Recent comments in /f/philosophy

lethal__inject1on t1_j02t94q wrote

Reply to comment by soulstudios in Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak

I’m not a person that has interest in celebrating or promoting empowerment based on my race, but it’s most certainly an interesting topic to think about and discuss.

On the surface, race empowerment does not seem like a bad thing for any race to promote, yet it’s only considered acceptable by certain races mainly due to the historic amount of racial hate through most of modern history.

I understand the apprehension of some folks to openly allow and tolerate members of all races celebrating racial empowerment, however we should also use critical thinking and clear judgement to distinguish between what is actual hate and what is empowerment.

1

jmcsquared t1_j02r1mi wrote

Reply to comment by buddhabillybob in Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak

>I did think the distinction between “black” consciousness and “Black” consciousness was pretty interesting.

This has always annoyed me. Why do thinkers in critical theoretic circles feel the need to change the meanings of words - in ways that are supposedly extremely crucial to their points - via nothing more than capitalization differences? I still don't understand why that of all things would be the go-to algorithm for these types of academics.

23

CaseyTS t1_j02pv9b wrote

Reply to comment by elmo85 in Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak

That's not the meaning of 'seriousness' in English, though. That's my point. This author is using 'seriousness' as a stand-in for being committed to rules or being closedminded. Just refer to the thing itself or make a new word rather than defining a word that already has a different, relevant definition.

Literally, that's not a definition of seriousness. Defining seriousness such that serious things and people are always closed-minded really seems like a bad idea. Seems very closed-minded in itself.

2

OmgStfuDude t1_j02owoz wrote

Reply to comment by DirtyOldPanties in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 12, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

When I say “great” I mean the ones who have offered something that is still being argued.

Elliot Sober, he’s the author of the textbook I had to use for my intro class. Really like his writing style, but I just don’t see him as a great philosopher. I’ve seen him cited a few times across different papers I’ve found, but I wouldn’t group him into a category with Descartes/Hume/Plato— these are people we still talk about, because they had something “big” enough to say.

Does that help clear it up?

1

elmo85 t1_j02mvdz wrote

Reply to comment by CaseyTS in Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak

I think there are some explanations of seriousness dropped here and there in the article, and it is not exactly what you mean. it is rather used for following rules without questioning, respecting discipline to the detriment of creativity.

this means someone can be serious in their work (in your terms) without following the seriousness of the subject (in the author's term).
he suggests playfulness for example to break well known dichotomies, or an other example to adopt foreign ideas instead of translating everything to familiar terms.

at least this is my recollection.

10

Nameless1995 t1_j02eqdx wrote

Reply to comment by contractualist in Why You Should Be Moral (answering Prichard's dilemma) by contractualist

I am not talking skeptics who denies values per se, but inherent stance-independent values. So the radical skeptic may brutely stance-dependently value reason, his-own-freedom and such but not believe that reason has inherent agent-independent value, or that freedom-as-such or even his-own-freedom has inherent value beyond the psychological contigencies of people relating to them in a "valuing" manner. Thus the radical skeptic is not sure if value is a thing or a property rather than being a process-in-act -- a "value-ing" associating with how the agent relates to a thing, concept, or a capacity.

And moreover, the skeptic may be a skeptical towards moral realism (beyond there being game-theoretically stable principles for agents to modulate their "powers" by considering trade-offs involving different valuing of different agents)

1

tree-molester t1_j02cmje wrote

Reply to Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak

This is pretty much why all religion and philosophy fall short.

Once you try to name the mother of 10,000 things it’s no longer the mother of 10,000 things

4

jamjacob99 t1_j02bkw3 wrote

Reply to Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak

Skipped this article to listen to an actual audio interview and Gordon is quite reasonable on systemic racial issues. It’s my first time encountering him and his ideas, and while I do have social justice fatigue generally, Gordon didn’t really trigger me in that way. Seems like a chill, worldly dude making smart observations on race.

7