pixel skylines
izzy's playlists!
ellievsbear
titsay
Sweet Seals For You, Always
ojovivo
Andulka
tumblr dot com
if i look back, i am lost
@theartofmadeline
Cosimo Galluzzi
EXPECTATIONS
No title available
NASA
$LAYYYTER
taylor price
Color Me Curious
Game Changer & Make Some Noise
Today's Document
No title available
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Bulgaria
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from Nepal
seen from Norway
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
@bvansoolen-blog
Q: What do you really want out of life? What is the "good" life? A: Little taco bowls to eat my new spicy chicken recipe out of and paying $2 for Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind". #eudomonia #lifegoals #winning (at Marion, Oregon)
Sunday = fun day! Too much talk about "desert" and "justice" on the social media scene... Me? I am over here like, "Have you read Rawls? No, seriously, have you even read Rawls?" Time to go back to the beginning and look at the finest introductory chapter ever written in political philosophy. #Rawls #ATheoryofJustice (at Ideological Hell)
devices from Void- the Ethical Orientator.
Available in three models- Absolutist, Nihilist and Relativist- something to suit every philosophical mindset!
Philosophically Curious George and the Limits of Empiricism by Existential Comics
Especially relevant whenyou also study Husserl and Heidegger.
Do you really understand the ontological argument? Can you explain why it appears so effective? Do you understand the Kantian critique of it, and can you explain Heidegger's problem with these sorts of nonsense? The answer, just like the answer to all seemingly critical questions, can be found through (1) reading; (2) understanding what you read; and (3) writing about it. Quit accepting ideas because they sound "good," "right," "correct". Start investigating their strengths and weaknesses, and come to an understanding that will better inform your beliefs (or lack thereof). (at Ideological Hell)
Look, it’s the Hegel age – you know it and I know it. It’s been the Hegel age for the past 200 hundred years, but only recently have we come to realize that in all the recent atte…
Rule 1: Never (ever) actually read anything by Hegel.
First of all, of course, you cannot just come out and say you never read Hegel. No one reads Hegel, but no one ever admits to not having read Hegel. It’s a sacred law of (not) reading Hegel. In fact, you cannot ever say you are reading Hegel when you are reading Hegel for the first time (if you have committed this atrocious act, see Rule 2), you are always re-reading Hegel. Here is how you do it:
“I have been re-reading Hegel’s Jena Lectures recently. Some fascinating stuff, really helps you understand [insert more known works by Hegel], don’t you think?”
When you send things back to other pretending Hegelians, you are projecting confidence in your ability to fake having read Hegel. Don’t be afraid to use this move – they haven’t read Hegel either so they are not likely to come back with an objection to your interpretation.
Keep reading
Let's call it what it is... Brilliant and insightful. Now I feel guilty for even attempting to understand Hegel...
Best footnotes ever #1: Footnote 1. From Harry G. Frankfurt's "Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility". (at Ideological Hell)
As Ricky would say, “it’s not rocket appliances”: I contend “x”. It is my contention that “x”. In this “y,” I intend to demonstrate/explain/argue/contrast/ and so on ad infinitum. Or you could go old school: I answer that “x”. Prop. “x”. Demonst. Corol. Schol. Objection. Answer. Prosyllogism. Answer. And the best ever? 1. Question the issue at hand. 2a. Objection 1. 2b. Objection 2. 3. Thesis. Denial of 2a and 2b. Then, If Argument 1, in favor of the thesis = done. If Argument 2, reply and refutation of Objection 1 + in favor of the thesis = done. If Argument 3, reply and refutatuon of Objection 2+ in favor of the thesis = done.
As Ricky would say, "it's not rocket appliances": I contend "x". It is my contention that "x". In this "y," I intend to demonstrate/explain/argue/contrast/ and so on ad infinitum. Or you could go old school: I answer that "x". Prop. "x". Demonst. Corol. Schol. Objection. Answer. Prosyllogism. Answer. And the best ever? 1. Question the issue at hand. 2a. Objection 1. 2b. Objection 2. 3. Thesis. Denial of 2a and 2b. Then, If Argument 1, in favor of the thesis = done. If Argument 2, reply and refutation of Objection 1 + in favor of the thesis = done. If Argument 3, reply and refutatuon of Objection 2+ in favor of the thesis = done.
trying to read Kant
Trying to read Chapter 3 of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit".
Evolution of Philosophy.
Nice!
An amusing anecdote from my 20th Century professor.
When speaking to the Analytic/Continental divide he simply said this: “I have had perhaps ten or so Analytic friends, coworkers, teachers, etc. who late in their careers picked up a text in the Continental tradition and they said, ‘Wow, this is interesting! What have I been missing?’ But never have I met someone who devoted their life to Continental philosophy late in their time pick up Quine or Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and say ‘OH YES! THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN MISSING!”
When you start explaining things to people, they start burning down buildings.
Ethics professor (via philosophyprofessorquotes)
Nice
