Enduring Problems in Philosophy

My idea behind it I’m afraid would mean it getting torn to shreds. Personally, I think that if something is alive it’s quite different from something that isn’t. Yeah, it comes out as a bias, but a boundary with live things is quite different from something that is non living. Granted it is a part of what is living, but not the actual source of it. So the intention that’s behind what is said is quite different than the affect it can have. I’ve had instances of opening my mouth about kind things in bad situations hoping for something good, but it doesn’t mean I’m not alive. I’m okay with the fact that I’m just a rock. I don’t see it as meaning my spirit, soul, or purpose is changed, since the actual source of it isn’t.
 
Ren said:
Even I, the OP, can't keep up with it anymore it seems, haha.

The latest discussion is on the nature of pain. I refer you in particular to this post by @Anomaly and this one by @John K -- should you be interested in joining that conversation.
Click to expand...
Ren, I fear you may need to let this go. haha. ;p
 
Cognitive nerfs and simulation theory.

 
I've been listening to some Post-Marxist material, especially Baudrillard, but I have yet to really explore Hegel. That's an important background to have while reading Marx because of the idealism. I've read Stirner because his writings are short.

I've heard that Marxists don't like Post-Marxism because it's not a Communist train of thought. They're missing out, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Pin said:
I've been listening to some Post-Marxist material, especially Baudrillard, but I have yet to really explore Hegel. That's an important background to have while reading Marx because of the idealism. I've read Stirner because his writings are short.

I've heard that Marxists don't like Post-Marxism because it's not a Communist train of thought. They're missing out, I think.
Click to expand...

I love how on the one hand you delve into statistical math to get maximum value from your next job, while on the other you listen to Post-Marxist podcasts.

I didn't know Baudrillard qualified as a Post-Marxist. I thought of him more as a straightforward Postmodernist. It's hard to be a Marxist without subscribing to dialectical materialism, and Baudrillard definitely rejects that.

I think most Postmodernists would just dismiss Marxism as yet another example of a 'grand metanarrative'. What stuff about Baudrillard have you been listening to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin
Ren said:
What stuff about Baudrillard have you been listening to?
Click to expand...
I watched a summary of his ideas that explained his understanding of hyperreality. Not real or fake reality, but a simulation of reality. Social media is today's hyperreality. I agree with him that the world is becoming less "real." Here.

I consider him a Post-Marxist because he criticizes capitalism through a Marxian lense but doesn't completely agree with Marx on the direction of history. He's definitely a post-modernist though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Pin said:
I watched a summary of his ideas that explained his understanding of hyperreality. Not real or fake reality, but a simulation of reality. Social media is today's hyperreality. I agree with him that the world is becoming less "real." Here.

I consider him a Post-Marxist because he criticizes capitalism through a Marxian lense but doesn't completely agree with Marx on the direction of history. He's definitely a post-modernist though.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose that's right.

This is the enduring problems thread though, Pinny. Therefore we must identify a problem to discuss in Baudrillard's work. How about this: you say you 'agree' with him on things becoming less real. This is another way of saying that you think some of the propositions he makes are true. But what makes them true?

On the most common interpretation of truth, we would say Baudrillard says things that correspond to reality -- with how things really are, 'the facts', etc. But he himself says that the real is no longer real but hyperreal. Therefore he seems to lack a basis (i.e. reality) for saying true things. Therefore we seem to be in a position to neither agree or disagree with him.

How would you address this paradox?
 
Roses In The Vineyard said:
Click to expand...

"The more you are unaware of your emotions, the more your rational thought process will be filled with rationalisations instead of real logic."

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for sharing the video.
 
@Roses In The Vineyard

I have another theoretical example in mind.

Someone could argue with flawless logic from false premises they can't see because of their buried emotions. On the other hand, someone could argue rhetorically (with dubious logic) from sound premises and know exactly what they're doing with their rhetoric. The former is sincere but irrational, the latter is insincere but rational.

I think that example says a lot about the dangers of overestimating the virtues of 'rationality' (at least in the sense employed by the guy in the video).
 
Ren said:
"The more you are unaware of your emotions, the more your rational thought process will be filled with rationalisations instead of real logic."

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for sharing the video.
Click to expand...
I love this quote... I want to know more... but I'm not in a place where I can listen to this video... I can't wait to watch it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top