philosophy

20217 readers

2 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes

Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net

MiraculousMM@hexbear.net

Leon_Grotsky@hexbear.net

What do you think of panpsychism/the hard problem of consciousness? (hexbear.net)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by itsPina@hexbear.net to c/philosophy@hexbear.net

241 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Personally I think it's silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience... Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I've been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism... Maybe I am just tripping idk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know if you want to learn about love from people who notoriously groomed their female students for Sartre's pleasure. Like, maybe it is a French v.s. American cultural difference, but the fact that they would usually completely abandon their protege professionally when the sexual relationship was done speaks volumes to what they actually cared about.

Sartre in particular is obviously a giant privileged, anxiety ridden, piece of shit and you realize that the moment you read a single thing he has to say about love. That's actually kinda why I like reading his work, it's like defining the color red by defining every color it's not.

Like... The Chomsky point is great. I've read a lot of Chomskys political theories and knowing they're all wrong while I was reading them gave them an entirely different meaning. I can logically follow some of Chomskys points but then have to contend with why they were inaccurate, which is useful philosophizing.

Like... Beauvoir was obviously more good faith with their approach to love and feminism but they were also a pedophile... That means somewhere in her writings is something that will maybe try to convince you to sign a French petition in 1977. Knowing that before engaging with their work lets you keep your guard up and actually intellectually engage with the material instead of subsuming your brain to it after you agree with them enough in the first chapter. You'll be critical throughout because you know they're a fucking pedo. And French.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a pretty good point. Idk, I guess if I was going to read stuff from a pedophile I would rather it be from ancient Greece, guess that is where my bias lies lol.

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You should def check out at least a lil Pre War Sartre. Its nuts. He basically makes the determination that almost ALL love is Bad Faith and both lovers are reducing the others freedoms... He basically sees Freedom as the one good thing humans should aim for because hes a privileged French fuck who skipped several steps on the hierarchy of needs. Post War he changed his tune realizing that, in fact, society is pretty impactful on determining ones freedom... Dipshit. Took an entire war to realize material conditions matter.

and honestly the fact that all these french fucks were morally justifying the grooming to themselves through their writings makes them even more interesting to read. You can really see where they went wrong.