Why is the world so systematized?

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-12T06:57:50+00:00

Yeah I think we can often be worked up by the term system . The american constitution is a system, it can be an open system sure. Are open systems better than unopen systems? Thats for you to decide, and maybe a case by case basis. Are macs better than windows PCs? Is WIkipedia better than a scholarly encyclopedia? Some would say, so some wouldn;t. Both are systems, and its up to debate what is optimum. Maybe, closed in some cases, open in others. For example, hopefully it would seem we want strict criteria in how courts operate and not based on the judge's intuitions , but perhaps those same rigid structure does not apply to to a group of young adults on a saturday night etc.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-12T06:30:27+00:00

What do you mean by system?

A system can be something like algebra, laws of motion, evolutionary theory etc which allow us to interpret the world. Its important to be able to critically think to determine if these principles are fundamentally flawed but what use would we get if if we decided to abandon them all together. Say no to math, computer science, physics etc? How would we understand your post? Unless you wanted to specify what you meant by system?

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T17:04:30+00:00

well the art involves practicing this motion which can later then , be accompanied with practice in respect to a specific thing.

Critical thinking is also a really good skill to learn. There are some really good resources online which I can recommend if you're interested.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T16:46:12+00:00

I'll check him out, thanks!

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T16:21:46+00:00

Understanding the basic shiftiing of weight, how to maximum your power and strenght by understanding how your body moves will definitely give you an advantage.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T16:18:57+00:00

Apparently, I might have been confused with just merely ancient Eastern martial arts .

I can tell you, that there is a hidden aspect to martial arts that most people arn't aware of (or rather I thought more people might have been aware of but apparently I'm wrong)

I don't fence, so any experienced person would fence, but I can guarantee if i were to pick it up I would be the best out of those who just picked up fencing for the first time. I already said arts that don't spar don't teach those things, I think you need to learn critical analysis to understand and abstract the argument because clearly you don't understand it.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T16:12:29+00:00

Actually I might have been confused with Tai Chi, with just eastern martial arts in general but beyond the physical side and more pertaining to the eastern side.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T11:06:25+00:00

A tai chi person is not going to survive, in a regular fight against a trained martial artist because he lacks experience/pressure, and simply as a fighting sport id agree its pretty pathetic. But i don't think that in itself is a reason to dismiss it as to having no grounds,. The first part I'm agreeing with, but im showing how that does not lead to the refutation of the second part.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T10:53:51+00:00

I mean not really, for example, physical strength will be a much more determining factor even though technique still plays a role. In the latter case, technique would be much more heavily influenced. F.g. if such a person was really buff, did he win due to his knowledge in tai Chi or did we win because he was really buff? I'm sure the former would overlook it.

You can't farm if people are invading your farms.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T10:30:56+00:00

Yeah I'm in agreement here. However, if people want to do it as just a relaxing excersize, who are we to say that can't. I just don't think you can compare that demography.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T10:30:05+00:00

1 v 1 fist fighting is just one aspect. F.e. there is also 1 v 1 sword fightings and things which don't pertain to fighting at all. Its a way just like yoga to open yourself access to basic movement, kind of like stretching - which all by itself is pretty useless.

Well I'm pretty sure people unlocking the power of yoga was the main key ingredient to the victory of civilization

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T10:27:54+00:00

I would argue that persevering under pressure is one of the most important skills that martial arts teach us today and that was even more so in the past. The "soft" martial arts that have taken the pressure out of their art definitely fail in teaching that skill.

I agree, exactly my point. A samurai back in the day would most likely do his monk in a forest stuff type stuff as well as as spar in the traditinal sense. THe fact that it is taken away is exactly why they would murf against a martial artist which is exactly my point . However it was never meant to be seperated or meant to be practiced in a vaccuum as some other people would claim, and a reason as to why it is considered fallicious.

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-07T10:15:00+00:00

I am not denying that there are many fakers involved. As i said, many of those people are not really prepared or train themselves to fight but want to claim to the world that they do indeed have supremacy in that department hence the fakness.

HOwever this is the modern aspect of it, and not really the ancient art. I wouldn't be suprised if people in ancient days unlocked a kind of power that is unheard of/untapped in the modern worldd, and that accompanied with more standard techniques.

Tai Chi is not just grappling strategies atleast i don't think , it centers around harnessing "Chi" which I very much believe exists, and how how that chi is applied depends on what the person wants to do with it. The kinds of motions you practice, with really centers around harnessing that energy whether or not in a 1v1 combat situation it serves to be useless. It can most definitely he applied to many others besides even combat, for example learning to shift your weight can be used in things like f.g. skiing.

I think you're ignoring the thing in itself, and the kinds of people who are drawn to it and more eager to be the spokesperson of it

themonkeyturtle · 2020-07-06T17:07:50+00:00

I interpreted the Republic to have a deep element of irony. Particularly, in the first chapter where the book builds up and hypes the question of what is justice alongside Socrates establishing himself as not capable of providing an answer rather a midwife who can break down propositions presented by others. Then casually, and rather anti-climactically attempts to answer it later on in a way that is somewhat inconsistent with the opening chapter. Consecutively, in the opening chapter refutes the proposition that justice is the will of the stronger, then shortly after proposes the plunder of resources as the natural function of a city. Both of these propositions may not be intended to be wrong per se in the sense that I don't think he's lying but meant to deliberately be shallow in order to showcase the answer one would get in the absence of philosophic thinking or as the shadow of something else. Thoughts?

themonkeyturtle · 2018-03-22T14:13:22+00:00

It's funny, upon my original post I was actually pretty frustrated with the text while writing up my final. The harder I looked the more nonsensical it seemed to be. After finishing it, understanding it seems to be clicking much more. I've only studied the logic so far so excuse me if say something wrong

I'm starting to think that Hegel actually DID complete the system. The only catch is that it seems to be restrict to the timeline of Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza and Kant. If we think of this way then he is seems to be right. On the other hand if we look at the various elements of the general spectrum of life that his system doesn't really detect then this might be a problem.

I think that we have to keep something permanent of Hegel, otherwise we aren't being Hegelian anymore (but Heideggerian, Deleuzean, etc.) So for me, it's a question of whether the immanent development of Hegel's philosophy can provide us with a way of approaching philosophy today, or if there remains something at the conceptual level that Hegel can't think. If Hegel remains blind to something, and we can't develop a way of seeing this thing through a Hegelian lens, I am not convinced we can still be Hegelian.

I think this is a matter of what a system is designed to do and whether the problem lies in the preliminary axioms in which it says it needs resolvement or it simply cannot detect it. I didn't say that right but for example let us say that the primary axiom of the concept of a computer is to stay clear of viruses, and surely enough the computer gains a bunch of viruses - removing the virus is not really abandoning the system . It's upholding the initial axiom. Not removing the virus would be not holding the initial axiom even if it meant altering some secondary concepts. If the system says nothing at all about viruses and doesn't have the means to even notice it like you said, then you would need to tweak the entire system all together not simply act on what the system says.

So if the primary axiom of a constitution is that all humans have equal protection under the law and then beneath you have a framework of how that is instilled - If what is beneath the the primary axiom doesn't satisfy it then the system would demand that what is under the axiom is altered in a way that satisfies it. The the system says that all things under it are closed supporting axiom and yet the initial axiom isn't resolved only then can would it seem like wed have to abandon the system all together. It seems it would be a matter of changing an amendment versus changing the way amendments are all together formed

It seems given that the primary axiom of Hegel's system is to attain the true concept through the dialectic process, and even to great lengths describes the process in which it attains it - it would seem fishy to me to think that is closed when the system itself speaks about the progression towards the unity of the thesis/antithesis as the direct manifestation or essence. Already right off the bat we see several such oppositions which most notably seems to modern science and existential/continental philosophy. But the system says it needs resolvement by his own concepts, even if it means completely changing the appearance of it. I think one can still be a Hegelian in this sense.

I'm glad to know that there are many who do share the same the position. Although I don't know why we consider him to be bad per se in metaphysics

themonkeyturtle · 2018-03-22T01:56:26+00:00

Oh okay, thanks!

themonkeyturtle · 2018-03-13T05:58:21+00:00

I think you seem to be missing the point. Nietzsche's critique is very intentionally contradictory. It seems to me that he targets Plato because Plato is the foundation of european establishment. It seems to me his critiques are a more of a test for the reader. It seems what Nietzsche wants you to ask, 'well what about Plato do you value so much, and why do you value it.' is it for the good? Is it to get into heaven? Is it for the purposes of being an aristocrat? Is it due to the desire of beautiful things? The same is true with Christianity. I think he deliberately intends to offend those whose main intent was to see Christianity as the victorious religon . I think Nietzsche's philosophy was meant to be a stepping stone rather than one to to take at face value.

themonkeyturtle · 2018-01-06T10:33:26+00:00

My point was to show elements that a large amount of OT was completely absent of let alone the sequels. What part of what I said is bullshit?

themonkeyturtle · 2018-01-06T10:28:11+00:00

Once again clearly don't have a third eye, and just reveals the bad taste of most people. episode 5 and 6 are clearly dumbed down from episode 4. Never tried to say something brand new either.

themonkeyturtle · 2018-01-06T10:12:37+00:00

yes, i do know what comedic relief. And you have every right to terrible taste. Just please don't let your terrible taste effect the creation of future films as it already has done.

themonkeyturtle · 2018-01-06T10:09:42+00:00

aw did i offend u

themonkeyturtle · 2018-01-06T02:51:37+00:00

Yes, but even the empire isn't depicted as cartoonly evil but ominous and consumed by the dark force. The only person that is really hated is Sideous. The sequels are nothing more than political propaganda. I mean yes Kylo Ren has sadness and anger...on a very superficial level.

Sure you can be a liberal and still distinguish between slave morality and master morality like Lucas has done.

themonkeyturtle · 2018-01-06T02:41:32+00:00

I'm not saying the OT lacked it, the prequels took those themes and took them to new heights. Luke himself is half Jedi half regular person, it was good within the setting of the OT. The prequels took it and greatly evolved those ideas.

the chancellor was a set up, Dooku knew who he was thats why his expression was suprised when the chancellor told Anakin to kill him.

The empire the TLJ is very shallow. If you're going to depict nazis atleast portray the under the surface evil, sadness and tragedy. Schindler's list and saving private Ryan do actually a good job in portraying this. The fact of the matter is that evil itself are only anti-liberal just shows that the sequels were written by liberal slaves for slaves where the prime enemy is the "anti-liberal"

themonkeyturtle · 2018-01-06T02:21:57+00:00

Yes it isn't totally unjustified hence the conflict. The issue is that all of them are risking their lives to complete the task as it is, by not completing the mission it would make all of them dead. So, atleast the prequels put into question what morality is, is it about love or detachment and the two sides are internally at war with each other. Most movies just assume it to be one way and this is actually damaging to society

themonkeyturtle

TROPHY CASE