deep thoughts for SERIOUS discussion

Kim · 10-17-2012, 05:08 AM

Really makes you think...

pochercoaster · 10-17-2012, 05:16 AM

Professor Smarmiarty · 10-17-2012, 05:52 AM

Words arose before forms of writing which suggests that they are merely symbolic representations belonging to the symoblic Real rather than the real Real. This fits with both post-structural interpretations of the change of language- in that it is an arbitrary octopus flailing wildly with its elusive tentacles but occasionally scoring a hit- and neuroscience which suggests that the signified and the signifier are processed in different parts of the brain (though with some overlap) and can be manipulated indepedently.

The brain did indeed name itself- calling back to the works of Descartes and Kant while ignored such other luminaries as Hegel and Heidegger who would minimise the influence on the brain in favour of a more procedural natural approach. We can't automatically discard their work, particularly as they are at the foundation of some many useful theories- in particular dialetical materialism which has proven tob e perhaps the most useful of tools in analysis of consciousness and culture- but if we reshape the brain as a unit into a unit which is procedural itself- and this fits with th eimmense plasticity that we know the brain possesses- then we can unite these disparate philosophical traditions.

Am I doing it right?

Kim · 10-17-2012, 06:01 AM

pochercoaster · 10-17-2012, 06:16 AM

I refuse to believe that Kant contributed anything of value to humankind.

Professor Smarmiarty · 10-17-2012, 06:20 AM

I kant believe you just said that.

E:Take it bakunin. My friend loves Kant and you have bentham out of shape.

I hope you found that humerous. I will locke it down now. I need to be stirner on myself in future.

**Satan's Onion** · 10-17-2012, 09:49 PM

Hey! I don't know how it is for you guys, but around here we're a lot more careful with the word "Kant". It's degrading to philosophers.

RobinStarwing · 10-17-2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satan's Onion

Hey! I don't know how it is for you guys, but around here we're a lot more careful with the word "Kant". It's degrading to philosophers.

It's just plane de-grating period.

Magus · 10-17-2012, 10:20 PM

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable

RickZarber · 10-18-2012, 01:23 AM

10-17-2012, 05:08 AM	#1
Kim adorable Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 12,950	deep thoughts for SERIOUS discussion Really makes you think... __________________ this post is about how to successfully H the Kimmy

10-17-2012, 06:01 AM	#4
Kim adorable Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 12,950	__________________ this post is about how to successfully H the Kimmy

10-17-2012, 06:20 AM	#6
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	I kant believe you just said that. E:Take it bakunin. My friend loves Kant and you have bentham out of shape. I hope you found that humerous. I will locke it down now. I need to be stirner on myself in future. Last edited by Professor Smarmiarty; 10-17-2012 at 06:34 AM.

10-17-2012, 09:49 PM	#7
Satan's Onion Swing You Sinners! Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: 4th Street Posts: 2,666	Hey! I don't know how it is for you guys, but around here we're a lot more careful with the word "Kant". It's degrading to philosophers. __________________ Good evening, ladies. Please enter and be tained .

10-18-2012, 01:23 AM	#10
RickZarber Please Be Well Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 2,714	this is about all I could manage __________________ Twitter / Art Tumblr / Personal Tumblr

10-17-2012, 05:16 AM	#2
pochercoaster rollerpocher tycoon Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,808

10-17-2012, 05:52 AM	#3
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Words arose before forms of writing which suggests that they are merely symbolic representations belonging to the symoblic Real rather than the real Real. This fits with both post-structural interpretations of the change of language- in that it is an arbitrary octopus flailing wildly with its elusive tentacles but occasionally scoring a hit- and neuroscience which suggests that the signified and the signifier are processed in different parts of the brain (though with some overlap) and can be manipulated indepedently. The brain did indeed name itself- calling back to the works of Descartes and Kant while ignored such other luminaries as Hegel and Heidegger who would minimise the influence on the brain in favour of a more procedural natural approach. We can't automatically discard their work, particularly as they are at the foundation of some many useful theories- in particular dialetical materialism which has proven tob e perhaps the most useful of tools in analysis of consciousness and culture- but if we reshape the brain as a unit into a unit which is procedural itself- and this fits with th eimmense plasticity that we know the brain possesses- then we can unite these disparate philosophical traditions. Am I doing it right?

10-17-2012, 06:16 AM	#5
pochercoaster rollerpocher tycoon Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,808	I refuse to believe that Kant contributed anything of value to humankind.

10-17-2012, 10:20 PM	#9
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode