05.05.2010, 05:45 AM | #121 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
|
Counts of that word in this thread: Pookie, 2; Bradders, 1; Ned, 1; Glice, 1.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 05:58 AM | #122 | ||
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
|
Quote:
But surely part of that is a question of perspective - there are quantitatively more people working in academia today, that's for certain. I don't think they in any way obscure the good people. No-one's actually named a single pointless, workaday, sheepish academic so far (I'll name one: John Fiske) because we simply don't remember them. The references have always been to the 'big guns', because it's just not in anyone's interest to remember the silent herd of feckless shites. Lacan might have been widely misinterpreted, but we're trying to get at him, not his inadvertent detractors. Similarly, we don't know much about the contemporaries of Hegel, Kant, Descartes, Gallileo, Newton and so forth simply because history has decided to ignore them. I'm in the process of writing an essay on one of the more obscure Patristic fathers, so I've read a lot of the characters that aren't Chrystostum, Origen, Clement and so on. The reason there's not a great deal of writing on the incidental characters (who are the equivalent of our modern landfill academics) is because it's simply better covered, more clearly, elsewhere. So I suppose I'd say that if the restriction of humanities does lead to a redressing of the humanities' purpose - the academic reform Bowels and Rail mentioned - that'd definitely be a good thing; however, if this reform means that the humanities is forced into reducing itself to narrow (or 'properly') economic terms, or forced into making 'plain sense' writing, then that would reduce what merit it does have. Everyone is familiar (whether they know it or not) with ideas like Descartes' Cogito or Plato's Cave - but if you return to the original texts, there's very little in the way of 'simple writing'. Plato I continue to find excruciating, and possibly always will, and Descartes I found incredibly hard work (but rewarding once I got there).
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
||
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 07:34 AM | #123 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: No. 10
Posts: 3,289
|
Schopenhauer's view of Hegel, my view of Lacan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_...r_versus_Hegel As he points out, the success of these "thinkers" is down to their obscurantism (I haven't read any Hegel so can't give an opinion on him). The people who are honest enough to admit this realise the damage these sort of academics have done, and realise why people might consider the humanities as pretentious and pointless. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 07:48 AM | #124 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
|
Lacan and Hegel aren't the best writers; does that invalidate their point?
People don't think the humanities is pretentious and pointless because of Lacan and Hegel. I'd be very surprised if anyone who says that has bothered with the Phenomenology of Spirit. It's not a matter of 'honesty' or otherwise that I have read Lacan and feel like he's made sense to me. The problem if that you're being made to feel bad because you didn't get it when it occupies such a central position in critical theory. Lacan is important, but no-one's important enough to be ubiquitous.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 08:06 AM | #125 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: No. 10
Posts: 3,289
|
Quote:
Ok, that's an exaggeration. But even I have thought at times, whilst doing my degree, that literary criticism has become pointless (incorrectly) because of similar problems. The admiration for, and (pretended) use of, the work of people like Lacan, Derrida, etc is part of the problem. I would say so. Dishonest academics are the reason why people like him are popular. It's same kind of dishonesty that most religious people have to maintain for their comforting beliefs to survive. I don't feel bad for not getting it! There's plenty of other, actually difficult, rather than obscurantist, which I read and take pleasure in, and there many things that I recognise as being just too difficult for me, and don't really mind that. |
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 08:24 AM | #126 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
|
What's the difference between difficult and obscurantist? I shudder whenever anyone mentions Derrida, precisely because he's so widely misunderstood. In himself, his work is often very difficult, but that difficulty is entirely necessary, and utterly on point. If you try and re-write Derrida's points in simpler words, you just end up writing more than he did. But the minute he's dismissed as 'obscurantist' I immediately feel that whoever's saying that hasn't really given him a bash in good faith.
You're right about dishonest academics, but... well, it's your call whether or not you join them really. If you can see through a bad academic - or endemic bad academics - there's no reason you have to be a part of that. I know some astonishingly sharp (published) academics and some utter turds. I cling to the good ones, ignore the bad ones. I suppose the only problem is finding the good ones - which is where your own critical faculties come in, I suppose.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:23 PM | #127 | ||
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,648
|
Quote:
sophists actually provided a services to their patrons. they commanded large fees. i think their condemnation by socraplato was different from what i'm talking about here. look,the intellect is the faculty of the human brain, and anyone can "philosophize" over some beers, but only freedom from labor allows a social class to devote themselves to intellectual pursuits-- is that too hard to comprehend? go try being a philosopher while making a living as a dishwasher, without external means of support-- i dare you. do it as an experiment, say, for 6 months, and when you finally realize how the real world works apply to law school and use your philosophical training to make a decent living. seriously. i'd say "go be a philospher" but there's a current need for culling-- not exctinction, just culling-- bad times-- and you probably would need to make it to a top-level school if you're going to stand the faintest of chances of ever getting a tenured position. you could try for adjunct-for-life, but it's a painful and miserable road. Quote:
jeezus man, your impression is WRONG. universities depend either on huge endowments or state funds to keep going. why do you think there's a rich person's name above the door every time a new pavillion/laboratory/auditorium/sports complex gets built? do you have any idea of the massive private wealth that supports institutions like harvard, yale (which owns like half of new haven), and other top schools? tuition schmision! hasn't your school hit you up for donations yet, recent graduate? by "i don't know who they may be" i mean, shit, state governments, federal grants, the pentagon, rich fuckers looking to leave a "legacy" (aka "philantropists"), megacorporations ("this is a pepsi campus"), armies of devoted alumni, etc-- the list is too fucking long for me to investigate and list each particular case, but there's a general outline for you. in europe and latin america it's been mostly a govenrment thing, i believe, hence depending on taxes, though there ARE private universities. anyway, your assumptions are hopelessly naive. best luck. |
||
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:24 PM | #128 |
expwy. to yr skull
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,553
|
y'all missed mah tit.
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:29 PM | #129 | |||
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
|
Quote:
I generally agree with a lot of this. Except for: Quote:
That's really patronising. I actually did some dishwashing while studying philosophy, and it never made me want to be a lawyer. Studying philosophy is really, really good for making a person not care too much about abject poverty. In my experience, at least.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
|||
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:29 PM | #130 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,648
|
Quote:
jah be praised-- or something |
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:30 PM | #131 | ||
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
|
Quote:
I saw it.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
||
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:32 PM | #132 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,648
|
Quote:
not studying while doing some dishwashing, tits, anybody gets a job in college duh. i mean, wash dishes full time, for a living. or construction work. 8 hours a day plus commute, supporting yourself solely on it. TRY IT and we'll talk. i tried something similar-- after a day of mixing cement under a baking sun i had no energy left except to eat, drink beer, fuck, and sleep. well, i could read a little, mostly weekends. but go try it yourself. i promise it will at least be an adventure. |
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:39 PM | #133 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,648
|
ps- oh, spice girl, that was you answering, sorry, i failed to recognize that donkey signature and i thought you were the person i was addressing in my post. (i should have recognized he'd never say "i agree with this a lot"-- apologies). anyway, pbradders actually enjoys some lawyering, or so i've read him say.
i know you don't wanna be a lawyer-- you plan to be the pope some day and let the children come to you. uh-huh. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:39 PM | #134 | ||
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
|
Quote:
Right, sorry - I worked for 2 months as a labourer, moving bricks around. I did 3 months of factory work. I've worked in bars, on and off, for many years (up until a few years ago). I've done 3 months of door-to-door salesman work. I've lived off of temporary work for over 3 years. What's your point? People should do shit jobs? I've done shit jobs. They were shit. I've done better-paid jobs. They were also shit. Now that I've said that I've had shit jobs, I still think your point is patronising. Moreso because you're assuming I'm someone who's floated about like some foppish dilettante.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
||
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:42 PM | #135 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,877
|
Quote:
|
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 03:45 PM | #136 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,648
|
Quote:
read my post above, non-pbradders. i was answering as if you were him. i know you've slept in flea-ridden couches. my point was that living off shit jobs really cramps your philosophy work, you foppish dilettante. unless you live in a barrel and alexander offers you anything you want. good luck with that. |
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 04:00 PM | #137 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,664
|
I know what your point was. I'm just point out you're wrong. And you smell. And your face is so small that shrews laugh at you behind your back.
I think anyone who thinks of themselves as a philosopher but can't do a shit job really lacks... well, everything.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here. Quote:
|
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 04:02 PM | #138 | ||
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars attacks
Posts: 42,648
|
Quote:
get your nose out of under my ballsac and breathe, silly. Quote:
i know-- i can hear you but lacan was never a full-time bricklayer. and wittgenstein wanted to be a laborer and failed. socrates was merely a bad sculptor-- doesn't count as hard labor plato had slaves hegel was a university prof engels had daddy's money the question anyway is NOT if you can do hard labor, anyone reasonably healthy can. the question is if you can perform full-time hard labor, depend on it for your subsistence, AND do serious intellectual work at the same time. |
||
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 04:06 PM | #139 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: No. 10
Posts: 3,289
|
Dishwashing - check
Manual labour - UNCOMPLETED Philosophising - UNCOMPLETED |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
05.05.2010, 04:16 PM | #140 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SoKo
Posts: 10,621
|
Quote:
|
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |