Ahundredbux posted:now there's too many drat it!! that's just how we do, in the society of the spectacle. ~sig~ |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:49
|
|
~*
~*
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Ahundredbux posted:now there's too many drat it!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
The Stranger was actually super depressing to me in high school because I was super sadbrained when I was 15 so at the beginning of the book I was like "haha, this guy rules, he doesn't give a gently caress, he's like me but all French and poo poo" and then he gave so little of a gently caress that he killed a guy for no reason and then he was given the death penalty and totally deserved it and I was like "drat" really made me stop and consider my life choices 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Are You There, God? It's Me, Kierkegaard.
~sig~ |
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Shakill OReal posted:Robert Anton Wilson is cool as hell overall The Book of Subgenius is a fun introduction to Discordianism |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Hugh Malone posted:The Book of Subgenius is a fun introduction to Discordianism Church of the Subgenius and Discordianism are superficially similar but are pretty different when it comes to what they're mocking and the feel for how they're doing it. SubGs are pawn-shop dadaists riffing on evangelical christianity and Discordians are doing some rental-lot surrealist thing with catholicism and eastern mysticism wouldn't call either a philosophy though and the discordians aren't getting on those saucers on July 5, 1998
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Just saying it introduced me to Discordianism, and it's fun to read in the morning on the john |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Hugh Malone posted:Just saying it introduced me to Discordianism, and it's fun to read in the morning on the john i only know about this because of a mis-spent youth they are the best toilet reading books bar none
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:25
|
|
Saint Isaias Boner posted:i only know about this because of a mis-spent youth you mispent your youth on the toilet? qqqq |
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Smash it Smash hit posted:you mispent your youth on the toilet? basically |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
immanuel kant? not with that attitude!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Schopenhauer? But the mall closes at 6!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
|
drat i thought i was gonna be original coming in here to drop the principia discordia 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
|
It's defintitly The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh of Homer!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:17
|
|
i am he posted:the bible ---------------- |
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
i am he posted:the bible *opens bible with upside down comic hidden in it, begins reading* lol, this Archie is so weird. ---------------- |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
For learning: The Problems of Philosophy, B. Russell For fun: Meno, Plato Most important: The Treatise of Human Nature, D. Hume Fiction category: Waiting for Godot, S. Beckett or The Book of Disquiet, F. Pessoa ---------------- |
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
|
Who would win in a French moping competition, Camus or Sartre |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Who would win in a French moping competition, Camus or Sartre Camus could screw, but Sartre was smartre. ---------------- |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:51
|
|
mysterious frankie posted:Camus could screw, but Sartre was smartre. Albert was fair, but Jean-Paul had gall. ---------------- |
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Saint Isaias Boner posted:two pages in and neither Augustine of Hippo nor Rousseau have been mentioned NOOOoooo. Well, kinda. My dissertation is on the ethics of recognition, but international relations are pretty nifty too and I very nearly wrote on humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. IR is like ethics, but it has more guns in it and sometimes you get to say "Westphalian." I'm just super stoked to see philosophy come up and got carried away. |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
MrMenshevik posted:NOOOoooo. Well, kinda. My dissertation is on the ethics of recognition, but international relations are pretty nifty too and I very nearly wrote on humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. IR is like ethics, but it has more guns in it and sometimes you get to say "Westphalian." I'm just super stoked to see philosophy come up and got carried away. i got very badly sucked in by R2P/liberal interventionism when I was studying IR. turns out their "realist" critics were right - their motives are suspect and it's ruinously dangerous for the international system for obvious reasons. anyway all the philosophers you listed are mandatory to study in IR. a lot of IR falls back on Hobbes, even now. Unfortunately Hobbes is pretty flawed in ways that have been apparent for a couple hundred years at least (if not immediately). Still worth reading because it's fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
misty mountaintop posted:Albert was fair, but Jean-Paul had gall. it took me way longer to get that than it should have because I kept reading Albert English-style in my head. incidentally, if you ask for your meal "english style" at an in-n-out they... won't know what you're talking about. ---------------- |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
|
wikipedia collected all the best stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
|
 this kicks your dissertation's rear end tbh. it even has a pronunciation table
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
mysterious frankie posted:Camus could screw, but Sartre was smartre. Yeah, well Scooby-Doo can DOO DOO, but Jimmy Carter is smarter |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
i was supposed to read the first two books of thenicomachean ethics and go to class about it but Social Anxiety!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Neitzche's preachy, but Schopenhauer's dope for hours
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Saint Isaias Boner posted:i got very badly sucked in by R2P/liberal interventionism when I was studying IR. turns out their "realist" critics were right - their motives are suspect and it's ruinously dangerous for the international system for obvious reasons. As has long been noted, Hobbes's version of 'realistic' politics is pretty fanciful and his philosophical anthropology is suspect, but drat if he isn't interesting. Sometimes Hobbes is just peddling an easy answer - more repression! - but John Bew's book Realpolitik helped me figure out what is truly dangerous about Hobbes. The more actors focus on force and the more they devalue consensus and general norms, the more likely conflict becomes. The Hobbesian mindset helps instigate the problems it hopes to contain. My journey through R2P sounds pretty similar to yours. It is an attractive way to handle certain outrages, but the realist critics and the anti-colonial critics have too many good points. You can't give a global hegemon a writ to waive sovereignty whenever it feels another nation has offended against humanity. It is simply too dangerous. Do you have any good recommendations from your IR days that I can add to my life-threateningly huge pile of books? |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:45
|
|
| What does R2P mean and also how many philosophy majors are posting in BYOB | |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:58
|
|
mrbradlymrmartin posted:i was supposed to read the first two books of thenicomachean ethics and go to class about it but Social Anxiety! Pretty sure Aristotle argues that when given a choice of two courses of action, you should choose whichever is more difficult for you. |
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
I'm reading simone de beauvoir's "ethics of ambiguity" right now, it's a bit easier for me then sartre's "being and nothingness" which is next on my list. then i'm stepping back a little and working a bit more on finally finishing kant's "critique of pure reason" paul_soccer12 posted:everyone in the idf must die |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
misty mountaintop posted:What does R2P mean and also how many philosophy majors are posting in BYOB R2P is the responsibility to protect. It is a proposed standard for sovereignty and a principle of humanitarian intervention. The idea is that any minimally legitimate government has a responsibility to protect all persons within its domain from the worst atrocities especially genocide, mass rape, or ethnic cleansing. Should the government carry out such things or permit them, then the international community supposedly has a responsibility to protect the affected people. It grew out of the experience of genocide in the 20th century. The genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia and the systemic abuses in Bangladesh were only put to an end when a neighboring power intervened to shatter the offending government, but international law really frowns on invading countries to dictate their internal politics. The Balkan wars proved a turning point: one figure famously referred to the intervention as illegal but justified meaning that the law was not adequate to the moral task of maintaining a civilized state of affairs. This has a few big consequences. First, it treats sovereignty as contingent. If you are a bad enough regime, then other nations are allowed to waive regard for your right to administer your own internal affairs in whole or in part. The equality and inviolability of sovereignty is a core part of ideal, Westphalian (I got to use it!) soveriegnty in which each nation sets for itself the course of its own internal affairs free of outside interference unless it also authorizes that entry (say by signing a treaty). Second, it creates pressure to intervene. Outside parties aren't just allowed to violate the host nation's sovereignty, they have a moral and political duty to do so. So both of those make state-to-state conflict much more likely. They also open up the possibility of a lot more 'benevolent paternalism,' meaning outside powers lifting the obligation of self-rule off of failed states with the intent (if not actual practice) of making things better. People pointed out some serious, serious problems. One, this seems like it would only ever apply to vulnerable nations. The US, Russia, and China aren't letting anyone else do any protecting within their sphere of influence, bub. So this is going to be something powerful nations do to less powerful ones. Two, this weakens the legitimacy of unstable regimes by opening a gateway for disaffected groups to invite in a foreign patron. Three, it makes revanchist efforts easier provided you cover it as protecting your people abroad. Two of the Baltic nations discriminate pretty openly against their Russophone citizens, does that give Russia a right to protect them? Four, most proposals say this should be routed through the UN, but it is hard to justify that limitation and without it the doctrine gives a lot of cover to moral adventurers in powerful states. In other words, if the US wants to play statesman in the Middle East why not just call up a responsibility to protect somebody? Added all together and this starts to look like a gateway drug to either regional power struggles or neo-colonial White Mans Burden stuff both of which are bad and neither of which need more encouragement. |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
skeemon posted:Yeah, well Scooby-Doo can DOO DOO, but Jimmy Carter is smarter I've heard that. about both of em. ---------------- |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
misty mountaintop posted:Pretty sure Aristotle argues that when given a choice of two courses of action, you should choose whichever is more difficult for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:43
|
|
mrbradlymrmartin posted:pretty sure i needed to go pick up some bars instead of bugging out and having another panic attakc I think the only reasonable conclusion is that Aristotle was a fuckass. QED ---------------- |
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
misty mountaintop posted:I think the only reasonable conclusion is that Aristotle was a fuckass. QED 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
there was one philosopher who died from laughing too hard at a drunk donkey and another one got donked on the noggin by a falling turtle. and me? I'm not feeling so great either.
---------------- |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
i'm very fond of kierkegaard's either/or, especially the passages specifically discussing "melancholy." kierkegaard's method of, well, writing literature rather than instructions or vivisections of ethics and living really reverberated with me the first time i read that book. conversely, i loathed the ever loving poo poo out of blaise pascal's pensees. it's ironic because i spent a lot of time studying game theory (and its offshoot, social choice theory) as part of my degrees. somehow i got a politics degree without ever reading rawls, gently caress yeah. my undergrad politics peers would read rawls for one of the political theory courses and then become completely unsufferable for the next two years. r2p sounds good but then you remember that the people who espouse it are generally the heirs of manifest destiny and then it starts sounding suspicious... |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
mysterious frankie posted:there was one philosopher who died from laughing too hard at a drunk donkey and another one got donked on the noggin by a falling turtle. and me? I'm not feeling so great either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysippus i think this is your guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 04:03
|
|