Quotes

  • 307 Replies
  • 117989 Views

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #195 on: December 23, 2019, 02:50:21 pm »
I forgot to note that the above quote, and Less than Nothing was published in 2012.  Seems pretty precinct, or at least, an accurate surmising of where we were going then.

Quote
This brings us to Hegel's basic criticism of Kant, of his insistence on the limitation that our tinitude imposes on our knowledge. It is that, beneath Kant's modesty, there is a hidden arrogance: when Kant claims that we humans, con­strained by our finite Understanding, cannot ever come to know the totality of the universe, he continues to represent this infinite task as one that another, infinite, Understanding would be able to accomplish, as if the problem is simply one of extending or extrapolating our capacity to infinity, rather than changing it qualitatively. The model for such false reasoning is the well-known naturalist­-determinist idea that, were an infinite mind able to know extensively all the atoms in the universe, their position, force, and movement, it would be able to predict their future behavior with the utmost precision-as if the very notion of a finite mind extended to infinity were not in itself nonsensical. When we repre­sent to ourselves a mind able to grasp infinity, the image we refer to is that of a mind somehow able to count an infinite number of elements in the same way we are able to count a finite number of them. In a wonderfully vicious image, Hegel likens Kant's notion of an infinite mind to the way a poor church organist tries to explain God's greatness to a simple peasant: "In the same way you know every individual in our village by name, God intimately knows every single fly among the infinite number of flies that buzz around the globe . . "
Slavoj Žižek - Less Than Nothing
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #196 on: December 26, 2019, 10:39:24 pm »
Quote
In his reading of Histoire de la folie, Derrida focused on these four pages on Descartes which, for him, provided the key to the entire book. Through a detailed analysis, he tries to demonstrate that, far from excluding madness, Descartes pushes it to an extreme: universal doubt, where I suspect that the entire world is an illusion, is the greatest madness imaginable. Out of this uni­versal doubt the cogito emerges: even if everything is an illusion, I can still be sure that I think. Madness is thus not excluded by the cogito: it is not that the cogito is not mad, but the cogito[ is true even if I am totally mad. Extreme doubt, the hypotheSiS of universal madness, is not external to philosophy, but strictly internal to it, a hyperbolic moment, the moment of madness, which grounds philosophy. Of course, Descartes later "domesticates" this radical excess with his image of man as a thinking substance, dominated by reason; he constructs a phi­losophy which is clearly historically conditioned. But the excess, the hyperbole of universal madness, is not itself historical; it is the excessive moment which grounds philosophy in all its historical forms. Madness is thus not excluded by philosophy: it is internal to it. Of course, every philosophy tries to control this excess, to repress it-but in repressing it, it represses its own innermost founda­tion: "Philosophy is perhaps the reassurance given against the anguish of being mad at the point of greatest proximity to madness."
Slavoj Žižek - Less Than Nothing

This book is a flat gold mine of Bakker tangential thought.  Why does Akka relate the Outside as "madness?"  For likely the exact reason given by Derrida and related above to us by Žižek.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2019, 04:51:26 pm by H »
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #197 on: December 27, 2019, 03:14:21 pm »
Quote
All the will-worshippers, from Nietzsche to Mr. Davidson, are really quite empty of volition. They cannot will, they can hardly wish. And if any one wants a proof of this, it can be found quite easily. It can be found in this fact: that they always talk of will as something that expands and breaks out. But it is quite the opposite. Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else. That objection, which men of this school used to make to the act of marriage, is really an objection to every act. Every act is an irrevocable selection and exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses. If you become King of England, you give up the post of Beadle in Brompton. If you go to Rome, you sacrifice a rich suggestive life in Wimbledon. It is the existence of this negative or limiting side of will that makes most of the talk of the anarchic will-worshippers little better than nonsense. For instance, Mr. John Davidson tells us to have nothing to do with "Thou shalt not"; but it is surely obvious that "Thou shalt not" is only one of the necessary corollaries of "I will." "I will go to the Lord Mayor's Show, and thou shalt not stop me." Anarchism adjures us to be bold creative artists, and care for no laws or limits. But it is impossible to be an artist and not care for laws and limits. Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump: you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end. Somebody wrote a work called "The Loves of the Triangles"; I never read it, but I am sure that if triangles ever were loved, they were loved for being triangular. This is certainly the case with all artistic creation, which is in some ways the most decisive example of pure will. The artist loves his limitations: they constitute the THING he is doing. The painter is glad that the canvas is flat. The sculptor is glad that the clay is colourless.
G.K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
  • whore
    • View Profile
« Reply #198 on: December 28, 2019, 01:56:55 am »
Quote
All the will-worshippers, ... The painter is glad that the canvas is flat. The sculptor is glad that the clay is colourless.
G.K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy

This one appears incomplete. I enjoyed where it was going, but not sure what the conclusion/insight is - or is it simply to judge the will-worshippers as misguided? Where/how should we guide instead? It's one thing to illuminate logical fallacy with a position/point of view, but what supersedes the fallacy? Or is what Chesteron is saying that Free Will is no more limiting than everything else and not worthy of special focus?
It's me, Dave, open up, I've got the stuff

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #199 on: December 28, 2019, 04:32:18 am »
Quote
All the will-worshippers, ... The painter is glad that the canvas is flat. The sculptor is glad that the clay is colourless.
G.K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy

This one appears incomplete. I enjoyed where it was going, but not sure what the conclusion/insight is - or is it simply to judge the will-worshippers as misguided? Where/how should we guide instead? It's one thing to illuminate logical fallacy with a position/point of view, but what supersedes the fallacy? Or is what Chesteron is saying that Free Will is no more limiting than everything else and not worthy of special focus?

Seems less about free will [than critiquing] this idea of the lone iconoclast "willing" themselves into breaking all social contracts/expectations.

If I understand him correctly he is also critiquing "will worship" as excessive hedonism toward whatever one desires.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2019, 05:27:44 am by sciborg2 »

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Kcub Sicnarf
  • Kijneta
  • *****
  • The Lordlady
  • Posts: 273
  • Philosoraptor
    • View Profile
« Reply #200 on: December 28, 2019, 06:16:45 pm »
Quote
"A fool is the one who gives up everything for an idea. The wise fool is the one
who knows that he never had anything to give up in the first place."

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Kcub Sicnarf
  • Kijneta
  • *****
  • The Lordlady
  • Posts: 273
  • Philosoraptor
    • View Profile
« Reply #201 on: December 30, 2019, 12:42:22 pm »
Quote
"The head is the head of a serpent,
From his nostrils mucus trickles,
His mouth is beslavered with water;
The ears are like those of a basilisk,
His horns are twisted into three curls,
He wears a veil in his head band,
The body is a suh-fish full of stars,
The base of his feet are claws,
The sole of his foot has no heel,
His name is Sassu-wunnu,
A sea monster, a form of Ea."
                            - R. C. Thompson's Translation. 1

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #202 on: December 30, 2019, 01:20:03 pm »
This one appears incomplete. I enjoyed where it was going, but not sure what the conclusion/insight is - or is it simply to judge the will-worshippers as misguided? Where/how should we guide instead? It's one thing to illuminate logical fallacy with a position/point of view, but what supersedes the fallacy? Or is what Chesteron is saying that Free Will is no more limiting than everything else and not worthy of special focus?

Well, the main thrust, to me, was this part: "Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice."

That was the part that Žižek quoted which made me go and look up the source.  I think Chesterton's point is that, in a sort of Hegelian way, the "will" is not "positivity" in-itself, rather, the will is the (negative) discriminatory, limiting factor.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
  • whore
    • View Profile
« Reply #203 on: December 30, 2019, 03:27:51 pm »
Seems less about free will [than critiquing] this idea of the lone iconoclast "willing" themselves into breaking all social contracts/expectations.

If I understand him correctly he is also critiquing "will worship" as excessive hedonism toward whatever one desires.

Yes, but what is the better road to doing what we want to do. I'm not arguing for the will-worshipers, I agree with what he's saying about it, but what now? Too often I find clever fellows are on to something, but the conclusion is error ( e.g. I find a lot of what Nietzsche wrote profound, or at least interpretations of his works, I don't know German - but some of his conclusions lead to destruction for both the uber man and the herd - so what then, Nietzsche is just coffee table reading? ). So I agree with you Sci, my point is if any action is limitation, what then? It's like he took too broad a brush so his point is irrelevant because no one is simply going to sit and do nothing until they whither away. He could've made his point for all actions of will, not just pick on the will-worshipers.

Well, the main thrust, to me, was this part: "Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice."

That was the part that Žižek quoted which made me go and look up the source.  I think Chesterton's point is that, in a sort of Hegelian way, the "will" is not "positivity" in-itself, rather, the will is the (negative) discriminatory, limiting factor.

So we're better off without it ( will )? We have more options if we don't willfully act? I get it, but what now? Since I'm typing this, I limited myself against all other possible action - clever, but how is this useful?
It's me, Dave, open up, I've got the stuff

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #204 on: December 30, 2019, 04:01:56 pm »
So we're better off without it ( will )? We have more options if we don't willfully act? I get it, but what now? Since I'm typing this, I limited myself against all other possible action - clever, but how is this useful?

I don't think we are better or worse off with or without "will" though.  I don't think is the point at all.

As his example of marriage proposes, the notion that the will should "dispose" of the injunction "thou shall not" is, in his estimation, nonsense.  Why?  Because the very limitation of "I shall X" is a implicit "I shall not A, B, C, D, E, F" (and so on).

So, this "will-worship" that he talks about is really a misapplication of some "positive" notional "freedom" that doesn't really exist.  Not in the sense that whose who used it seem to want it to be.  You can't get rid of the "shall not" any more than you can do everything at once.

So, what he seems to be to be advocating is to embrace limit (and the implicit sacrifice it entails) and not be injective against limitation.  I'd also note, that personally, I'd think this should not be taken as being against the notion of transcending limitation.  Rather, it's more about taking account of the constitutive role of limitation in creativity (i.e. a notional freedom).
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #205 on: December 31, 2019, 04:52:22 pm »
Quote
Such a notion of Absolute Knowing is grounded already in Hegel's definition of Self-Consciousness, in the passage from Consciousness to Self-Consciousness (in the Phenomenology). Consciousness first experiences a failure to grasp the In-itself: the In-itself repeatedly eludes the subject, all content supposed to pertain to the In-itself reveals itself as having been put there by the subject itself, so that the subject becomes increasingly caught up in the web of its own phantasmagorias. The subject passes from the attitude of Consciousness to that of Self-Consciousness when it reflexively assumes this failure as a positive result, inverting the problem into its own solution: the subject's world is the result of its own "positing.'
Slavoj Žižek - Less Than Nothing
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #206 on: January 02, 2020, 10:31:00 pm »
'Like a geometer, who sets himself to measure, in radii, the exact circumference of the circle, and who cannot find, by thought, the principle he lacks, so was I, at this new sight: I wished to see how the image fitted the circle, and how it was set in place, but my true wings had not been made for this, if it were not that my mind was struck by lightning, from which its will emerged.

Power, here, failed the deep imagining: but already my desire and will were rolled, like a wheel that is turned, equally, by the Love that moves the Sun and the other stars.'


 -Paradiso

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #207 on: January 03, 2020, 05:27:23 pm »
Quote
The history of the world is not the theatre of happiness.  Periods of happiness are blank pages; for they are periods of harmony, periods of the missing opposition.

G.W.F. Hegel - Lectures on the Philosophy of History
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #208 on: January 06, 2020, 09:54:27 pm »
'Emergence of mind from no mind at all is sheer magic.'

– Prof. Sewall G. Wright

=-=-=

"This path to the primordial religious experience is the right one, but how many can recognize it? It is like a still small voice, and it sounds from afar. It is ambiguous, questionable, dark, presaging danger and hazardous adventure; a razor-edged path, to be trodden for God's sake alone, without assurance and without sanction."

 -Carl Jung

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #209 on: January 14, 2020, 01:16:35 am »
"Eventually, I believe, current attempts to understand the mind by analogy with man-made computers that can perform superbly some of the same external tasks as conscious beings will be recognized as a gigantic waste of time."
 -Thomas Nagel