Philosophical topics

[Faust]

/\ You should read the first book. It's devastating.

BSR, too much!!!

[Mail-Moth]

And I think the process of learning works in the manner that they follow; you read a book on a particular subject, you feel immediately well-versed on the subject, and then you read another book which ends up contradicting much of what you read in the prior book.

And that's where Bouvard and Pécuchet always stop. If this is the process of learning, it explains quite well why they don't learn anything from their readings in the end, except for the certainty that nothing makes sense. They're clever enough to point out contradictions, not enough to explain them.

A condamnation of the scientist arrogance and of the positivist fever of its time doesn't make that book a pamphlet against knowledge in general, whether or not Flaubert has been aware of the nuance (was there any form of knowledge to him besides the one he was calling a bunch of stupidities ? Yes. The local farmers seem to know how to grow vegetables, and I don't remember the doctor as being pedantic and worthless as a pratician, but I may be mistaken on that last point). I'd even think that his characters were somewhat sympathetic to him as much as they were ridiculous because they were an accurate reflection of his own helplessness towards the rapid multiplication and densification of the scientific discourses - and thus towards the end of any individual pretention to encyclopedism.

Maybe Bouvard and Pécuchet is mainly a book about frustration, after all. Maybe Flaubert has faced the limits of his own understanding while writing it.

[Patroklus]

It is the same moral principle people have used to forego a viewing of Hitler's art, or Manson's art, etc.

I don't need to give Hitler or Manson any money in order to view their art.

so that you decided to adapt it in real life on SZ with patroklus right?

[BSR]

[Mail-Moth]

Chilton0326 : what Bouvard says applies to Flaubert's idea of "science" as of "the rest", which are those of his time. But how does the fact that "there are mysteries in this world that science will never apprehend" - all terms having to be constantly redefined, BTW - suffice to constitute a condamnation of science in itself ? One strong enough to convince anyone ?

Same goes for education. What is this education Flaubert is aiming to discard ? What would he define as nature ? Do Bouvard and Pécuchet educate each other through their friendship, as the line you're quoting seem to state it ? And when they try to educate others - and fail, or rather consider the experience as a failure, but did they, really ? - are they efficient in the field of pedagogy, whether it be from Flaubert's point of view or from a contemporary one ?

I love that book, this is not the question. But it doesn't mean that I have to take advices from Flaubert concerning any subject other than writing.

[Ahimsa]

Now this will sound like I am an apologist for NIKE, but it is genuinely possible that NIKE was unaware of the conditions subjected to these contracted workers.

Ignorantia juris non excusat. As such has been upheld since Roman times, and as it may apply to all things and not just law, ignorance is no excuse.

[Faust]

Rilu, don't waste your breath.

[Patroklus]

No, keep at it. Charity is God's work.

[Ahimsa]

but if you are genuinely unaware, you cannot be held responsible.

Yes, you can. It's the law. More commonly known as "Presumed knowledge of the law" in jurisprudence.

[Erich Fromm]

I'll post two quick things that came to my mind today.

1. (This thought was really inspired by my reading of Hegel and a book we are reading in German class). I'll use an example and then elaborate. Take a writer and a character he creates. The writer has full power of the character, he can make him sick, wealthy, stupid etc. And the character, in all the ways that he was created lives in the story. Suppose a writer creates a writer, who then in turn creates a character. It is the same thing. The fictional writer can form his character in any way he wants. He is the characters divine figure, his god so to speak. The writer who creates the writer is in turn a god who creates life in his story. In a way divinity lies in the process of creation. If we regard genesis man is made in the image of god, making god a creator also. In the process of creating humans like god, god made humans god because we are god to our creations. I would consider myself agnostic in the classical sense of the word, I don't necessarily believe that there is an entity above us, but I obviously don't know. I do believe that the ability of creation and our posession of that ability makes us divine.

2. This second thought stems from an essay on art that I wrote for English class. I assume a concept that is the combination between rationality and emotion (I think about this a lot because I see a worrying tendency in our society, especially with people my age, that everything is becoming purely based on rationality and usefulness - in the very physical sense of the word, not like seeing beauty in something can be useful - there is no more recognition for things like beauty, art and even theology.) The problem I see with this is that nothing can be explained purely by rationality or purely by emotion (the tendency in society towards science, technology pragmaticism etc. is obviously the projection of purely rationality onto everything, which kind of makes sense because in a way rationality is a much simpler concept than emotion). E.g. if you try to impose pure rational thought on art, that would certainly be ignorant of the emotional medium that art can be. If you try to rationaly understand a Richter you will fail. On the other hand you will also fail if you try to impose pure emotion on something. It is key to impose both rationality and emotion on anything, really. I do think there is a certain spectrum though, for the understanding of art emotion might be of more use than rationality and vice versa for technology. But I digress, I'm trying to focus on a more macro scale. Perhaps to really summarize what I am trying to say I'll give a nother example. All the assumptions I have made about this concept that combines rationality and emotion are made from a standpoint that is definitely more on the rational side of the spectrum. The fact alone that I am writing about this is the act of imposing rationality on something. To be honest I really hate this idea of splitting rationality and emotionality because especially in our society where everything is so based on rationality there is no more appreciation for culture. Nobody cares about design, art, literature, music, philosophy, theology etc. because it is not "useful". Society at the moment is stipulating that emotion is worth less than rationality. It is not, it is of equal worth.

[Faust]

I'll post two quick things that came to my mind today.

1. (This thought was really inspired by my reading of Hegel and a book we are reading in German class). I'll use an example and then elaborate. Take a writer and a character he creates. The writer has full power of the character, he can make him sick, wealthy, stupid etc. And the character, in all the ways that he was created lives in the story. Suppose a writer creates a writer, who then in turn creates a character. It is the same thing. The fictional writer can form his character in any way he wants. He is the characters divine figure, his god so to speak. The writer who creates the writer is in turn a god who creates life in his story. In a way divinity lies in the process of creation. If we regard genesis man is made in the image of god, making god a creator also. In the process of creating humans like god, god made humans god because we are god to our creations. I would consider myself agnostic in the classical sense of the word, I don't necessarily believe that there is an entity above us, but I obviously don't know. I do believe that the ability of creation and our posession of that ability makes us divine.

If you read Bakhtin's Dialogic Imagination, he argues quite persuasively that the reverse can be true and that - he sites Dostoyevsky as an example - sometimes the character in the process of shaping requires his/her own arc that renders the author not as omnipotent as Hegel thinks.

[Faust]

2. This second thought stems from an essay on art that I wrote for English class. I assume a concept that is the combination between rationality and emotion (I think about this a lot because I see a worrying tendency in our society, especially with people my age, that everything is becoming purely based on rationality and usefulness - in the very physical sense of the word, not like seeing beauty in something can be useful - there is no more recognition for things like beauty, art and even theology.) The problem I see with this is that nothing can be explained purely by rationality or purely by emotion (the tendency in society towards science, technology pragmaticism etc. is obviously the projection of purely rationality onto everything, which kind of makes sense because in a way rationality is a much simpler concept than emotion). E.g. if you try to impose pure rational thought on art, that would certainly be ignorant of the emotional medium that art can be. If you try to rationaly understand a Richter you will fail. On the other hand you will also fail if you try to impose pure emotion on something. It is key to impose both rationality and emotion on anything, really. I do think there is a certain spectrum though, for the understanding of art emotion might be of more use than rationality and vice versa for technology. But I digress, I'm trying to focus on a more macro scale. Perhaps to really summarize what I am trying to say I'll give a nother example. All the assumptions I have made about this concept that combines rationality and emotion are made from a standpoint that is definitely more on the rational side of the spectrum. The fact alone that I am writing about this is the act of imposing rationality on something. To be honest I really hate this idea of splitting rationality and emotionality because especially in our society where everything is so based on rationality there is no more appreciation for culture. Nobody cares about design, art, literature, music, philosophy, theology etc. because it is not "useful". Society at the moment is stipulating that emotion is worth less than rationality. It is not, it is of equal worth.

It's your teacher's job to prevent you from making such grandiose blanket statements (obviously excusable in someone your age, and I don't mean to sound patronizing - God knows I've made some) :-) When I taught critical writing, the first thing I hammered into my students heads is not to make categorial statements (everyone/no one), which can easily be undercut.

Of course people are still interested in esthetics, maybe more than ever before. And definitely more than ever before people care about design. You should read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by the way. It tackles exactly the subject of separation of utility and aesthetics.

https://www.sz-mag.com/news/2017/04/robert-pirsig-taught-design/

[Erich Fromm]

Thanks for responding Faust! I'll definitely read both!

[Erich Fromm]

If you read Bakhtin's Dialogic Imagination, he argues quite persuasively that the reverse can be true and that - he sites Dostoyevsky as an example - sometimes the character in the process of shaping requires his/her own arc that renders the author not as omnipotent as Hegel thinks.

Something that Erich Fromm (the guy I owe my username to) talks about is that it is impossible for humans to take a passive role in life. We are destined to eather destroy or create. He argues that destructive notions are the worse alternative to creative notions and that creation is something divine.

[Ahimsa]

Something that Erich Fromm (the guy I owe my username to) talks about is that it is impossible for humans to take a passive role in life. We are destined to either destroy or create. He argues that destructive notions are the worse alternative to creative notions and that creation is something divine.

I would disagree. Both are necessary for positive change. One is not more valuable than the other. Take Shiva, the great destroyer. Shiva is responsible for change through death and destruction, which opens up the path for new creation. You wouldn't have materials to construct art without the death of animals and plants and the destruction of the earth. Destruction is crucial to creation. Margiela had long created through destruction and re-creation in the most literal sense. If you're creating you're destroying, be it the physical or the intangible (like culture and beliefs). Otherwise everything would be stagnant and unchanging if you wished to not destroy. I would not separate the two as different notions.