guy who is bleeding to death in total agony is saying that not existing would be worse... and she's the one who makes no sense?
Lians Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 That graphic takes what she said entirely out of context. Here is how the conversation actually went: *Girl and her companion inquire as to why the dying man has not ended his suffering* Dying man: Maybe nothing is worse than this. Girl: Nothing isn't better or worse than anything, it's just nothing. So in the show, she's the rational one. Thanks for the clarification! That makes a lot more sense.
cynicist Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Yeah she's certainly not a paragon of virtue, I'd say she is the closest to being a nihilist on the show.
Anuojat Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Though as far as we know her childhood was good one. But the recent events the horryfying ones. Though shes always been like her dad; firm and grounded and strong willed. So again id say this is all a mask to hide her terror of recent events.
Recommended Posts