Pedantic Struggles: The All Encompassing Philosophy Thread™

[BurtReynolds]

Does anyone have any favorite pre-Socratics? Diogenes Laertius’ volume on them is a go-to source even if some of the veracity of its historicity is in doubt. The quasi-religious bent of that crop of folks never fails to be interesting to me—particularly Pythagoras’s strange cult of personality.

But Heraclitus and Parmenides seem to be the biggest influences on subsequent ontology.

Also—Zizek is a marvel. I find him hard to pin down, but that’s a big part of his appeal.

Heraclitus is my homeboy. Everything really is fire!

Tragic that so little of what they wrote/said survives.

Good quick read on them.

Spoiler: show

I've never read any of Zizek's books but I assume they have more substance than his talks. He is entertaining in talks with his rambling stories, but ends up saying basically nothing.

[BurtReynolds]

[Dev]

I have probably read like 7 zizek books and if you don't like his talks you won't like the books either.

[BurtReynolds]

Is a game art in itself, or can it merely include art? is Tetris art? Chess? Tic-tac-toe? If you remove the other arts from games, are the games themselves art?

If a game isn't in itself a work of art, does adding a game to artistic works detract from them?

I think games are art in themselves. They express something about the world - the logic of the world - in a novel, manmade way. They are metaphors for mathematical or logical structures/systems. They are subjective interpretations or expressions of these structures. They can also be beautiful in their design.

[spike]

oh cool, alex is back again

[Dev]

I don't really see why it matters how video games are regarded. I would say they have more in common with other games(sports, board games, etc.) than art though.

[BurtReynolds]

The ratchet only turns one way?


https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-r ... o-overkill

[BurtReynolds]

[E.H. Ruddock]

Armie Hammer likes this post

[simple schoolboy]

[lvc]

The problem with this graphic is it presupposes that there is no external moral authority (say, something divine) which could just say "eating people is bad because they are people and people have intrinsic value that precludes being dinner for other people" and it be true.

If there is indeed no God, then the only person on earth who knows what they're talking about is Nietzsche and human existence is a scrappy, kind of ugly will to power. If, however, there is a God then arguments like this are mere sophistry and any philosophy that isn't a search for the divine is missing the point.

TL;DR, forget philosophy and take up religion.

Not sure I've painted in broad enough strokes. I'm sure someone will let me know.

[BurtReynolds]

The Bible isn't too clear on cannibalism imo.

[wease]

It refers to it as a pretty negative thing.

[BurtReynolds]

[BurtReynolds]

[BurtReynolds]

[BurtReynolds]

[BurtReynolds]

[BurtReynolds]

[BurtReynolds]