Repost, but please don't hotlink, reupload or it'll break

Repost this!!!!

I'd like everyone to participate, as a social experiment. See how you feel after just ONE week, beginning this Wednesday.

Isn't there something wrong with the world when we wonder what's happening to fictional characters throughout the week? Isn't it wrong when a Sunday night cartoon on Fox is important in our life? Isn't it wrong when there are so many experiences to be had, but we just can't be bothered with real life because we're sitting zoned out in front of the tube? Isn't it wrong when we're away from our techno-universe and we begin to panic? The next generation won't even know the joy of building mud pies and creating cities of legos or playing telephone with a papercup and a string if we don't do something about it NOW. We let things slide, we procrastinate, we just sit there zombified in front of this little box, watching the little world within, while the real world and our real lives go ignored. TURN IT OFF FOR JUST ONE WEEK! And pass this on to your friends and definitely to your children! Get your coworkers and your classmates involved as well!!!

Go swimming, go camping, have lunch with an old friend or write a letter to your grandmother. Just LIVE and stop procrastinating, and remember the scent of flowers and what it's like to feel your toes in the summer lawn.

(no subject)


Does anybody know much about Simone De Beauvoir? I know a little but I found a copy of Force of Circumstance in a charity shop and it's very intriguing. The editon is inscribed "Doris L. Leach Xmas 1965 from A.E." and there are photographs of beauvoir stuck inside with a man who doesn't look like Sartre. There is a comment underneath hand-written which just says 'cannes'. There is a later photograph dated 1955 and labelled Bournemouth... the man in this photo is definitely the same man as the first but the lady doesn't look so much like Beauvoir. There is a small press cutting of De Beavoir inside too which just states "snakes in a bourgeois eden"

Does anybody have any ideas what this book is about? It could just be a present to a D.B. admirer but the photographs complicate that idea a little. Give me your ideas!


Vic x

(no subject)

I have a few (large) questions. I figured I'd swallow my pride and see if anyone here is better read on these issues and has anything insightful to say about any of these questions. I apologize beforehand for any spelling or grammatical errors.

As you'll see they mainly deal with issues of 'reason', 'subjectivity', 'intersubjectivity', 'ontology', 'dialectic' and 'political action' in Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Gadamer, Taylor and Ricoeur.

1. It seems that recent continental philosophy has often wanted to overcome the subject-object distinction, some wanting to go as far as to eliminate the subject. "Intersubjectivity" seems to be a popular notion, and I was wanting that unpacked a little for me to properly understand this notion. Furthermore, I was wondering what the state of subjectivity/intersubjectivity in thinkers I am currently most interested in (Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Gadamer, Taylor, Ricoeur). Gadamer seems minimize the role of subjective choice by saying "prejudices, more than personal judgements, constitute the historical reality of his being", but how does this mentality relate to these other thinkers? Taylor seems to me to take the same view. Mitscherling noted a distinct 'deterministic' viewpoint in Gadamer, which I haven't yet noticed, but I suppose minimizing the subject's role in choice could lead to something like that. Is one of the main reasons for overcoming 'subjectivisim' that in the hermeneutic circle one is unable to give priority to either structure (objectification?) or action (subjectivism?) as the entering point, and in this way hermeneutics is the only way to balance the priorities of subjectivism and the demands of the "death of subjectivity" camp (eg. Foucault). That is how it seems to sound in on Pg. 174 of Taylor's "Foucault on Freedom and Truth." But Habermas writes on pg. 341 of "A review of Gadamer's 'Truth and Method'" that "the unbroken intersubjectivity cancels out subjectivity." Does this mean that pure intersubjectivity cannot make room for the demands of the subjective? Furthermore, on a related point, In "Overcoming Epistemology" (pg. 16) Taylor accuse Derrida of talking about the "end of subjectivity" but offering it instead - how?
This leads to my second question

Collapse )
infest 2006
  • mirukux

(no subject)

Don't know what happened there. As expanding_soul noted, I've removed a whole load of the off-topic posts as soon I was made a mod a few days ago, but when browsing through the community doing so and not seeing the comment links, I made the assumption that it was due to a badly made journal theme. I've re-enabled commenting now.

(no subject)

The lack of comments points to the primacy of our own existence thrust into this world. All I can say about this cannot be encapsulated in a mere comment. Thus, perhaps a lack of comment will allow us to think on these things....

To spinpsychle

You did not leave a choice to comment your question. My answer would be: never believe to what priests tell you. There were no such huge liars in a human history as they are. Even if they are trying to tell you a truth, their predecessors spoil that truth.

(no subject)

Are there any differences between Existentialism and Stoicism?

EDIT: I realized that if I keep asking vague questions I'll only end up with vague answers. What I mean is "What are the major differences between the two? Does Stoicism encompass all/most of the traits of Existentialism, or visa versa?"

That's probably still pretty vauge, but I hope it will leave me more informed than my original question.
credit: lidi
  • nive

Universal Ethics?

First of all, I can’t relate this to any specific philosopher – perhaps Kierkegaard's Either-Or, but I’m not sure. Anyhow, this is my question: If ethics is defined as a set of universal but abstract rules of conduct as opposed to the changeable rules of society, how do you 'live out' ethics, i.e. concretize it without it becoming completely subjective, meaning, how does an ethical obligation become concrete without it being subjected to individual judgment? Wouldn't this mean it is no longer universal?
Sorry if this makes no sense at all, first post and everything, but I’m really hoping someone can shed some light on this for me? Thanks in advance :)