AufgehobenseinSergey, 26 y.o.
Online 10 hours ago
Meeting in person
Postal pen pals
Joined 3 years ago, profile updated 1 month ago.
Displaying posts 1 to 10 of 10.
I want to read all your book choices. What are your favorite words?
Why is it that you dont like Dostoyevskiy?
It’s smart to refer to Marx’s quite which I hinted at in my initial message, but he also said something else. That was that we are controlled by an abstract power from the outside by our own thoughts. In addition, I absolutely don’t accept this anthropocentrism chikkery – the world will not change merely to the fact that we, as we thought, understood something. “The real is foreclosed to thought” – the world in its totality cannot be even thought of, let alone changed. Instead, the world we live in now is too chaotic and complicated, many changers happen by pure accident. Radical contingency! For example, the tendency to consume less meat. Was it a victory of the animal rights movement? No, because the market decided so at some point, which is the abstract force too. The world is absolutely indifferent to what we think about it.
>But to understand something is to change it
Once again, that’s not change which comes with understanding, but understanding which comes with change. For instance, hermeneutics offers us many ways to understand, but which one is right? Have you ever heard about correlationism? Have you ever thought about the distance between us and the world? The world is not something like an opinion or an equality, it cannot be represented properly within one explanation, AT LEAST due to the fact that it’s CONSTANTLY changing, and you simply cannot catch something which always run away and away from you, and its pace is becoming ever faster. Moreover, if singularity comes, we may stop understanding changes in the world at all – it will be too complicated for us. The future will not be for people to understand, but the future will be thought of by something else, something more powerful
>That is why real philosophy stuff comes from the experience of revolution
What’s real and non-real philosophy? Who decided so?
It’s a nice try, but what’s revolution caused by? Something other than us once again (initially), an abstract force, an “automatic subject”, whereas we only make it happen. I think that it’s pretty naive to think that people have had entire control over events in the history or the outcome of revolutions. It has always been steps in the dark being moved by something external
I get where you're coming from. That's how I feel about computers. Currently studying web design and computer networking, and I'm not sure which one I want to go with in the end, but at least when it's all said and done I can go on with the knowledge of it all.