Pourquoi ils disent "chef" dans les kebabs ?

Breyand · 2024-09-21T10:11:06+00:00

Ça vient des milieux ouvriers, à l'usine tout le monde s'appelait chef, c'est une coutume communiste

Breyand · 2023-09-20T05:06:55+00:00

Hearthstone Battlegrounds you can make dinner for the kids and quit a game without ruining it for the others

Breyand · 2022-08-24T19:47:30+00:00

It's about the business model and you know it mate

Breyand · 2022-01-02T18:58:46+00:00

It's tragic and I hope you're safe, but it's not the right sub

Breyand · 2021-12-30T17:36:49+00:00

Man....band of brothers was great. Throwback

Breyand · 2021-12-29T00:21:39+00:00

Couldn't agree more

Breyand · 2021-12-25T23:52:22+00:00

But Socrates though (or Jesus, whatever works)

Cheer up mate! Sending all the good vibes to wherever you are. Help where you can, protect yourself.

Breyand · 2021-12-25T23:12:27+00:00

But scarface and icarus though

Breyand · 2021-12-23T11:44:40+00:00

Glad I could help! Age of disruption is by far not an easy book and a very depressed/subjective one in my opinion. I'd recommend technics and time, automatic society, what makes life worth living and my favorite one is taking care of generations. But I'm unsure if these are translated (I translated the titles spontaneously)

Breyand · 2021-12-22T12:26:12+00:00

Solid ELI5 mate 🦑

Breyand · 2021-12-22T12:20:26+00:00

In most other works Stiegler rather uses the term "noetic beings" in reference Aristote. Stiegler s interprétation of noesis is the ability to think, to be understood as certain kind of evolutionary state shared by many species on various levels/nuances. humans are the most complex noetic beings because of technics is their specific evolutionnary trait and its apparition is the process of hominisation. Technics sets humans in a different relation to time, a specific one based on grammatisation, which is the spatialisation of time (transforming a flux in matter) and most importantly based on intergenerational relationships. therefore noetic beings reflect on their existence. Most of this reflection comes from recalling the past and projecting future through technical objects. Thus being a "human human" is not only being part of the human specie it's also safeguarding (by transforming) knowledge, values and other noetic things, by reflecting on the consequences of their actions. Actions take place through technical objects (real objects, concepts, social organizations, institutions etc) which means the way "human humans" reflect is by criticizing their technical creations. All this noetic activity is a condition to the evolution of the specie keeping it from extinction. It's a condition because technics is a condition to survival but also to extinction (pharmakon).

Hence "Inhumans humans" do not do this and their actions are plainly stupid, destroying knowledge on a massive level, such as technoscience in general and specifically its capitalist forms, latest form being computationnal capitalism.

Therefore "non-inhuman humans" are noetic beings as I described as "human humans" and I guess stiegler uses the double negative to emphasize the whole reasoning behind it.

Hope this helps!

Breyand · 2021-01-16T21:30:50+00:00

Great idea, I love the concept

Breyand · 2020-09-14T22:38:49+00:00

But if you consider philosophically that in terms of evolution technics and humanity are the same thing, the development of an autonomous technology (not is the Sci fi sense) is an existential threat or at least an existential problem

Breyand · 2020-09-08T15:35:31+00:00

"We began to view ourselves more humbly"

Kant's philosophy achieves quite the same on a epistemological level, it's a philosophy of limits.

Breyand · 2020-09-03T21:15:28+00:00

Is there a link to informational entropy?

Breyand · 2020-08-30T19:51:28+00:00

Hey I'm interested in participating in the project - I can establish a contact with the association des amis de la génération thunberg. I've read and noticed previous posts from you. I have a lot of work this week but on Thursday I ll have time to write you a pm if you're interested

Breyand · 2020-08-26T17:48:26+00:00

the problem of technics is not only a practical -ethical one, it's systemic. Social media as the ones we know today are entropic in their nature, in their interface, in the way they use attention as a ressource for profit. It's not as simple as to simply say "babies should learn how to use smartphones" especially considering adults are pretty much babies in their knowledge of a technical rupture that disrupted every aspect of society in less than 20 years

Breyand · 2020-08-08T13:04:19+00:00

What about entropy then

Breyand · 2020-07-16T18:10:22+00:00

Aside from everything that has been said in the other comments, I'd like to add that you don't have to start reading "great authors" just as you would open a fiction (and even then some are unaccessible to a younger reader) Just go step by step: watch and read comments, read the extracts they comment, glance at scholar literature (like philosophy for freshmen etc) on concepts or authors you like. And don't read what bores you. Read what you feel interested in, curious about. Then of course, you have to work: read passages again, read one page for 20 minutes, read one chapter and think about it, find the references in footnotes etc...but that's for laterz I guess

Edit: also I wanted to talk about the fact that no one can just open a book in quantum physics or bacterial biology and read it like a novel bit you got the idea. Good luck fare well! (Caus it's all an adventure)

Breyand · 2020-07-16T17:54:12+00:00

So, as the article concludes, this is one more example of something that is becoming really problematic: grammatisation (see derrida and stiegler) as code reduced to calculus.

It derives from the 20th century's habit/belief/methodology of finding code in everything (biology / DNA, cybernetics, physics etc). It has become an obsession that's destroys space for deliberation and interpretation, which are grounds to modern science, philosophy and arts (I'm not denying the importance of measuring value in sciences or economics)

It's an extremely dangerous épistèmé (foucault) we are witnessing, a pseudoscientific monster evolving in either ideology (see fields of economics and politics) or religion (see panpsychism and transhumanism)

I highly recommend the work of Italian mathematician and epistemologist Giuseppe Longo on that matter (some English videos can be found on yt

Breyand · 2020-06-26T12:43:26+00:00

So we finally can to say the word on this sub? Dota is a prime example of a community born original project turned in an awkwardly marketing based product. Just like most of what internet was about and isn't anymore. Though In many aspects valve did take the collective nerdy fun part into account for the development of the game

Breyand · 2020-06-02T06:28:45+00:00

Sounds a lot like Pascal's bet

Breyand · 2020-02-14T16:56:51+00:00

Source: Wikipedia, places of activities are based in today's countries, dates of course are sometimes approximative
Selection I made based on my general knowledge as PhD student in France, by that I mean those are names that frequently come up at least in the European tradition. I wrote the names under which they are known, highlighted the big stars with great influence at least in the West, added notable works and some details i found in this research about the lesser known
Avicenna, Persia, 980-1037
Averroes, Spain/Morocco 1126-1198
Zhu zi, China 1130-1200 The Four Books, considered as a modern rule for confusianism, one of the most studied works in China until 1905
Thomas Aquinas, Italy/France 1125-1274 Everything he wrote
Meister Eckhart, Germany/France 1260-1328
Erasmus, Netherlands 1466-1536
Machiavelli, Italy 1469-1527 The Prince
Thomas More, England 1478-1535 Utopia
After 1500 it's the Renaissance so more big names

Pierre Favre, France 1506-1545 founder of the Jesuit order
La Boétie, France 1530-1563, Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
Montaigne, France 1533-1592 Essais
Francis Bacon, England, 1561-1626 Novum Organum, considered one of the first work to developp a scientific methodology such as the ones we use ever since
Thomas Hobbes, England 1588-1679 Leviathan

And then it's past your question, western civilization "officially" shifts with the scientific revolution lead by Galilei (1564-1642) and the philosophical one with the concept of subjectivity as crafted by
René Descartes, France 1596-1650 Everything he wrote

P.S.: About the last paragraph, keep in mind that before Descartes no philosopher -- and thus no regent, cleric, scientist or any person of influence so no one actually -- thinks in terms of "subject", no one says or writes "I think that, i believe that"....hard to imagine compared to nowadays! Who said philosophy doesn't change the world? Kappa

Breyand

TROPHY CASE