What I Believe & Other Nonsense

[spike]

Some people think The Enlightenment is nonsense and a myth. But here is a link that thinks otherwise and I agree: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/books ... ntemail1=y

This is an expression of the myth.

Israel's books, I have read much of them, are full of great bits of information, but nowhere does he at any point express that the Enlightenment is anything more than an historical myth. I doubt that anyone has read all three books - because they are more useful as doorstops.

No one is arguing that there was social and political change in the 18thC, but it was only part of a wider change and evolution of thinking that started lang before that and has never stopped. It is a myth to distil a small section of those changes and delimit a part of it to the 18thC and call it an Enlightenment. You are too dull to recognise the subtlety of the arguments.

Vintage chaz, just disputing for the sake of disputing.

[chaz wyman]

Some people think The Enlightenment is nonsense and a myth. But here is a link that thinks otherwise and I agree: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/books ... ntemail1=y

This is an expression of the myth.

Israel's books, I have read much of them, are full of great bits of information, but nowhere does he at any point express that the Enlightenment is anything more than an historical myth. I doubt that anyone has read all three books - because they are more useful as doorstops.

No one is arguing that there was social and political change in the 18thC, but it was only part of a wider change and evolution of thinking that started lang before that and has never stopped. It is a myth to distil a small section of those changes and delimit a part of it to the 18thC and call it an Enlightenment. You are too dull to recognise the subtlety of the arguments.

Vintage chaz, just disputing for the sake of disputing.

Bullshit.
You think you have proved something because of a pathetic Internet News Article which shows that someone has written a book.
Me, on the other hand have actually read the fucking pot-boilers for my masters degree.
You don't know shit about 18thC Intellectual history, I do.

[spike]

Bullshit.
You think you have proved something because of a pathetic Internet News Article which shows that someone has written a book.
Me, on the other hand have actually read the fucking pot-boilers for my masters degree.
You don't know shit about 18th Intellectual history, I do.

Like I said before, vintage chaz. He is quite colorful. I mean, what is the point of denying The Enlightenment when it real happened?

[chaz wyman]

Bullshit.
You think you have proved something because of a pathetic Internet News Article which shows that someone has written a book.
Me, on the other hand have actually read the fucking pot-boilers for my masters degree.
You don't know shit about 18th Intellectual history, I do.

Like I said before, vintage chaz. He is quite colorful. I mean, what is the point of denying The Enlightenment when it real happened?

"IT"?

[Advocate]

[quote=Psychonaut post_id=95652 time=1323389763 user_id=55]
So, first a bit of background..

For some time I have wanted to write a book, mainly as an exercise in ordering my thoughts. I wanted to call it 'What I Believe & Other Nonsense'. However, I found that my thoughts resisted all attempts at being ordered. I considered subtitling the book 'A Book Of Introductions' and declaring each chapter to be the first. I still made little progress. Last night I considered what it would be like if I made it into a poem, it might be enough, or might act as a starting point...

It is still a work in progress, as I would like to give it a better rhyming scheme, but here it is as it stands..

[u]What I Believe & Other Nonsense[/u]

No part of the following may be heard & understood
unless each other part is[i] first[/i] heard & understood

That this is impossible is something of which I am aware
It is good then, perhaps, that I simply do not care

In no particular order:

Philosophy is a practice not a purpose; a game with rules
people partaking without sincerity are made bigger fools

In language rules only obfuscate; it is about understanding
interlocutors must be open and never demanding

The phenomena we experience are generated by our brains
hence the brain is not [i]here[/i] but out there beyond our strains

Psychology taught me about the minds of Freud & Jung
and gave little insight to my own subconscious dung

Personal identity and will are necessary illusions
evolved only to reproduce, causing confusions

Transcendental identity is both empty yet more real
this is impossible, yet I've made no mistake, I feel..

The 'social advances' of the past 100 years
are simply outsourcing to third-world overseers

Politics is about conflicting best interests, material or ideal
it hides personal responsibility beneath official seals

The same with spirituality & religion;
the more we follow others the less we have conviction

Morality is the wish that others will follow our ethic
we must let go or on resentment stick

This world is full of monkeys all flinging their shit
carry an umbrella if you don't want to be hit

I would rather live in a world of playmates than playthings
so I treat all people well and accept whatever this brings

We are never so mean as when refusing generosity
yet the debt of a gift bears its own ferocity

Ignorant people have scorn for others ignorance
which is what keeps people as ignorant as infants

To blame others is the only blameworthy action
mistakes happen what matters is our reaction

People make things hard instead of easy for us all
because we SHOULD be able; this is how we trip, not fall

Individualism is a creed to divide & conquer
those who run together run for longer

We are stupid for the most part because we blinker our brains
and we are never so free as when we choose our own chains
[/quote]

I started in roughly the same way, with a bunch of disorganized principles. The universe is an infinitely recursive meta-mõbius and any philosophy attempting to render it useful must organise itself according to it's strengths. I ended up going with the typical decisions of philosophy generally (epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics, and politics) but had to explain them in relation to each other in a way that isn't typical.