larvatus: (Default)


De la constellation initiale du poème, formée par les amoureux et les savants, les chats permettent, par leur médiation, d’éliminer la femme, laissant face à face—sinon même confondus—“le poète des Chats”, libéré de l’amour “bien restreint”, et l’univers, délivré de l’austérité du savant.

The cats, by their mediation, permit the removal of woman from the initial assemblage formed by lovers and scholars. The poet of “Les Chats,” liberated from love “bien petit, bien restreint,” meets face to face and perhaps even blends with the universe, delivered from the scholar’s austerity.

—Roman Jakobson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, “« Les Chats » de Charles Baudelaire”, L’Homme, 1962, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 5-21, at p. 21
larvatus: (Default)
Howard M. Kaminsky of 6130 Ridge Lane, Ocean Ridge, Florida 33435 writes in a letter to the TLS regarding Bernard Wasserstein’s Commentary on Hannah Arendt:
As for his charges relating to Arendt’s use of Nazi authors and her inadequate love of the Jewish people, I admit, Jew that I am, to believing that some Nazi authors had important things to say not unrelated to their Nazism, above all the viciously anti-Semitic but incomparably brilliant Carl Schmitt (whom Arendt used even more than she says), and I also believe that Jews have created gentile hostility by demanding equal rights but refusing to surrender their ethnic integrity. Books have been written about this by a number of authors who are not overtly anti-Semitic—e.g. Kevin MacDonald and Albert Lindemann—and Arendt’s analysis of Jewish “responsibility” for anti-Semitism can hardly be dismissed as due to her “perverse world-view”, let alone her “combination of ira et studio [sic]”.
Setting aside the insinuation of covert anti-Semitism, the notion of the Jews having created gentile hostility by demanding equal rights but refusing to surrender their ethnic integrity is baffling. Is it likewise possible to blame women for having created male hostility by demanding equal rights but refusing to surrender their sexual integrity? For that matter, is it possible to blame any man for having elicited the hostility of his peers by demanding equal rights but refusing to surrender his personal integrity? If the claim is that ethnic descent or religious confession are somehow unlike biological sex and personal identity in their moral implications, why is that the case, and how so?
larvatus: (Default)
“Will we ever be able to think of Hannah Arendt in the same way again?”
—Ron Rosenbaum, “The Evil of Banality: Troubling new revelations about Arendt and Heidegger”, Slate, Friday, 30 October 2009, 12:37 PM ET
Read more... )
“…the true path to uber trolling lies in the careful study of Mikhail Zeleny.
His 1993 masterpiece, Hannah Arendt’s Wrinkled Cunt, was a milestone. Truly a Russian-American icon!”
posted by cr8dle2grave on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 02:52:27 PM EST
larvatus: (Default)
Sigmund Freud’s Beiträge zur Psychologie des Liebeslebens, or Contributions To The Psychology Of Love comprise three articles:
  1. “Über einen besonderen Typus der Objektwahl beim Manne”, Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen, Vol. 2, 1910, pp. 389-97; Gesammelte Werke, VIII, pp. 66-77; “A Special Type of Choice of Object Made by Men”, Standard Edition, Vol. 11, pp. 165-175
  2. “Über die allgemeinste Erniedrigung des Liebeslebens” (Beiträge zur Psychologie des Liebeslebens II), Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen, Vol. 4, 1912, pp. 40-50; Gesammelte Werke, Vol. VIII, pp. 78-91; “On the Universal Tendency to Debasement in the Sphere of Love”, Standard Edition, Vol. 11, pp. 179-190;
  3. “Das Tabu der Virginität” (Beiträge zur Psychologie des Liebeslebens III). Sammlung kleiner Schriften zur Neurosenlehre, Leipzig-Vienna, Vierte Folge, 1917, pp. 229-251; Gesammelte Werke, Vol. XII: 159-180; “The Taboo of Virginity”, Standard Edition, Vol.11, pp. 193-208.
In the second of these articles reproduced below, Freud discusses male impotence that arises from an incestuous fixation on mother or sister. In the broadest strokes that fall short of caricature, his approach derives from the hypothesis that human sexual desires are based on childhood developments that adults ordinarily no longer consciously access. In regard of these developments, Freud identifies two currents in erotic life. The older affectionate current, originally directed towards the infant’s earliest caretakers, typically the mother, eventually becomes complemented by the sensual current that attains its acme during puberty. The oedipal prohibition turns the sensual current elsewhere. But it often remains fixated to its original incestuous objects, whereby the whole of a young man’s sensuality becomes tied to incestuous phantasies in the unconscious. Impotence ensues. Short of this extreme development, pleasure departs from sexual relations. Men seldom combine the two erotic currents, taking complete satisfaction in the same woman instead of directing each current to different women. But perhaps the erotic instinct is bound to remain perpetually unsatisfied in the choice of object. In later work, Freud would develop the argument locating the gain in the processes of sublimation responsible for the development of civilization. Read more... )
larvatus: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] larvatus to [livejournal.com profile] aptsvet in regard of his reading of Kant:
Kant has no problems with recognizing and enforcing categorical obligations between parties in a contractual relationship. This principle applies in equal force to contractual relationships in marriage and citizenship, q.v. Die Metaphysik der Sitten 277 and 315. In other words, under the Categorical Imperative, patriotic duties have a similar footing with marital fidelity.

[livejournal.com profile] aptsvet:
Concerning these passages, I think, first, that Kant should not have included family into the orbit of ethics - this is something that was already obvious to Jesus. Second, his ideas concerning obligations toward the state do not fit into his system as a whole. If 'thou shalt not kill' is universal law, how is it compatible with patriotic duties Read more... )

[livejournal.com profile] larvatus:
In Xenophon’s Symposium at 3.10 Socrates says that he prides himself most on the trade of pandering (μαστροπεία) and boasts that he could make a lot of money if he cared to follow it. When his companions press him to support his pride in this disreputable profession, Socrates explains at 4.57, that the procurer (μαστροπός) is one who makes the procured attractive to those whose company he is to keep. He concludes at 4.60 that the best procurer is one who can make the procured attractive to the whole community (πόλις). It should go without saying that procuring on behalf of amorphous abstractions is all the more glorious than doing so on behalf of concrete individuals. In other words, promotion of patriotism rates among the best kinds of pandering; all the more so as regards promotion of ideals ungrounded in our tangible surroundings, such as the rule of law. In fairness, it bears notice that for all his pandering skills, Socrates ended up condemned to death by a popular court, failing at applying his art to himself. In so far as I am unfit to tie his sandals, my preference is to stay away from pandering in matters of life and death.[4] Read more... )
larvatus: (Default)
Some time ago I wondered, what Aristotle might have meant by claiming in the Rhetoric 2.24, at 1401a22, that to be without a dog is most dishonorable. My solution arrived Read more... ) Crossposted to [info]larvatus, [info]linguaphiles, [info]ancient_philo, [info]classicalgreek, and [info]classics.
larvatus: (Default)
[info]larvatus:
Здесь полагаются памятка и анекдот. Вот Вам памятка:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
—U.S. Naturalization Oath
Так что насчёт “нас” и “их”, у меня с Вами общая система координат. А вот и анекдот:
Для разрядки, так сказать, напряга, пожалуйста, анекдотик. Вернее, не анекдотик, а быль. Но быль до того невероятную, что она, паскудина, сама себя осознает вдруг легендарной и берет кликуху Анекдот, чтобы таким хитромудрым способом продлить на какое-то время свою жизнь. Да и само время, гражданин Гуров, само наше анекдотическое времечко недаром окрестили не столько вожди, сколько их плюгавые шестерки из поэтов и композиторов, временем легендарным.
    Короче говоря, приводят к Будённому перебежчика. Белого. Так, мол, и так, Семён Михайлович, постиг я в мгновение ока происходящее, дошла до меня безысходность белого движения. Чуять начинаю за три версты красоту ваших кавалерийских идей, возьмите к себе воевать. Хорошо. Переодели, переобули, дали красавца-гнедого. Повоевал немного белый, но вдруг показалось ему, что снова постиг он в мгновенье ока происходящее и слинял к Деникину. Мужественно явился и говорит Самому: так, мол, и так, ошибся я. Будённый — полное говно, вокруг него мерзкий плебс, большей вони и совершенней лжи, чем советская власть, вообразить себе невозможно, и лучше уж, ваше превосходительство, смерть в наших безысходных рядах, чем торжество в смрадном каре обманутых маньяками плебеев. Простите великодушно. Время у нас смутное, возможен, согласитесь, поиск душой верного пути. Деникин не стал дискутировать на эту тему. Он отдал дважды перебежчика обратно Будённому. Белый стал втолковывать этой тупой усатой мандавше, что он не подлец, а человек ищущий, и наконец, в последней попытке спасти шкуру, брякнул что-то насчет раздвоения личности. Будённый вынимает саблю, пробует отточку клинка на коготище и врезает красно-белому по темечку. До самой жопы его расколол, а дальше тот сам рассыпался. “Мы—большевики,—говорит Будённый,—проблему раздвоения личности решаем по-своему: сабелькой!”
—Юз Алешковский, «Рука (Повествование палача)»
Это к вопросу о паспорте, как о “средстве передвижения”. Read more... )

[info]furia_krucha:
Детали могут различаться, спору нет. Но в принципе истории одинаковые так как демонстрируют, что „преданность“ (allegiance) вещь преходящая, как для вас, так и героя „анекдотика“.

[info]larvatus:
Вы понимаете разницу между гражданским долгом проистекающим из свободного выбора и требованиями власти на основании места рождения? Read more... )
larvatus: (Default)
С днём рождения, [info]roganov_serge!
larvatus: (Default)
Люди участвуют в обществе в факультативном порядке. В меру своего участия, они открывают, изучают и усваивают не только нравственные правила, но и более требовательные правила вежливости. Все эти процессы они осуществляют не столько личными усилиями, сколько путём взаимодействия. Вежливость—это ключ к соборности. Если вежливость более требовательна, чем нравственность, то нравственность более требовательна, чем законность. Если законность запрещает человеку сбрасывать обнажённую женщину с моста, то нравственность призывает его вытащить её из воды, а вежливость отворачивает его плотоядный взгляд от её влажного лобка. Read more... )
larvatus: (Default)
1. Thomas Hobbes: “In the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.”
2. Only artists and scientists compete for timeless glory. Only soldiers and statesmen compete for worldly glory. To the extent that they are exempted from these vocations, the world’s finest economists belong with everybody else, striving to lessen their diffidence by competing for lucre.
3. If their knowledge of economics enabled them to dope out the trends of supply and demand one step ahead of hoi polloi, we would see the world’s finest economists consistently prevail in this competition.
4. That has not been the case.
5. William Goldman: “Nobody knows anything.”
larvatus: (Default)
In his analysis of the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, Max Weber documented their conflict by quoting John Wesley writing in 1786:

I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.
By analogy, it is hard to see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true socialism to continue long. For such revival must necessarily depend upon both industry and frugality, and these cannot thrive in the face of ubiquitous temptations to squander capital. But as capital dwindles, so will industry. Accordingly, any social arrangement that undermines returns on capital, would undermine the basis of its industry. Read more... ) This appeal to authorities has been extracted from an interminable debate on [info]real_philosophy, with snide asides.

Posted to [info]larvatus; banned from [info]real_philosophy.

pwned

Aug. 20th, 2008 12:30 am
larvatus: (Default)
Nick Bostrom is the Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, who bills himself as “philosopher, polymath, leading transhumanist thinker and spokesperson”. In a recent publication, he popularizes the Great Filter of Robin Hanson. It is a response to the Fermi paradox, anticipated in a more lyrical vein by Blaise Pascal in his famous confession of fear elicited by the eternal silence of infinite space: “Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m’effraie.” (Pensées, Brunschvicg 206, Lafuma 201) While working at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Enrico Fermi transmuted religious fear into scientific exasperation, exclaiming: “Where is everybody?” More pedantically, modern followers of Pascal point out the conflict between the vastness of the universe leading to the expectation of a plurality of intelligent life, and the lack of its manifestation, let alone its presence, in our purlieu. Hanson enumerates plausible candidates for groups of hard trial-and-error biological steps: one hard step at the beginning leading to life, then zero to eight steps leading to complexity, then two to three steps leading to sex, then a double step to society, then a single step to cradle, and then perhaps a final step to language. Overall, this breakdown adds up to seven to nine hard steps. All of these steps lie in our past. Any one of them may have constituted a real hurdle. Unless we already overcame all of such hurdles, it is likely that another catastrophic obstacle will arise in our path to debar us from interstellar colonization. Conversely, every instance of past or present life found to be lacking in our extraterrestrial peregrinations, would yield an encouragement to persevere on our path to planetary conquest. Or so thinks Bostrom, oblivious of the greater American wisdom, “that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Thus our most responsible choice in this matter would put Donald Rumsfeld in charge of SETI.

Here is a brief for Rummy’s assumption of responsibility for the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. As a consequence of the Copernican principle, the place of man in the universe can not be unique. Accordingly, the universe must contain a multitude of minds with similar capabilities, and nothing could foreclose the emergence and development of superhuman minds elsewhere in it. Let us conjecturally identify the carriers of the most advanced class of intelligence with God, allowing for the possibility of plural divine minds. In other words, on the mediocrity principle, the human mind is most likely to occupy a statistically average place in the intellectual range that extends from prions to gods. Reformulating the simulation argument also due to Bostrom, we arrive at the following options, of which at least one must be realized in reality:
  1. the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a divine stage;
  2. any divine civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of autocratic simulations of their evolutionary history or its possible but unactualized variations;
  3. human minds are almost certainly beholden to divine providence and depend utterly upon its autocracy.
The first option conflicts with the principle of plenitude, which asserts that in the long run, everything that can happen, will happen. The second option is rendered unlikely by meddlesome traits universally observed among eggheads. The last remaining option is occasionalism, which postulates continuous supernatural intervention in all human actions. The apparent lack of such intervention yields a real conundrum. One way to resolve it is through postulating a motive for supernatural meddlers to abscond. Along these lines, John A. Ball, a radio astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, proposed that Earth was a zoo and that extraterrestrials were its keepers, observing its inhabitants. In his article published in 1973 in Icarus, an international journal for solar system studies, Ball pointed out: “The perfect zoo (or wilderness area or sanctuary) would be one in which the fauna do not interact with, and are unaware of, their zoo-keepers.” Yet thirty-five years later, the “zoo hypothesis” continues to receive a short shrift from scientists. It stands to their reason that any sensible space aliens would commence their contact with mankind with a formal connection with political, economic, and intellectual elite. Since no such contact has been experienced by our betters, it follows that space aliens are not in attendance around these parts.

A more credulous, and canonically more credible scientist is José Gabriel Funes, who replaced the opponent of “intelligent design” theory George Coyne, as the director of the Vatican Observatory. Recently Funes has gone on official Vatican record (English translation here) with speculations that alien life forms could very well exist and even remain free from Original Sin. A logical extension of this thought, identifying guilt-free aliens with our angelic zookeepers, would afford a Catholic resolution for our conundrum.

Cross-posted to [info]larvatus и [info]philosophy.
larvatus: (Default)
        My Debt to German Learning
    My first serious contact with the German learned world consisted in the reading of Kant, whom, while a student, I viewed with awed respect. Read more... )

        Portrait from Memory
    Presenter: This is the BBC Third Programme. We have in the studio Bertrand Russell, who talks to us in the series, “Sense, Perception, & Nonsense, Number Seven: Is this a dagger I see before me?”
    Bertrand Russell: One of the advantages of living in Great Court, Trinity, I seem to recall, was the fact that one could pop across at any time of the day or night and trap the then young G.E. Moore into a logical falsehood by means of a cunning semantic subterfuge. I recall one occasion with particular vividness. I had popped across and had knocked upon his door. “Come in”, he said. I decided to wait awhile in order to test the validity of his proposition. “Come in”, he said once again. “Very well”, I replied, “if that is in fact truly what you wish”.
    I opened the door accordingly and went in, and there was Moore seated by the fire with a basket upon his knees. “Moore”, I said, “do you have any apples in that basket?” “No”, he replied, and smiled seraphically, as was his wont. I decided to try a different logical tack. “Moore”, I said, “do you then have some apples in that basket?” “No”, he replied, leaving me in a logical cleft stick from which I had but one way out. “Moore”, I said, “do you then have apples in that basket?” “Yes”, he replied. And from that day forth, we remained the very closest of friends.”
    — Jonathan Miller, Beyond the Fringe, 1962
larvatus: (Default)
On 29 February of this year, two days before the election of pint-sized Dmitry Medvedev to the post of the President of Russian Federation, performance art group Vojna (War), formerly best known for its eccentric commemoration of conceptual poet Dmitry Prigov in a moving train of the Moscow Metro, mounted another exhibition in the Biological Museum. This time, they performed in support of the survival of the bear as the totem animal of ancient Slavs. Notably, the run-up to the election prominently featured a spontaneous youth movement of “bear cubs” rallying in support of Vladimir Putin and his designated successor, whose last name fortuitously echoes notional kinship with Ursus arctos. Thus the most recent Vojna performance featured allegedly authentic sexual intercourse under the banner captioned FUCK FOR BEAR CUB’S HEIR.

In the wake of this affair, some of its participants were identified as students of the Philosophy Department of the Moscow State University, from which they were expelled after the mandatory hand-wringing faculty sessions. Their expulsion was allegedly motivated by considerations of philosophical decorum. Coincidentally, political technology is the most lucrative specialty taught by the MSU Philosophy Department at present.

In the ensuing discussion, several parties have posed the question of whether or not students engaging in similar behavior would have been expelled from Oxford or Harvard. I therefore ask all interested and informed parties to weigh in on this issue with considerations of rules and precedents.

Crossposted to [info]larvatus and [info]elitistasshat; banned from [info]philosophy.

pwned

Feb. 23rd, 2008 01:15 am
larvatus: (Default)
Вследствие принципа Коперника, рядовое положение человека во Вселенной не может быть уникальным. Соответственно, во Вселенной должно иметься множество разумов с аналогичными возможностями, и ничто не могло препятствовать зарождению и развитию сверхчеловеческого разума в других местах Вселенной. Согласимся условно отождествить носителя наиболее продвинутого разума с Богом, не пренебрегая возможностью существования множества равно развитых божественных сверхразумов. Иными словами, по принципу усреднения, человеческий разум наивероятнее всего занимает статистически посредственное место в интеллектуальном диапазоне, простирающемся от прионов до богов. Переформулировав рассуждения Ника Бострома, мы приходим к следующим вариантам, из которых по крайней мере один осуществляется в действительности:
  1. Весьма вероятно, что вселенское развитие разума прекратится, не достигнув божественной стадии.
  2. Очень маловероятно, что какая-либо божественная цивилизация займётся самовластной симуляцией её собственной эволюционной истории или её возможных но неосуществившихся вариантов.
  3. Человеческий разум почти наверняка внедрён в божественное провидение и находится в полной зависимости от его самовластия.
Первый вариант исключается принципом изобилия, в то время, как второй вариант противоречит вездесущей назойливости, особенно наблюдаемой среди прожжённых умников. Остаётся лишь вариант окказионализма, предполагающего непрерывное сверхъестественное вмешательство во все человеческие действия.

Помещается в журналы [info]larvatus и [info]ru_philosophy.
larvatus: (Default)
Как Геродот и Аристотель могли бы понять Сталина.
larvatus: (Default)
Discourses and aphorisms on truth and lies, in an anaesthetic sense, with a sound disclaimer.
larvatus: (Default)
The high tide of adaptationism floated a motley navy, but it may now be on the ebb. If it does turn out that natural selection isn’t what drives evolution, a lot of loose speculations will be stranded high, dry and looking a little foolish. Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon. In science, as elsewhere, ‘hedge your bets’ is generally good advice.
Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings, LRB, Vol. 29 No. 20 dated 18 October 2007

2025

S M T W T F S

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 08:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios