Recent comments in /f/philosophy

WaveCore t1_j03zn0x 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 you're fixating way too hard on the terminology he decided to coin for the idea. Do you disagree about the content of the idea, its name aside? I also disagree with the naming choice but it seems relatively unimportant to discuss.

−1

DirtyOldPanties OP t1_j03xu5e wrote

Reply to comment by XiphosAletheria in Objective Moral Values: Basic Human Needs by DirtyOldPanties

> You mean the literal straw man, the person who doesn't exist whose fictional emotions you can pretend to understand?

I don't think it's a strawman when arguments such as these depend on introspection. It's not as though people don't understand (in an emotional sense, not a philosophical one or scientific one) what emotions are or have never felt then.

2

sovietmcdavid t1_j03x8w1 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

Someone is downvoting you for simply asking why the author of the article needlessly tortures the meaning of a word. This sub is too serious... lol

1

sovietmcdavid t1_j03wi8d wrote

Reply to comment by jmcsquared 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

Academics have to publish articles. And if they're the "black consciousness" academic that's what you are going to get ad infinitum.

Academics nowadays are living in silos separate from each other and the real world as they pursue their "area" slapping their highly focused cookie cutter research onto various topics.

−2

slimeyamerican t1_j03velc wrote

Reply to comment by RaphaelAmbrosius 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

Black consciousness having independent existence which all observers have to acknowledge. This is what I don’t understand about relativism-it’s fine to be open-minded, unserious, and “transdisciplinary” if you like at one point, but what do you do when the various cultures and philosophies you’re approaching open-mindedly conflict with one another? Because they do conflict, all the time. Do you believe multiple contradictory things and deny nothing? That seems to veer from open-mindedness into simple mindlessness.

In theory that appears to be Gordon’s suggestion, but it’s pretty obvious that he picks favorites (“Black consciousness”) and opposes their contraries (“white narcissism”) like everybody else in the real world.

2

XiphosAletheria t1_j03o9lk wrote

Reply to comment by DirtyOldPanties in Objective Moral Values: Basic Human Needs by DirtyOldPanties

>Finding enjoyment in those things is not the same as finding happiness and I doubt the author meant you could not find joy or pleasure in those things.

Ah, the author had some mystical idea of "happiness" in mind, then, which they have no doubt defined as excluding those things they think ought not to produce it.

>Why does "evolutionary strategy" matter if the fundamental question is how to live one's life? Is parasitism a valid strategy to pursue one's own happiness or self-esteem?

Sure? I mean, you only really get three basic roles to choose from - predator, prey, or parasite. The "productive" types working ordinary jobs are your prey. The rich types who inherit their wealth initially and grow it by gaming the system or exploiting others rather than producing anything themselves are your parasites. And those who murder and rob as they see fit are the predators.

Of course, the metaphor falls apart very quickly if you try to work with it, because the use of the term "parasite" wasn't exactly intellectually honest in the first place. It was just an emotionally loaded term meant to forestall debate.

>I think the article demonstrates quite clearly otherwise. I liked the example of a thief who resents transactions as a nuisance who is in discord with their emotions and what they desire.

You mean the literal straw man, the person who doesn't exist whose fictional emotions you can pretend to understand?

5

noonemustknowmysecre t1_j03mbqw 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

>Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities...

Eh, sure you can dig into anything as deep as you want to go. To look at any economic detail, you could follow that into sociology, psychology, neuroscience, biology, chemistry, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics. Or you could look at any of the potential layers built upon economics. So sure, "infinitely richer" in the sense that is all this stuff is complicated.

....but the solution is to reject reductive explanations? They just pointed out that there's an infinite amount to know about anything. How do you wrap your head around anything? You first learn a simple version. "Things fall down". THEN you learn about orbits. Then you get into spacetime. Of course you reduce it down to something manageable. You learn about edge cases and expand your knowledge, but you have to start somewhere.

"Clinging" to the simple explainations isn't a good idea. It's not going to get you into orbit. But learning about orbits doesn't mean things stop falling down.

3

CaseyTS t1_j03lkqs 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

Similar response to someone else:

Yes, language changes naturally over time. If it is an intentional change on his part, I think it's a bad change.

What do we call our old version of "seriousness" now? Why change it, why lose it? Why tie up "closedmindedness", which we have a word for, with a related but totally distinct thing?

He's conflating two different things and using then using one of those two things to denounce the other. I do not abide that in an essay about openmindedness. He absolutely didn't have to choose a specific, different word.

1

CaseyTS t1_j03li28 wrote

Reply to comment by RaphaelAmbrosius 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

Yes, language changes naturally over time. If it is an intentional change on his part, I think it's a bad change.

What do we call our old version of "seriousness" now? Why change it, why lose it? Why tie up "closedmindedness", which we have a word for, with a related but totally distinct thing?

He's conflating two different things and using then using one of those two things to denounce the other. I do not abide that in an essay about openmindedness.

1

jmcsquared t1_j03ekit wrote

Reply to comment by unripenedboyparts 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

>Yet these constructs won't go away and the more they impact society and the individual, the more they become things in themselves.

I mean, they're here because we create them and allow them to influence us.

With the advent of true equality under the law, families with mixed ethnicities, and the natural progression of human consciousness beyond simplistic constructs, I'd like to think that we can hopefully come to cast aside such limitations, rather than further ingrain them into our collective psyche.

3

DirtyOldPanties OP t1_j03efes wrote

Reply to comment by XiphosAletheria in Objective Moral Values: Basic Human Needs by DirtyOldPanties

> So you get statements such as "you can't find happiness in procrastination, promiscuity, or pot", which is laughable given how many people find real enjoyment in those things.

Finding enjoyment in those things is not the same as finding happiness and I doubt the author meant you could not find joy or pleasure in those things.

> First, it rails against the option of living as a parasite. But parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy,

Why does "evolutionary strategy" matter if the fundamental question is how to live one's life? Is parasitism a valid strategy to pursue one's own happiness or self-esteem? I think the article demonstrates quite clearly otherwise. I liked the example of a thief who resents transactions as a nuisance who is in discord with their emotions and what they desire.

0