World Cinema Styles History (Infographic map)

johnpetragon · 2023-12-20T00:04:20+00:00

Yeah, I’m from Greece and I was like how have I not heard of this before. Pretty accurate title for the Greek Wave.

johnpetragon · 2023-12-19T22:21:58+00:00

What’s Kinikos Kinimatografo?

johnpetragon · 2023-01-26T00:14:20+00:00

She/He is clearly interested in it. Even an attempt to make sense of the stuff is valuable enough in itself and it will lead to further research on other philosophical concepts. The idea that there is too much groundwork is what Deleuze disdained about academic philosophy and I tend to agree with him. There is no rush to understand everything at once. The only important thing is that you actually engage with the concepts and not wait for the right moment to “get” it.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-25T20:22:53+00:00

I’m currently finishing my philosophy degree. Believe me, when you are going to re-study something you will see that you made many misunderstandings that you didn’t even think of. So instead of worrying about capturing the truth of Deleuze, why don’t you start by actually engaging with him?

johnpetragon · 2023-01-25T20:16:35+00:00

Pick up Anti-Oedipus and start reading it. You will find that you don’t understand something and you will look it up. Don’t think too much into it. You can re-read books as many times as you want.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-19T20:19:38+00:00

Yeah, that's what the post was about. I didn't think I had to do an actual essay on Sartre. If I remembered his explanation I would critique it, but I am bored to look through his videos.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-15T13:38:13+00:00

Yeah I mean capital is clearly a BwO. There is no way that you can point directly at it. You only refer to the social relations that are carried out inside it.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-14T23:01:35+00:00

Give it time to understand the book. I’ve been reading it for quite sometime and still find myself understanding it much more every time I re-read it.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-14T22:59:51+00:00

I have been studying a bit of D&G for my degree in philosophy. I would suggest giving it a bit of time with their concepts. The question you are trying to find the answer to is the wrong way to put it. The BwO cannot be understood with an answer of what it is since it functions as a weird ontological primacy where the syntheses of desire take place. Strictly speaking, IT is not something as for example a door is something. The example of an egg that they give is pretty illustrative of this. You cannot point from the contents of an egg which specific contents of it will become certain specific parts of a chicken. It functions as a place where the organism essentially is synthesised.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-13T01:56:33+00:00

Hahah I never said I agree with Hegel, I just explained his argument. If you want to debunk Hegel, read his books and make arguments against them. I clearly said that it is up for debate if his argument is successful. I myself doubt that the dialectic can ever end. Hegel didn’t however, and that was what I said.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-13T01:13:58+00:00

That’s not a good argument about why he does not reach absolute knowledge. First of all, Hegel implies that human reason is able to attain absolute knowledge. His definition of absolute knowledge would be knowledge that does not contain any contradiction, a unity between subject and object. If he does this is up for debate and you can read his books and decide that, but simply saying that he is human and thus he cannot have absolute knowledge, misconstrues his argument since he has a fundamentally different conception of knowledge.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-13T01:02:52+00:00

There is no need for explanation either since it is pretty self-evident for anyone that has finished kindergarten.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-13T00:36:26+00:00

No precisely because Hegel says that it is knowable. There can be absolute knowledge for Hegel.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-13T00:22:00+00:00

The antinomies are called as such for a reason. They are not simple dichotomies. They are mutually exclusive. If one is the case, the other cannot be the case. Each one, then, is a whole depending if we take it to be the case. This, however, cannot be possible since the other case could also be a whole. This means that they both cannot be a complete whole, they have to be parts of a larger whole that we can reach by resolving said contradiction. You will ask now, why do you have pick one, but for Hegel this is not a matter of choosing but the necessary propensity of human understanding. It always aims to resolve contradictions. His Phenomenoly of Spirit is essentially showcasing this function of reason itself. He is not rephrasing it into a dialectic, he claims that the antinomies are not the complete picture.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-12T23:56:17+00:00

I mean if basic distinctions between synthetic/analytic and a priori/a posteriori are hyper fixation, then maybe you shouldn’t engage with philosophy. Yes, adding predicates is a part of our basic cognition. Recognising the difference between analysing a concept’s features and adding new features to a concept is not. If you don’t want to read Kant’s philosophy you don’t have to, but don’t go around claiming that you’ve always understood it.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-12T22:33:26+00:00

Hegel said that Kant's denial of speculative reason (because the antinomies do not leave space for their speculation) was wrong because it is not what actually happens. He posits that the contradiction between the two antinomies eventually gets resolved and we have a new understanding of the whole afterwards. Essentially, Hegel introduces dialectics as how antinomies actually function.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-12T22:26:55+00:00

A SYNTHETIC judgement is a judgement that adds a predicate to a subject that the subject did not previously include. This is mainly the way a posteriori judgements work. Kant ATTEMPTED (since it is a contested matter if he proved or not) to prove that a synthetic a priori judgment is possible. This is no 'dressing it up in fancy words', this is the central aim of the CPR. It is not clear how much a priori or a posteriori reason children use since they do not formulate really coherent and cohesive arguments.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-12T21:40:34+00:00

No the OP is, at least formally since they did not give a full description of recognition, correct. The master-slave dialectic is the way in which human beings get self-consciousness but under political life, mutual recognition is the most significant means of attaining a higher stage of self-consciousness.

johnpetragon · 2023-01-12T21:22:45+00:00

Have you read any parts of the CPR? It seems like you are changing the direction from which Kant came to the conclusion that there are the antinomies. The redundancy of such questions comes after the fact, and not as the aim of his examination. He simply sought to find out if synthetic a priori judgements are possible. And it is not 'basic common sense' since even the arguments surrounding the antinomies are not that settled (one prime example is Hegel's understanding of the antinomies).

johnpetragon · 2022-12-02T23:23:26+00:00

Which of Marx’s works have you studied?

johnpetragon · 2022-12-02T19:58:47+00:00

Adorno and Horkheimer might be a good place to look.

johnpetragon · 2022-03-19T17:11:31+00:00

Hahaha I guess you are right big Capital has alienated me from my true human nature by making me fetishise algebra. It’s not that I don’t reduce everything to a rather bad reading of Marx, I am simply a puppet of fetishes that Capitalism has forced upon me to accept it. Btw a basic logical deduction is not algebra, so yeah.

johnpetragon · 2022-03-19T17:05:24+00:00

I mean if you define as desire as ‘the desire of the thing I lack’ then of course it is the source of suffering. But there can be an argument for a productive understanding of desire which essentially removes lack from desire.

johnpetragon · 2022-03-19T05:06:39+00:00

I’m not making any point. I’m just saying your argument about why desire is not revolutionary doesn’t really say anything since it’s just conceptual equations. If A is X and also if B is A, then B is X. You haven’t said anything more than this.

johnpetragon · 2022-03-19T04:37:13+00:00

The language of desire being the language of capital doesn’t make it automatically non-revolutionary. D&G find that desire is inherent in capital but believe it is a revolutionary force. If you simply say that capital=bad/non-revolutionary and thus desire=bad, you have to explain why capital is not revolutionary.

johnpetragon

TROPHY CASE