biloxi andersen wrote:
>There's the same problem with Philosophy. Philosophy is a highly,
There's the same problem with Philosophy. Philosophy is a highly,
highly formalised discipline yet people use the word and have the
notion of it as something that any pothead would do.
Too many people seem to think they can do art or philosophy on a whim,
without any study, and that whatever they say is valid, but that has
nothing to do with Art or Philosophy. I think a better word to
describe what they do is "bullshit" since that's how they use those
two terms. yet people use the word and have the
>notion of it as something that any pothead would do.
>Too many people seem to think they can do art or philosophy on a whim,
>without any study, and that whatever they say is valid, but that has
>nothing to do with Art or Philosophy. I think a better word to
>describe what they do is "bullshit" since that's how they use those
>two terms.
Before retiring gracefully from this thread, following Robin's august
example, I might point out that potheads may, in fact, be adept at what
you call "highly formalised discipline". (I am not arguing pro domo
here. I don't dig discipline at all.) Hegel's philosophy has had more
influence on modern thinking than is easily comprehended, yet he used
snuff with a high level of cannabis and was a very heavy drinker. And
what would you call the great founding philosophers of the Western
tradition viz. e.g. Thales, Heraclitus or Empedocles? There was no
"highly formalised discipline" for them to follow. In any case, academic
philosophy is mostly extremely dull, and for quite some time now they
(academic feelosofers) have instanced Lewis Carroll or David Lynch to
sex things up, though Heidegger preferred Hölderlin & Diels' Fragmente.
Whatever turns you on.
emjay
|