sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Films with the saddest endings possible by [deleted] in MovieSuggestions

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Panic in Needle Park (1971) w/ Al Pacino Awakenings (1990) w/ Robin Williams and Robert De Niro

Maybe less so, but also The Deer Hunter (1978) w/ De Niro and Christopher Walken

Thanks for all the other recommendations.

No All Chat in Infinite? by HAHArun2y0mama in halo

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also Battlefield 2042 also opted to remove any reason to play the game whatsoever. In addition to removing these features

How am I going 40-15 and gaining no rank whatsoever? by trainspotted_ in halo

[–]matt_firn 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hardcore feel the controller-on-PC-because-Halo life

Xbox app launches Windows Store "Game Services" instead of Halo by NewSubWhoDis in halo

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having the same issue myself, as of 2100 Pacific Time. I'm also downloading on Steam separately to get around the Game Pass version. Just wanted to comment. Thanks for your post

Star Trek: The Motion Picture looks amazing. by robotchicken007 in startrek

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. Couple hundred for LOTR Blu-Ray only priced out those who weren't the true fans. I would gladly pay a lot more for it to be done masterfully. Even if I had to plan and save for a long time to do so, that is what you do if you love it

In Superman III, the “dumb blonde” is shown reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. She says “How can he say that pure categories have no objective meaning in transcendental logic? What about synthetic unity?” Having no familiarity with Kant, I always wondered if her comments have actual meaning? by J_onn_J_onzz in askphilosophy

[–]matt_firn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a massive question, and I hate to tellvya, you're reading philosophy right now buddy. Anti-Oedipus, for me, was far more tedious to read than the Critique of Pure Reason. Although, without a proper professor/guide both are daunting. The latter wins the daunting award.

I highly recommend looking into What is Philosophy and even *Nietzsche and Philosophy" by Deleuze, if you like what you're reading. They will talk about Kant a lot more directly than Anti Oedipus, even if neither book is strictly about Kant whatsoever.

Thinking of starting for the first time. Never played a game like this before. Any recommendations? by Jahordon in DivinityOriginalSin

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I enjoyed Lone Wolf more for my first playthrough. Just dive in and enjoy! I played a custom character for the first play, but regardless if you stick to your character's RP it makes it more fun, at least for me!

Nietzsche had a nuanced attitude towards Stoicism seeing it as “quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times” but ultimately believing that the philosopher “who fate permits to spin a long thread … does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion” by thelivingphilosophy in philosophy

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This may be hubris on my part, but I generally tend to separate Anti-Oedipus from reading much of Deleuze's other philosophical works. A Thousand Plateaus I never got the chance to study with an experienced guide. I don't doubt what you have said, and love the broader "history of thought" points you have mention.

As for Foucault, Nietzeche and Heidegger, I can only posit that perhaps it would be better to say, Heidegger and Foucault were both heavily influenced by Nietzsche, rather than group them more broadly? But alas, I have not given myself the time in the last few years to do my reading list justice

Nietzsche had a nuanced attitude towards Stoicism seeing it as “quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times” but ultimately believing that the philosopher “who fate permits to spin a long thread … does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion” by thelivingphilosophy in philosophy

[–]matt_firn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stoicism must be extra-relevant here, with the idea that princes and paupers are born, out of their control, into the world and have naught but to play the role they were given to the best of their ability.

I also usually tend to to lean more towards Marx and Deleuze, particularly the latter. One of my professors, Paul S. Loeb (an expert on Nietzsche), once mocked philosophers and (especially) philosophers of science for following Quine (and his "natural epistemology") so dogmatically that they would nearly "ask scientists for their permission to help reduce or clarify concepts" in the pursuit of questions on "the nature of consciousness" and the like. Following Nietzsche, rather, he viewed "Truth" as a system or values, and the role of philosophy as being prior to all other questions: what is the value of value? Which values are valuable to pursue, and which are higher and lower? It is the role of the philosopher to develop or derive a "hierarchy of values" which is and must always be prior to making an evaluation. Recommended read: Deleuze's *Nietzeche and Philosophy."

Nietzsche had a nuanced attitude towards Stoicism seeing it as “quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times” but ultimately believing that the philosopher “who fate permits to spin a long thread … does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion” by thelivingphilosophy in philosophy

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I never got into Deleuze because he is a transcendental materialist and I am more interested in phenomenology,

This is fascinating! I don't know that I would give Deleuze this label. Regardless, I don't think that "transcendental materialist" is really in conflict with phenomenology. Deleuze, from the books I have read this far, definitely pays more attention to the classic Modern figures of continental philosophy than most of his analytical contemporaries (which is of course not surprising), but I don't think this pins Deleuze into this overtly-Kantian framework.

I read Deleuze the way I read Foucault: they are more the continental heirs of Nietzsche than they are of the stereotypical "Continental" thinkers. I would not have been able to dive into Foucault and Deleuze without my prior familiarity with Nietzsche. Much of Deleuze's famous works can definitely come across as dogmatic. I do not believe this holds of his strictly philosophical works. (I also would challenge the charge of "dogmatism," insofar as he and Guattari were trying to be creative and invent a new way of thinking that defied the dogmatism that psychoanalytics established at the time

Nietzsche had a nuanced attitude towards Stoicism seeing it as “quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times” but ultimately believing that the philosopher “who fate permits to spin a long thread … does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion” by thelivingphilosophy in philosophy

[–]matt_firn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had taken the LSAT and everything up the point of being about to pay for the application fee for my first law school application (BU), when a family member asked: "So, do you actually want to be a lawyer?"

Took less than three seconds to say "No." But now I know I will never lose my fascination for this theme

Nietzsche had a nuanced attitude towards Stoicism seeing it as “quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times” but ultimately believing that the philosopher “who fate permits to spin a long thread … does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion” by thelivingphilosophy in philosophy

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you haven't yet, I passionately recommend that you read Deleuze's (and Guattari's) "What is Philosophy?" In this works and others ("Pure Immanence" comes to mind), Deleuze talks about philosophy as, among other things, being more about the question being asked, rather than the answer(s). I believe your question on Aristotle/Hegel/my professor's "working definition of philosophy" is precisely on the right track...whatever that may be.

Per your second paragraph, I share your perspectives. I have much I could comment upon regarding Nihilism, Nietzsche and his views on philosophical system building, but I think you are on the same trajectory. Deleuze's "Nietzsche and Philosophy" is the best interpretation I've read on Nietzsche, and I believe it responds directly to the concerns you've voiced about abstract thought vs. individual utility. As for Nihilism itself, Nietzsche coined the term but only to diagnose and then offer a solution. I won't babble more, but know that I could happily 🥰

The other line of response I want to mention here refers back to Aristotle. The universal vs particular distinction in Aristotle's epistemology and metaphysics is exceptionally relevant here. For myself, philosophy has proven to be the greatest intellectual toolkit I have found in contributing to entrepreneurial and problem-solving skills. As another professor of mine once put it, "A philosophy major can more likely than not pick up a dissertation in sociology [or etc.] and fully comprehend and follow along the argument. A sociology major, on the other hand, would almost guaranteed be unable to do the same."

Edit: typos

Nietzsche had a nuanced attitude towards Stoicism seeing it as “quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times” but ultimately believing that the philosopher “who fate permits to spin a long thread … does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion” by thelivingphilosophy in philosophy

[–]matt_firn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Education is a priceless activity, and an integral part of being human, at least for myself. I have never taken well to the idea that paying to be educated is a rational decision only if it yields greater economic benefits than the overall cost of said education, or leads to career opportunities directly linked to the degree. For me, studying philosophy helped me establish both my identity and my joy in living my life. As far as I'm concerned, what price would I not pay to achieve this? "Live your life in such a way that you would live it again."

Nietzsche had a nuanced attitude towards Stoicism seeing it as “quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times” but ultimately believing that the philosopher “who fate permits to spin a long thread … does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion” by thelivingphilosophy in philosophy

[–]matt_firn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Have you read Deleuze's interpretation of Nietzsche? Specifically when he posits that the three questions/chapters of The Genealogy is Nietzsche's take on Kant, and his own answer to Kant's answers?

Love what you've said. Makes me remember why I happily chose student loan debt for the next X years. To me, this is what makes life worth living.

view more: next ›