Sex as Synthesis

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Ding an Sich
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 07:13 am
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;136404 wrote:
Re #11: someone must ask, however gingerly, how your apparently idiosyncratic use of the very specific term Volkskoerper - which, with its companion term Fremdkoerper, has the worst possible connotations - differs from Heidegger's apparently typical use of it here, for example:
the symptom 9 Political TextsThe University in the New Reich Martin Heidegger


I meant to say Korper. Volkskorper means the people's body, or the body of the national socialist party (which is by extension the German people). I realized that yesterday and am now correcting myself. Fremdkorper is the Jewish body or parasite if you will.

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 08:20 AM ----------

Pyrrho;136147 wrote:
My initial thought was that you have been spending too much time at pornography sites. But I am now wondering if instead it is that you have not been spending enough time at such sites...


I dont look at porn. It causes me to act out of disrespect for the law in my heart.

Reconstructo;136311 wrote:
Sincerely, despite his flaws, Hegel is the completion and correction of Kant. I see this with utter clarity now. Kant's analytic reduces the heart of Hegel's logic. Causality is not transcendental, but built from the one basic analytic, which is synthesis itself, or conceptualization itself. Kant mistook an invention for something transcendental. Wittgenstein also sees this, and proves it in TLP.

Kant is the Moses who led us to the Promised Land. Hegel was Joshua. The noumena is an incorrect concept. I just realized this clearly in the last few days. Objectivity has always been grounded by language use. Noumena was a brilliant idea, but it was finally subsumed by Hegel....as merely one more distinction of that which transcends distinction, which is the fundamental Concept, or conceptualization itself


I just started reading Hegel so we shall see where it takes me. Kant is my base and right now I'm sticking to it while being skeptical of Hegel. Hegel can be rather infectious though. It feels groundless at times.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 08:20 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136134 wrote:
Well, perhaps philosophy should not be about clarification. Perhaps we should focus on elusivity, while being as profound with our words as possible. Words like "absolute" often help - we need that "ultimate" oomph! We should indeed construct our arguments with premises which have multiple and often vague interpretations. And, let us not forget, it's always wise to overuse metaphor.


Sadly, for many people, that is what they think "philosophy" is. And that is about as far removed from a "love of wisdom" as one can get.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:02 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;136456 wrote:
Sadly, for many people, that is what they think "philosophy" is. And that is about as far removed from a "love of wisdom" as one can get.


True. That's why I stick to Kant.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:17 am
@Ding an Sich,
...Sex zooms out the mirror of the world for Time...
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:18 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;136518 wrote:
...Sex zooms out the mirror of the world for Time...


Could you explain good sir?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:23 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;136519 wrote:
Could you explain good sir?


...Its all about organizing replicas of ONE...:deflated:
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:25 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;136522 wrote:
...Its all about organizing replicas of ONE...


Not a very good explanation. Ill just stick with what you said and leave it at that.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:28 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;136523 wrote:
Not a very good explanation. Ill just stick with what you said and leave it at that.


...be my guest and help yourself ! (meanwhile I go replicate myself to another thread ) :shifty:
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 01:17 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Pyrrho;136147 wrote:
My initial thought was that you have been spending too much time at pornography sites. But I am now wondering if instead it is that you have not been spending enough time at such sites...


Ding_an_Sich;136441 wrote:
...

I dont look at porn. It causes me to act out of disrespect for the law in my heart.
...


Think of "pornography" as a metaphor for something related, and you will have a better idea of what I mean. But I don't really wish to pursue the matter, so feel free to ignore this.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 01:26 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;136556 wrote:
Think of "pornography" as a metaphor for something related, and you will have a better idea of what I mean. But I don't really wish to pursue the matter, so feel free to ignore this.


Maybe Im dense or maybe I just dont want to assume to look like a fool. Why do you need a metaphor when you know the word that needs to be said? Why not just say it? Is it that hard? Why would you even bring this up if you dont wish to pursue it?
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 01:43 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;136566 wrote:
Maybe Im dense or maybe I just dont want to assume to look like a fool. Why do you need a metaphor when you know the word that needs to be said? Why not just say it? Is it that hard? Why would you even bring this up if you dont wish to pursue it?

You don't need to be sexually ungratified to see that the union of male and female in the form a child is an example of synthesis. That would be a "duh."

But why would you commit to refuting Hegel before diving into it? Just a thought: Hegel reflected the times he lived in, as all people do. As a young man, his heart was broken by discovering the truth about Napoleon. Just like Beethoven and apparently much of the youth of Europe.

So he was human. What you can't deny is that his mind was huge, and for bothering to write down his thoughts, I thank him.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 06:37 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;136441 wrote:

I just started reading Hegel so we shall see where it takes me. Kant is my base and right now I'm sticking to it while being skeptical of Hegel. Hegel can be rather infectious though. It feels groundless at times.


I respect that of course. Kant is a great base anyway. His issues are crucial. Are time and causality reducable, or are they transcendental in lowest terms? A good question. Is the transcendental unity of apperception a stopping point? Is noumena logically justified? All great questions. And we can ask them thanks to Kant.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:43 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;136574 wrote:
You don't need to be sexually ungratified to see that the union of male and female in the form a child is an example of synthesis. That would be a "duh."

But why would you commit to refuting Hegel before diving into it? Just a thought: Hegel reflected the times he lived in, as all people do. As a young man, his heart was broken by discovering the truth about Napoleon. Just like Beethoven and apparently much of the youth of Europe.

So he was human. What you can't deny is that his mind was huge, and for bothering to write down his thoughts, I thank him.


Hegel is becoming more and more a part of my philosophy as I do read into him more. I dont know if I will come to reject him at one point (as I am not omniscient) so for now I will let him become part of me.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 02:54 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;135433 wrote:
.......
If I understand you correctly then it would be the same as saying I am not kicking your ass because you don't bleed, don't get bruises, nor get emotional stressed ..therefore I can drug you and kick your ass?

Sorry, but I don't agree with anything you said.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 09:20:29