USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
Sounds like he’s saying she’d be prettier if she kissed more.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was in a PhD program at Stanford, I had a conversation with my dissertation advisor about Habermas and he said, "I think he's about finished." That was in 1987. Habermas continued to work until his death and published his final book last year.
One of the most important scholars of the last 100 years, known through many disciplines. Also a tireless foe of fascism and fanaticism. Habermas is one of those guys who is known well within high academia but he deserves to be known by normal non-academic intelligent people. He's like Inverse Foucault.
One of the most important scholars of the last 100 years, known through many disciplines. Also a tireless foe of fascism and fanaticism. Habermas is one of those guys who is known well within high academia but he deserves to be known by normal non-academic intelligent people. He's like Inverse Foucault.
Last edited:
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
TIL: Aurelius was an average dude who was sick his entire life, plagued by an ulcer that he took something for daily. I also learned that Meditations really didn't break any new ground.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Read a funny and apparently oft-quoted Philosophy PhD candidate joke. "We can understand Nietzsche's individual sentences perfectly well but we'll never understand what they add up to. We can understand what Hegel adds up to perfectly well but we'll never understand his individual sentences."
I did find one illuminating statement about Hegel though by this circuitous route: from Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit via A. V. Miller's translation via J. N. Findlay's sentence-by-sentence gloss via Michael Inwood's sentence-by-sentence gloss on that gloss:
Kant said we can never know the thing-in-itself that underlies reality because we can are held prisoner by our cognition and can only see the appearance our mind can recognize. Hegel said it's way deeper than that but also it doesn't matter. Hegel says Kant makes it seem like we could step outside our cognition and compare what we see to what there is, but to do that you'd have to understand reality outside our understanding of reality. But there is no "outside." The analogy of the mind to an instrument with flaws is false, because it assumes an observer separate from the instrument. In a mind, the instrument is the observer. So the bad news is Kant's critique is incoherent but the good news is our immediate understanding (and that's where the "phenomenology" part comes in, which I finally understand) is, by every possible definition of the word, what "is." Your individual mind is not to be contrasted with a universal objective "Brute Fact" or "Mind of God." It is the very is that is. Is is is. Then Heidegger comes along 100 years after, shakes his head vigorously, and says "Be be be."
Now why couldn't they have just said that?
I did find one illuminating statement about Hegel though by this circuitous route: from Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit via A. V. Miller's translation via J. N. Findlay's sentence-by-sentence gloss via Michael Inwood's sentence-by-sentence gloss on that gloss:
Kant said we can never know the thing-in-itself that underlies reality because we can are held prisoner by our cognition and can only see the appearance our mind can recognize. Hegel said it's way deeper than that but also it doesn't matter. Hegel says Kant makes it seem like we could step outside our cognition and compare what we see to what there is, but to do that you'd have to understand reality outside our understanding of reality. But there is no "outside." The analogy of the mind to an instrument with flaws is false, because it assumes an observer separate from the instrument. In a mind, the instrument is the observer. So the bad news is Kant's critique is incoherent but the good news is our immediate understanding (and that's where the "phenomenology" part comes in, which I finally understand) is, by every possible definition of the word, what "is." Your individual mind is not to be contrasted with a universal objective "Brute Fact" or "Mind of God." It is the very is that is. Is is is. Then Heidegger comes along 100 years after, shakes his head vigorously, and says "Be be be."
Now why couldn't they have just said that?
Last edited: