A lot of people having been asking for TimeLine's details and she wishes to say that her behaviour was really wrong, but she really desired to leave the forums for sometime now but couldn't manage to pull herself way. Sometimes, when you want to break up with your partner but you just can't do it, you need to gloriously self-destruct. She was actually relieved when she was banned because she has wanted to leave for personal reasons, mostly because it was too time consuming. She says, "I like Baden and hopefully no one is being weird to him. Hanover can suck his big toe for all I care but I hope he finds someone to love him as he deserves. Agu is a diamond. StreetlightX is a genius. Tiff is my soul-sister. T-clark is my virtual uncle. Posty is a beautiful person that needs to stop hiding behind the safety of virtual reality and start applying himself in reality, because he has so much to offer. And others I just can't think of right now. It is time for me to move on.
So I'm tempted to call philosophy proper the art of reasoning, where the teleological structure of reason is temporarily suspended and concepts are created out of the principles of reasoning itself. So we can follow an argument or make an argument or some such, just as a painter can paint a representation of a street or a person. It's still art to do so. But the suspension of goals or representation (for reason and painting, respectively) creates a kind of play with the principles themselves -- hence the art of reason, or the art of painting. There's even a play in just putting the principles to use, in setting up a picture just so, or coming up with a story or example that fits just right to some general principle or argument being made.
but the key thing I'm trying to resolve here is the claim that reason is teleologically structured, philosophy is entirely useless (but valuable), an
U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled an estimated $673.9 billion in 2017. Exports were $341.2 billion; imports were $332.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $8.4 billion in 2017.
What is a white nationalist?
Therefore it would seem that the problem of psychology is (upon a fundamental level) ultimately a problem of instinctual imperative. Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives.
Freud“In biological functions the two basic instincts operate against each other or combine with each other. Thus, the act of eating is a destruction of the object with the final aim of incorporating it, and the sexual act is an act of aggression with the purpose of the most intimate union. This concurrent and mutually opposing action of the two basic instincts gives rise to the whole variegation of the phenomena of life”
2c. We must have reasons and explanations for everything. Brute facts are incoherent and unacceptable as objects of knowledge. This is closely related to 1c. Again, I think this is what some proponents of the PSR would say, but I do not agree with this.
No, others enable you to understand that you are a separate individual and at the same time Others effectively structure who you are, which you willingly accept because it reinforces their recognition of you as an individual.To say that "others" define me without recognizing that I am also an "other", isn't very well thought out.
What does it mean to "not live up to others expectations" if I am completely defined by others? Shouldn't I always live up to others expectations if others define me? If others define me, then it seems that there would end up being conflicting, even contradictory, definitions of me.
Racism is an ugly fruit of a natural plant. That's what I'm saying. The people who embrace it are not necessarily ugly at heart. One of the most important reasons for seeing this is that counter intolerance is just as ugly as the primary type. If we label racist people as vermin, we have dehumanized them and shut the door on them. We have failed to realize that people can change.
This POV is not possible without self consciousness, reflexive awareness of oneself as a separate person...you asked for the location of the concept of being a person, and I suggest that location is derived from others.I am using to describe the subjective of experience
It seems to me that we only become who we are by way of others.
Then how did the others become aware of who they are? Am I not an "other" to others? Does not that make me the creator of others? Others are only one type of object in the world. Why would I need other people to become what I am, and not the simple recognition that I am not a tree, dog, or a rock based on my own observations of myself and other things? How would I interpret my own reflection without others around? Maybe you mean that we need language to become who we are - with a narrative?
You know I disagree. You've described two distinct things here, and conflated them as one. Realizing that we are separate is one thing, and realizing that we have likes, dislikes, etc., which are similar to others is another thing. The former, recognizing that we are separate, does not require a recognition of other persons, as I explained, the latter does. The two are clearly not the same sort of thing, and ought not be classed together, as you do.
Consider this. Do you agree that in order to believe that others have desires, likes and dislikes, which are similar to your own, you must first recognize such things within yourself? You cannot recognize a desire within another, as similar to your own, without having first recognized your own desire in order to make the comparison.
The question I have for you, is how can your own desires come from others, if you cannot even recognize a desire in another without first recognizing that desire within yourself?
So the butcher, the baker, the cobbler, the culter, the chef...don't have an aesthetic?
Ask the question in french and it's obvious they are more alike than different from each other.
artiste ou artisan? (artist or craftsman?)
Great works of art exert power that is not diminished over time, power that goes beyond the normative bounds of any observer. I think this is only possible if force of these works reaches certain objective truths about the world that, if we have sufficient knowledge and emotion, can't be avoided because their power consists in their spontaneous ability to continue to generate new or deeper thoughts, newer more meaningful narratives in observers.
I don't think art is mainly about objective truths, I think it's more about transcendent subjective truths.
Art is everywhere, even if it is not called art. The new 2018 summer clothing styles are a type of art. This is art you wear. Good art induces an emotional reaction. New clothes induce positive feelings. Designer clothes give the best buzz. The former is individual and the latter is collective.
The differentiation need not be a differentiation from other individuals.
A plurality is made up of a group of individuals, so the individual is a necessary component of the plurality. However, the existence of an individual does not require the existence of a plurality, so a plurality is not necessary for the existence of an individual. Therefore it is impossible that the plurality is prior to the individual, yet possible that the individual is prior to the plurality. Furthermore, arguments can be made which indicate that it is probable that the individual is prior to plurality, as one is prior to two.
You didn't reply to my description of the logical relationship between "one" and "plurality". So I take this as a hollow assertion which is contrary to logic and ought to be rejected.
This is surely wrong. A baby has the desire to eat, and though the mother may shape this desire through timing and substance in an effort to create habit, the desire is not the mother's desire. Nor is the desire derived from the mother. The desire is that of the baby, as an independent agent. Even within the womb, the need for nutrition is a need of the foetus, not a need of the mother.
Yet right from the start language has begun to work. The child is spoken to and named, and therefore it has a place in the discourse of the other, the words of its mother. As the child begins to become aware of itself as separate from its mother, as a distinct psychic entity, it does so only by taking itself to be its mother. There is a mirror effect, Lacan argues, in which the image the child has of itself is in fact the image of its mother. Hence the child's early ego, or pre-ego--Lacan calls it the ideal ego--takes shape as a misrecognition: the child understands itself not as itself but as the other, as its mother. From the beginning the ego is constituted as an illusory incorporation of the other; when it names itself it is only naming the other, or, in linguistic terms, its place is defined by the discourse of the other.
Lacan also conceptualized the mirror stage in relation to Hegel's concept of recognition and desire. The infant has a sensuous relation with its mother. Its needs are fulfilled by her and she is in tactile relation with it. In addition to needs, and quite distinct from them, the child has desires (libido) and, as Hegel says, the prime desire is to be recognized by the other's desire. The desire of the mother and the desire of the child thus enter into a complex, confused relation.
So, Rudy Guiliani was being interviewed when asked why he once presented something as fact that he now(at that time) was presenting as mere opinion.
Isn't this a vicious circle? Don't you need to be conscious to be able to study what others are doing? So you seem to imply that one must already be conscious in order to become conscious
I don't see how this is possible. You seem to be arguing that a plurality (we) is prior to the individual (I). Don't you believe in a first? How are two, three, and four possible without there first being one? I think that you have this backwards.
the existence of an individual does
notrequire the existence of a plurality
n a moneyless society, what could motivate people to make goods for others?
Why is it (love) so important if you never grew up with the sincerity and genuineness of it in the household. Please explain. Thank you.
Erich Fromm...love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence