what is lits philosophical (i.e. without muh feels) thouhgt on prejustice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnxwnBKxgNg
>Philosophical (i.e. without muh feels)
This board is intended for people who have read a book at some point in their lives.
>>7709045
Key word: Intended
>>7709049
Key word: fuck off to your containment board
>>7709045
>This board is intended for people who have read a book at some point in their lives
Not even edgelords like Schopenhauer argued any honestly for prejudice tbqh
>>7709033
>starts off video with a "parable"
Oh, dis gon b gud
>>7709059
>>7709058
>Not even edgelords like Schopenhauer argued any honestly for prejudice tbqh
author of the video is Greg Johnson, doctor of theology
arguments pro et contra prejudice anyone?
>>7709075
If he's a doctor in theology he has no argument talking about politics.
That sort of thing is what lets autists like Dawkins and Hawking piss on philosophy and be treated as authorities in the subject.
>>7709076
For all you know he could be extensively self educated in politics. Just because he doesn't have a fancy piece of paper to make himself look good doesn't make his arguments any more or less valid.
>>7709078
He could be. Or he could not be. The fact is, he has no authority he can easily cling to to give his arguments validity on the subject.
>>7709076
>If he's a doctor in theology he has no argument talking about politics.
he just gave you many strong arguments in the video and none of which you adressed, you fag
>>7709078
Then there is no point in mentioning his theology phd, famiglia.
Prejudice could make sense (not absolute sense, contextual) when you had things like sovereign nations, but in globalized culture (something which neocons and the right in general pushed for much more than the left), multiculturalism is unavoidable.
You just want some philosopher to tell you how you're right in not liking the niggers, and while I think that if you just dislike other peoples but don't try to kill them or anything isn't a bad (or good) thing, you can't deny that west meddling on non-western countries is what first caused that whole situation.
And before you bring up the whole "slavery wasn't a western exclusive thing", slavery and colonialism as perpetrated by the west are different from other forms of slavery and empire in which the individual could almost always integrate to some level in the dominant society.
>>7709086
Oh, I'm not watching that, I have foreigners to kill in XCom 2
>>7709033
>philosophical
>without feels
>>7709091
>>philosophical
>>without feels
more likely
>postmodern philososophy
>without feels
>>7709095
Nigger the whole fucking western philosophy is based on extremely personal and subjective feelings of "good" and "beautiful", people just treated them as objectives because they didn't know better, but I URGE you to give me a working definition of "truth", "beauty" and "good" that don't depend on extremely subjective parameters.
>>7709095
Oh you're baiting I get it nice one
>>7709095
Refute Kant. Only then do you have a right to make such a stupid assumption about the distinction between modern and postmodern philosophy.
>>7709099
>>7709103
>Nigger the whole fucking western philosophy is based on extremely personal and subjective feelings of "good" and "beautiful"
you are a postmodernist and this is your skewed although genuine view on phil history
exibit A: golden section of pic
>>7709109
You're a postmodernist as well, you fucking dolt, or do you live in the middle ages and no one told me about it?
You can't criticize (and I criticize postmodernism as well), but you can't magically separate yourself from the time you live in because you've read fucking Evola's wiki.
The whole of human thought is filtered through one's personal feelings and impressions, or you're gonna claim Berkeley is a postmodernist as well?
>>7709112
1 + 1 = 2
>>7709121
So, you're posting human axioms to prove there is a objective truth? :^)
>>7709112
>You're a postmodernist as well, you fucking dolt, or do you live in the middle ages and no one told me about it?
I dont think like one and no, Im not, get that moral post-relativistic/post-christian cancer away from me
>You can't criticize (and I criticize postmodernism as well), but you can't magically separate yourself from the time you live in because you've read fucking Evola's wiki.
and the award for best student of the class "Philospohy 101" goes to...!
The yes/no part comes in play when you identify or not identify with certain things not in what CURRENT YEAR you livein
exibit B: calming elegance of perfectly suited suit that follows the healthy proportions of the pearl of Gods creation - man
>>7709123
Op's probably the type of idiot who thinks only people who agree with him use logic and reason desu
>>7709135
exibit C: more non-postmodern infleunced suits
notice how the colors and form revolve around the man, and not vice versa. perfectly complimenting his skin and his surrondings (earth tones)
(trigger warning)
>>7709135
I don't think like my brother and yet we're part of the same family. Nothing you do will untie you from postmodernism, except destroying it.
You can identify with whatever you want, you are living in CURRENT YEAR, and I don't think it's right to go the whole ITS CURRENT YEAR AND PEOPLE ARE STILL BEATING TRANNIES, because you assume a very distorted hegelian view of things.
Holy shit you asshole, you do realize that 60 years ago those suits wouldn't be considered elegant as they are now. If your whole proof of objectivity stems from fucking fashion notions and trends, you're more fucked than I thought.
Either that or you're baiting.
>>7709130
If they're representations they no longer have any direct relation to anything, only assigned ones, therefore, they're filtered through human systems and axioms, which make them non-objective.
>>7709141
>non postmodern people only wear clothes that fit their environment, whenever they leave for a place with different colors they change clothes
>obviously this means that they always have to carry different sets of clothes with them, but that's just the price you have to pay to be a badass
>>7709141
he looks like an inflatable aluminium balloon on stilts
Tasty bait. Mind me stealing it?
>>7709150
>aestetics isnt connected to ideology
I LOVE COCKMUNCHING HUMANISTS
>>7709147
>Holy shit you asshole, you do realize that 60 years ago those suits wouldn't be considered elegant as they are now. If your whole proof of objectivity stems from fucking fashion notions and trends, you're more fucked than I thought.
le hurr durrr, I just posted pretty strong examples of the OBJECTIVE rules for aesthetics and you strawmen it out insted of arguing aestetic TIMELESSNESS of aestetic principles
and no faggot, the first pic is not 60 years old, nowhere near 30 actually, jsut die out of AIDS or smth post modern
exibit D: postmodern cuck aestetics, notice how the clothes (here intentionally) misses the body and gives the cuck look
>>7709174
I'm by no means a humanist, m8, you're just confused.
More proof of your confusion is the fact that I said that 60 years ago, said suits WOULDN'T be considered elegand, since the trend in the late 50s to the early 60s was on tighter, three buttoned suits. What you're saying is that there is a objective parameter for aesthetics, which is downright retarded, since you can't possibly (and I repeat, you can't) give me anything that remained objectively desirable for 100 years in mankind's imagetic production.
Greek clothes missed the body, are you saying greeks had the same aesthetic ideals as postmodernism?
I also don't dress like pic related, my clothes are usually tight actually, are you saying I somehow am not postmodern as well? What turns those tacky, "i'm old white and rich" suits into objective standards?
The mere fact you assume aesthetic is related to the prevalent ideology shows how you're a fruit of postmodernism as well; congratulations, you've been cucked by your own time.
>>7709174
>I just posted pretty strong examples of the OBJECTIVE rules for aesthetics
no
they all looked mediocre at best
four old men and a train
good job
>>7709174
exibit E: more postmodern cuck aestetics
notice how the clothes give the body an appearance of unproportionality and the cuck wearing it looks quite demasculinized...compared it to the masculine and powerfull presense of >>7709141
>>7709135
>>7709188
His simple little reality-cucked mind will never comprehend it, this entire thread is a waste of time.
>>7709190
you sound genuinely mentally ill
>>7709189
Can I steal this rare pepe?
>>7709196
Jesus christ that guy's a bear
>>7709190
Those masculine men you mentioned happened to have erectile dysfunction later in their lives.
>>7709203
>>7709188
>What you're saying is that there is a objective parameter for aesthetics, which is downright retarded, since you can't possibly (and I repeat, you can't) give me anything that remained objectively desirable for 100 years in mankind's imagetic production.
yes,Golden section for starters. look up timeless desings, everything revolveas around 2:3 all day everyday.
however, postmodern aesthetics is anti-aesthetics (or aestetics of ugliness like pic rel), so often youll wont find it only int quasi-traditional movements like art deco etc.
>Greek clothes missed the body, are you saying greeks had the same aesthetic ideals as postmodernism?
for different reasons, pants werent invented then
>>7709195
no u
>>7709208
>Those masculine men you mentioned happened to have erectile dysfunction later in their lives.
they still are alpha, masculintiy is compley
>>7709188
also compare Bach, Rachmaninov, Bethoveen and todays composers like Thomas Bergsen to atonal music of Arthur Schoenberg
>>7709217
>pants werent invented then
The ancient Greeks used the term "ἀναξυρίδες" (anaxyrides) for the trousers worn by Eastern nations[12] and "σαράβαρα" (sarabara) for the loose trousers worn by the Scythians.[13] However, they did not wear trousers since they thought them ridiculous,[14][15] using the word "θύλαkοι" (thulakoi), pl. of "θύλαkος" (thulakos), "sack", as a slang term for the loose trousers of Persians and other orientals.[16]
>>7709226
I aint even mad nigga
>>7709217
I honestly don't know about Greece, sorry, but pants were most definitely invented during the roman empire, and their typical clothes didn't match the body either.
The golden ratio itself is pretty much a renaissance / greekaboo thing, when you look into stuff like mannerism and baroque, you get much more subjective, "unballanced" works that rely much more in a internal logic than some outside rule, and yet, those same works are hailed as some as the absolute draining of any objective ideas of beauty, since they're so loaded with aesthetic elements that they become bloated.
As for post-modern aesthetics, it's more preocuppied with trying to grasp WHAT is the aesthetic experience than in taking it for granted and spewing shit like you are, since you clearly fail to address any of my points beyond repeating your buzzwords and taking them as universally recognized standards.
>>7709227
Schoenberg's atonality is a counter-argument to your bullshit, actually, since despite no longer relying to tonal artificial restrictions, he still managed to produce extremely organized and understandable - and even beautiful, but that's my opinion - music.
Case in point: Ulysses
>>7709174
>>you do realize that 60 years ago those suits wouldn't be considered elegant as they are now
>and no faggot, the first pic is not 60 years old
Why are you on a literature board if you don't know how to read?
>>7709217
>masculintiy is compley
>>7709238
>he still managed to produce extremely organized and understandable - and even beautiful
o cmnon m8! its pure rubish althouhg its sophisticated rubish.
>when you look into stuff like mannerism and baroque, you get much more subjective, "unballanced" works that rely much more in a internal logic than some outside rule, and yet, those same works are hailed as some as the absolute draining of any objective ideas of beauty, since they're so loaded with aesthetic elements that they become bloated.
ok so its more pyramidical than 2:3 still, but 2:3 is clearly visible like in everything beautiful...rules, structures, beauty, logic...
WHITE BURGEOISSE MAFIA REPRESENT
>WHAT is the aesthetic experience
this is a sad excuse for milking money for your performance in a modern art museum
>>7709147
>If they're representations they no longer have any direct relation to anything, only assigned ones, therefore, they're filtered through human systems and axioms, which make them non-objective.
By definition, a representation has to have a relation to something IE: the thing it is representing, whether that thing be real or imaginary. Of course, the method or channel of representation will be always be subjective, but this subjective channel itself is capable of acting as a window for looking at something objective, particularly when 100% of the necessary information for some sort of truth is capable of being represented.
>>7709269
>the pic
The guy in that painting was a horrible doctor who commisioned the painting to look impressive. If you're doing this on purpose you're a master troll.
>logic
U wot m8
>>7709282
>>the pic
>The guy in that painting was a horrible doctor who commisioned the painting to look impressive. If you're doing this on purpose you're a master troll.
we are talking about 2/3 proportions of the pic not some colonial post-opressive studies bs
>>logic
>U wot m8
the wut is yours
>>7709269
m8, before anything I gotta tell you, while I do study aesthetics and plan my academic life around it, my main production right now is selling fucking woodcuts, aka one of the most antiquated art forms you can produce, and my stuff is mostly based around medieval / gothic aesthetics, so, it's even more "conservative" than it should be.
By that argument about piramidal / 2:3 ratios etc., even most modernist and even some post-modern art have to be considered beautiful (again by you, since I mostly enjoy modern art and a lot of post-modern art, though not all), since these composition rules haven't been abandoned by a lot of artists (due to how easily the elements in a work become easily organizable following that system).
It's not pure rubbish, minimalism is way closer to rubbish than atonal / duodecatonic music by any standard and yet people seem to like it way more.
And even then, those composition standards were respected way more for academic purposes than idealistic ones, take south-american baroque (hailed by everyone as the apex of baroque), it's just all over the place, and while it does follow some of the golden square / diagonal composition guidelines, it barely does.
Then tell me, how can one precisely descibre aesthetic experience: and before you claim "anything that inspires a reaction", you gotta think about how a lot of non-art inspires such feelings while a lot of art can only do so when interpreted as art.
>>7709291
>colonial post-opressive studies
Please explain how those words relate to what I wrote.
>the wut is yours
Indeed it is. Please explain what the golden ratio has to do with logic.
>>7709274
You should read some Kant my man.
Also, you should understand that while represantation does have a obvious relation to the thing in itself, it's not a direct one, but one ascribed by (guess what) a human being
>>7709174
The fact that you're characterizing an argument contra an objective and orderly system of esthetics as "humanist" is damning evidence that you're neither well-read nor do you understand even the absolute basic positions of philosophy as it evolved from antiquity until now, nor the positions of your opponents. Read a book OP.
So is 2:3 trolling a thing on pol
why does modern society encourage us to engage with harmful primal instincts (overeating, promiscuity, etc) but discourage us from engaging with beneficial primal instincts (distrust of strangers, self preservation at the expense of others outside of our 'group', policy benefiting the majority, etc)?
we're all supposed to be obese idiots with fifteen children who let others abuse us and the 0.3% of the population who are trannies establish policy for the sake of our 'newfound mutual liberty'
it would be one thing if progressivism was antithetical to traditionalism in that we are to find new systems that work. instead, we blindly move forward with policies that are doomed to result in failure. it's purely faith. i guess it's about the martyrdom of sticking with your guns in the face of the inevitable. it's about what happens AFTER we fail, when others can look back on us and say, "well at least he had faith!"
>>7709380
Where can I read more thoughts like this?
>>7709033
>posting anything from Counter-Currents, ever
It's like you insist on being retarded.
>>7709411
i live in a milk crate, under an overpass of highway 820 in dfw texas
>>7709380
>we're all supposed to be obese idiots with fifteen children who let others abuse us and the 0.3% of the population who are trannies establish policy for the sake of our 'newfound mutual liberty'
And I thought people on /r/philosophy were fucking retarded, welp. You DO understand that the worldview that /pol/ and /r9k/ advertise is shitposting alternated with frustration and a hard-core inability to understand social dynamics, right?
>>7709380
Overeating and promiscuity aren't encouraged, just like distrust and "self preservation", they're options you can engage in, but people won't agree or incentive you.
>>7709380
Overwating and promiscuity make sense in the whatever natural muh human nature fictious stone age scenery you probably are thinking about when meming this
>>7709442
the fact that the average american thinks 25% of the population is gay, when in fact 3% self identify as LGBT (as in, all the colors on the rainbow, not just MM FF), speaks to the general trend of our 'social dynamics'
there are no facts, only truths
that's what's funny to me about 'fair representation' and 'reserving judgement of the individual' is that we inherently lack the capacity to actually comprehend our reality
it's all about individual perception (as long as that perception is the 'TRUE' perception), otherwise it's about FACT (unless the fact is incompatible)
>>7709469
>the average american thinks 25% of the population is gay
This is simply impossible, I go to art school where almost everyone is choking on the dick and even then people see queer ppl as minority, 1/10 at best
>>7709494
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx
the facts are clashing with the truths it seems. which one do we go with!?
i mean, 25% is minority (as is 49%, as everyone is keen to repeat over and over as a malicious minded reminder/threat to white people), and ~10,000,000 people is still a heck of a lot if you gathered them in one place, but what effect will this have on our fair representation?
1/4 LGBT TV characters and oscars award winners vs 3/100 is pretty drastic
do we need to ensure that factual reality is represented, or does the reality of our truth win in this case?
>>7709530
>Polling shows Americans are fucking stupid
Wow you've shown me the light
>>7709559
and there we go
at first the facts were impossible, but it turns out the facts were self-evident the entire time. the facts have shown themselves to be less than useful for our aims, so we can safely ignore them.
or are you suggesting that the stupid public doesn't deserve to have their perception reinforced and we can coldly move back to the facts?
>>7709121
>1 + 1 = 2
pic related
>>7709530
My man, you're being somewhat selective in your uproar, specially after how spooked you sounded when selecting the pictures of the guys in suits and all that yadda yadda.
You should read Society of the Spectacle and understand capitalism is to blame for representation and image becoming more than reality much more than "liberals" or whatever spook you're blaming.
>>7709578
Also, you're not replying to me.
But then again, the guy you've replied is right: Americans are the stupidest people on earth
>>7709174
Man, I don't think any human can tip a fedora as fast as you friend, well done
>>7709380
>we're all supposed to be obese idiots with fifteen children who let others abuse us and the 0.3% of the population who are trannies establish policy for the sake of our 'newfound mutual liberty'
No, you're not.
>>7709174
>humanist
Humanism is just Christianity without the god, humanity itself is a spook. Nobody is actually arguing at you from a humanistic perspective. You are a complete tool. I don't say this often but please return to /pol/.
I still read /pol/ for the keks once in awhile but now I understand why some troglodytes throw a bitch fit whenever you come to this board and call it a liberal wankfest, you argue like this, everyone calls you what you are, an idiot, and you get fanny flustered and run back to the collective.
