Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where to start...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fuuma
    replied
    Originally posted by Faust View Post
    Dude, I think your new job is getting to you. You used to be constructive - now it's all straight cynicism.
    My opinion on "true self" has been the same for years. Why bow down to the reign of the "I" and the surface/depth dichotomy.

    Leave a comment:


  • gavagai
    replied
    Originally posted by Lane View Post
    hmm, just curious where did you get this from? Because it seems to be oh...so very true.
    Hello,

    The Protestant Ethic is indeed a classic. The book continues to shed light on modern culture. In terms of understanding authenticity and problems with a dualistic conception of the world I'd recommend Hubert Dreyfus' "Being In The World" - you could just read Heidegger if you can stomach it but its a dark, dark book.

    The most important point is to start a wardrobe by acquiring high priced leather boots. This is no.1! Pay your rent late, skip some bills, sell your car - basically do whatever it takes to get those boots. You will be more authentic - show the world you are special and one of the chosen ones.

    Some of he above is a joke, i'm just not quite sure which parts.

    Leave a comment:


  • zamb
    replied
    Originally posted by Mail-Moth View Post
    I agree with BSR here : there seems to be a problem with words in this discussion.

    I don't believe anyone here would state that there is something like an inner self you would be able to rediscover and stay true to by learning to go against the grain. This conception sounds indeed very dated.

    I rather think that the question entirely boils down to this : some people are taught to differentiate themselves from what they perceive as the crowd - through education, because of their familial or cultural background, aso. This is a value that they learnt to cherish, since childhood or later, because of someone or something that crossed their way. And their attachment to this ideal - that can be quite easily understood as a will to express one's self - is thus strictly cultural, because it is due to the frequentation of some sort of community at some point. We've been taught beauty, as we've been taught love, pride, or critical thinking. There's always someone we took this from.

    I'll go on later, I have to go right now. I'm afraid this is quite blurry at the moment, but in fact Fuuma's discoball sums up the rest of it quite well.
    I don't think that these statements are entirely correct, it may be true for some people, but certainly not true for others. the idea that there is no inner self is really a false idea.
    An individual is both a part of, and away from society.................I know me, in a way that no one else does, I know what my likes, dislikes, thoughts and emotions are, I know when I am honest and when I am dishonest, when I do something that seems good and noble, but only with selfish motives and intent.

    There are things that one learns thorough experience that doesn't necessarily comes from another person, and can be see as a combination of the exposure of the 'inner self' to the rest of the world, and I doubt we can argue that away...................
    We can be taught how to express love and pride in ways acceptable to our society, but one cannot say that Love and pride does not exist apart from society.......these things existed way before society came into being, and as a matter of fact.................shaped society in more ways than we can explore here

    Leave a comment:


  • Faust
    replied
    Originally posted by Mail-Moth View Post
    I agree with BSR here : there seems to be a problem with words in this discussion.

    I don't believe anyone here would state that there is something like an inner self you would be able to rediscover and stay true to by learning to go against the grain. This conception sounds indeed very dated.

    I rather think that the question entirely boils down to this : some people are taught to differentiate themselves from what they perceive as the crowd - through education, because of their familial or cultural background, aso. This is a value that they learnt to cherish, since childhood or later, because of someone or something that crossed their way. And their attachment to this ideal - that can be quite easily understood as a will to express one's self - is thus strictly cultural, because it is due to the frequentation of some sort of community at some point. We've been taught beauty, as we've been taught love, pride, or critical thinking. There's always someone we took this from.

    I'll go on later, I have to go right now. I'm afraid this is quite blurry at the moment, but in fact Fuuma's discoball sums up the rest of it quite well.
    I disagree. There is no doubt that there is an element of beauty being taught, that's artificial. But there is also an element that resides in the object of beauty itself. And even if we take it from somewhere, it does not mean that it cannot push us to do something new. New aesthetics do arise, new concepts do arise, new thoughts do arise. They do not come out of nowhere, but they also are not necessarily and inevitably taught. I mean what you say defies all innovation and has a problem of causality - someone somewhere had to do something first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnny
    replied
    "I define silly when even 50 year olds use the word "like" in every sentence. But it's not like it's any better in the UK, Greece or Italy. Noone is "bemused", more like attracted to it."

    Sorry couldn't resist.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Mail-Moth
    replied
    I agree with BSR here : there seems to be a problem with words in this discussion.

    I don't believe anyone here would state that there is something like an inner self you would be able to rediscover and stay true to by learning to go against the grain. This conception sounds indeed very dated.

    I rather think that the question entirely boils down to this : some people are taught to differentiate themselves from what they perceive as the crowd - through education, because of their familial or cultural background, aso. This is a value that they learnt to cherish, since childhood or later, because of someone or something that crossed their way. And their attachment to this ideal - that can be quite easily understood as a will to express one's self - is thus strictly cultural, because it is due to the frequentation of some sort of community at some point. We've been taught beauty, as we've been taught love, pride, or critical thinking. There's always someone we took this from.

    I'll go on later, I have to go right now. I'm afraid this is quite blurry at the moment, but in fact Fuuma's discoball sums up the rest of it quite well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faust
    replied
    Originally posted by Fuuma View Post
    My Hermès wallet is quite big, lots of place to put my true self in all the little pockets. I'm so much surface I'm like a disco ball.
    Dude, I think your new job is getting to you. You used to be constructive - now it's all straight cynicism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faust
    replied
    Originally posted by michael_kard View Post
    I know you've been to quite a few places, and it just doesn't look right when such a biased statement comes from you. Inanity and lack of coherence are universal.

    I've spent a lot of time with Americans and many of them are indeed silly, and I define silly when even 50 year olds use the word "like" in every sentence. But it's not like it's any better in the UK, Greece or Italy. Noone is "bemused", more like attracted to it. In fact, I would say America still has the most influential allure on a global scale. I've lived in a few different countries and I see it everyday on others, but also myself.
    I am talking about degrees, obviously. There is no doubt that intellectuals are still revered all over Europe and their words count. Fuck, even in Turkey that's now leaning towards Islamism every soccer hooligan knows who Orhan Pamuk is and read his books and articles. Ask any redneck here who their favorite author is - Glenn Beck probably.

    Don't get hung up on technicalities - next time I will say "most" just to satisfy you.

    Leave a comment:


  • BSR
    replied
    @ beardown: i don't think your entire point works as a proof that self and society should be the sides of a dichotomy, but as i already told Mr Faust, I don't think we speak the same language here. You say there are people who resist common thinking by the way of reason/logic or intelligence (you speak of norm BTW, and what is common to logic and reason is precisely the idea of norm, very far away from the creative side of mind), I tell you that this is not by virtue of a special power that would be THE self...

    Leave a comment:


  • eat me
    replied
    Originally posted by Faust View Post
    They (and by extent you) have no idea what they are talking about. It's a tiny percentage that gets filthy rich - the rest are soldiers.
    I said the same thing, not sure why you thought otherwise. But in spite of the actual percentage, false aspiration is still there, even though the security of a job in finances is shaky nowadays. For the "soldiers", that is. That's why I was curious why would they seek employment on Wall St. if what they're looking for is stability.

    Having said that, almost anything seems more secure+lucrative when compared to same level creative career, as it always was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuuma
    replied
    Originally posted by BSR View Post
    faust what i'm saying is that this distinction is literally meaningless. but we obviously don't speak of the same thing: you say there is a public discourse/train of thought which is difficult to go against at an individual level, maybe i agree with that (it's rather vague to speak of 'society' and 'self'), but what i'm trying to say is that there is no pure self (empire inside an empire?), and that the pure self against social influence thesis is a rather simplistic one, and one which is strongly based on an individualist and egotistic view of the world (which BTW is the most widespread view today).
    My Hermès wallet is quite big, lots of place to put my true self in all the little pockets. I'm so much surface I'm like a disco ball.

    Leave a comment:


  • michael_kard
    replied
    Originally posted by Faust View Post
    Beardown, unfortunately, we live in the US where there is a distrust in the intellectual. But it's not like that in the rest of the world. So while we are actively shooting ourselves in the foot, the rest of the world is either bemused or laughing.
    I know you've been to quite a few places, and it just doesn't look right when such a biased statement comes from you. Inanity and lack of coherence are universal.

    I've spent a lot of time with Americans and many of them are indeed silly, and I define silly when even 50 year olds use the word "like" in every sentence. But it's not like it's any better in the UK, Greece or Italy. Noone is "bemused", more like attracted to it. In fact, I would say America still has the most influential allure on a global scale. I've lived in a few different countries and I see it everyday on others, but also myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • doldrums
    replied
    Originally posted by Faust View Post
    is that a fucking joke or do you live in a cave?

    Lane,

    Gavagai is referring to this:





    But yea, on with the elitism!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lane
    replied
    hey, I just want to learn of his perspective because it seems plausible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faust
    replied
    Originally posted by Lane View Post
    hmm, just curious where did you get this from? Because it seems to be oh...so very true.
    is that a fucking joke or do you live in a cave?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X
😀
🥰
🤢
😎
😡
👍
👎