For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
These books are required reading for philosophers today.chaz wyman wrote:I can't help you with these particular titles ... Deleuze and Guattari.Joseph wrote:Has anyone read either Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus or both by Deleuze and Guattari? I recently read both and would be interested in discussing if someone has.
info wrote:These books are required reading for philosophers today.chaz wyman wrote:I can't help you with these particular titles ... Deleuze and Guattari.Joseph wrote:Has anyone read either Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus or both by Deleuze and Guattari? I recently read both and would be interested in discussing if someone has.
This entire post is a sad reflection on the poor state of your discriminating ability. I have no idea whether or not he is Jewish, and would not personally consider that of any significance.info wrote:I'll look at Diamond. Maybe it's true?
--------------
Okay, so it looks okay so far... I'm a bit suspicious though because you recommended it.
Not the book itself exactly, but in other mentions, it sounds pretty political and tied into Jewish politics? "chaz wyman" sounds Jewish too.
What's that about?
Diamond is himself an anthropologist? And a Jew? With all due respect to the Jews, who are obviously the good guys generally speaking, I'm sometimes a bit uncomforatable with 'Jewish anthropology'. Sorry if that sounds racist, but anthropology in Isreal is totally different from all other antropologies, anthropology in Poland, Turkey, Antarctica, anywhere, is written by and with methods that are consistent; with Jewish anthropology assumptions and angles and unexpected persons seem to be on the scene. A random piece of rock found in Israel gets a totally different treatment than anyother. Diamond is later called an 'anthropologist' and not a 'philosopher', or a 'poet' as he originally was? Why?
Do you want to say something about that?
He is related to the New School of Social Research which is the American wing of the Frankfurt School; so that's good. Diamond was a Continental. He's a pomo. So I guess he's cool.
So do you think that's unfair to disrespect people or their ideas because of tangential features, labels, etc?chaz wyman wrote:This entire post is a sad reflection on the poor state of your discriminating ability. I have no idea whether or not he is Jewish, and would not personally consider that of any significance.info wrote:I'm a bit suspicious though because you recommended it.
Not the book itself exactly, but in other mentions, it sounds pretty political and tied into Jewish politics? "chaz wyman" sounds Jewish too.
What's that about?
Diamond is himself an anthropologist? And a Jew? With all due respect to the Jews, who are obviously the good guys generally speaking, I'm sometimes a bit uncomforatable with 'Jewish anthropology'. Sorry if that sounds racist, but anthropology in Isreal is totally different from all other antropologies, anthropology in Poland, Turkey, Antarctica, anywhere, is written by and with methods that are consistent; with Jewish anthropology assumptions and angles and unexpected persons seem to be on the scene. A random piece of rock found in Israel gets a totally different treatment than anyother. Diamond is later called an 'anthropologist' and not a 'philosopher', or a 'poet' as he originally was? Why?
Do you want to say something about that?
I suggest you attend to what he said and not traduce him for his parentage.
Of course. Whatever 'features' do not relate to the argument.info wrote:So do you think that's unfair to disrespect people or their ideas because of tangential features, labels, etc?chaz wyman wrote:This entire post is a sad reflection on the poor state of your discriminating ability. I have no idea whether or not he is Jewish, and would not personally consider that of any significance.info wrote:I'm a bit suspicious though because you recommended it.
Not the book itself exactly, but in other mentions, it sounds pretty political and tied into Jewish politics? "chaz wyman" sounds Jewish too.
What's that about?
Diamond is himself an anthropologist? And a Jew? With all due respect to the Jews, who are obviously the good guys generally speaking, I'm sometimes a bit uncomforatable with 'Jewish anthropology'. Sorry if that sounds racist, but anthropology in Isreal is totally different from all other antropologies, anthropology in Poland, Turkey, Antarctica, anywhere, is written by and with methods that are consistent; with Jewish anthropology assumptions and angles and unexpected persons seem to be on the scene. A random piece of rock found in Israel gets a totally different treatment than anyother. Diamond is later called an 'anthropologist' and not a 'philosopher', or a 'poet' as he originally was? Why?
Do you want to say something about that?
I suggest you attend to what he said and not traduce him for his parentage.
info wrote:Oh sure. This week I'm loving G even more. That dude had a good sense of humor. I gotta get back into Plateaus.
http://s010.radikal.ru/i312/1108/6c/092ab1e7dc71.jpgchaz wyman wrote:Who, what?
Oh I see. But do you think the division in the 15th expression is valid given the opening statements, particularly the third which demands a delta product from the third reciprocal? Surely this is naive, given the primitiveness of the prime?info wrote:http://s010.radikal.ru/i312/1108/6c/092ab1e7dc71.jpgchaz wyman wrote:Who, what?
Why would tx- ● [15]Δb?chaz wyman wrote:Oh I see. But do you think the division in the 15th expression is valid given the opening statements, particularly the third which demands a delta product from the third reciprocal? Surely this is naive, given the primitiveness of the prime?info wrote:http://s010.radikal.ru/i312/1108/6c/092ab1e7dc71.jpgchaz wyman wrote:Who, what?
I'm not saying that. Please re-read my posting.info wrote:Why would tx- ● [15]Δb?chaz wyman wrote:Oh I see. But do you think the division in the 15th expression is valid given the opening statements, particularly the third which demands a delta product from the third reciprocal? Surely this is naive, given the primitiveness of the prime?
http://s015.radikal.ru/i333/1108/ac/12cf4e2ea19e.jpg
info wrote:Yes I see what you mean. I want to post a theorm that can address that soon.
chaz wyman wrote:Oh I see. But do you think the division in the 15th expression is valid given the opening statements, particularly the third which demands a delta product from the third reciprocal? Surely this is naive, given the primitiveness of the prime?
