"I belong to a generation, one of the last generations, that was more or less bludgeoned to death with the history of philosophy... What got me through it at the time was to see the history of philosophy as a sort of ass-fuck or (it comes to the same thing) immaculate conception. I saw myself as taking an author from behind and giving him a baby that would be his own offspring, yet monstrous."

-Gilles Deleuze

10/11/2008 4:00:13 PM

uh-huh.

10/11/2008 4:01:03 PM

METRO

10/11/2008 4:01:06 PM

If you can't prove Goedel's incompleteness theorems you have no business calling yourself a philosopher

peace

10/11/2008 4:01:23 PM

I BELONG TO THE BLANK GENERATION

10/11/2008 4:01:58 PM

^^ that's exactly the kind of thought Deleuze is working against

^ what the, Hell?

10/11/2008 4:03:15 PM

Quote :

"^^ that's exactly the kind of thought Deleuze is working against"

so he couldn't prove them and neither can you is what you're saying

10/11/2008 4:03:50 PM

I'm gonna have to go with McDanger on this one.

10/11/2008 4:07:45 PM

why must, in your world, philosophers all handle arithmetic?

Deleuze on philosophy:

"...to go beyond the human condition: This is the meaning of philosophy, in so far as our condition condemns us to live among badly analyzed composites and to be badly analyzed composites ourselves."

10/11/2008 4:12:27 PM

wahhhh rigor in thought makes me whiny

look at me i'm every french philosopher in the 20th century

10/11/2008 4:13:30 PM

GOD DAMMIT SON, STOP BEING METRO. THESE FUCKERS TRY TO FIGURE SHIT OUT BY THINKING TOO HARD INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY LOOKING AT REAL EVIDENCE SON.

THEY JUST THINK UNTIL THEY SHIT BRICKS AND ACCOMPLISH NOTHING.

10/11/2008 4:14:41 PM

^ Deleuze was very much concerned with the material world and the forces that act within it

he was just advocating a philosophy which creates mobile concepts rather than eternal forms

its not just linguistic masturbation - he was critical of the poststructuralists that used that approach

^^ explain to me, as you would a child, how this aspect of the philosophy of mathematics is relevant to lived experience in the world - won't you have to rely on analogy?

10/11/2008 4:23:17 PM

Quote :

"^^ explain to me, as you would a child, how this aspect of the philosophy of mathematics is relevant to lived experience in the world - won't you have to rely on analogy?"

All I'm saying is, how are you going to get an education in "philosophy" without being well-versed in the subject? Most "philosophers" couldn't prove the completeness of propositional logic if asked. It's a sad state.

It's like being a biologist who just likes to talk about biology, but is unaware of evolutionary theory. The incompleteness results have implications for more than just arithmetic -- but for all models of computation; any theory that includes elementary number theory.

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2008 4:26:29 PM

but I'm not studying philosophy
only the philosophy of my field

in your terms, how would you explain the concept of desire?
compute desire
compute art


[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : -]

10/11/2008 4:32:16 PM

you talk like the past arguments about numbers are resolved and closed

but you are working in a system stemming from classical philosophy and morphing into the Christian obsession with the unity of the number one

10/11/2008 4:34:08 PM

last I checked, us Christians are "obsessed" with the number three

10/11/2008 4:35:17 PM

there is ONE God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen

10/11/2008 4:37:03 PM

Quote :

"in your terms, how would you explain the concept of desire? compute desire compute art"

Plenty of theories of aesthetics that are naturalistic.

Plenty of psychological and philosophical work over the past 200 years has gone into defining what "desires" are, and if you were remotely educated you'd know this. I'd probably define desire as a neural state description translatable into a set of truth-conditions (something that'd represent truth-conditions in our agent of choice). The agent attempts to bring about a state of perceptions that satisfy these truth-conditions (model theoretically).

As far as the phenomenological aspect of desire, that's an interesting topic that involves a bunch of free-wheeling. It's interesting and fun in it's own right, but why not frame your understanding of these issues in the broadest possible way? The reason why I hate the sort of "philosophy" you do is because it doesn't even get the arguments it tries to refute straight before skipping to the criticism.

Quote :

"you talk like the past arguments about numbers are resolved and closed but you are working in a system stemming from classical philosophy and morphing into the Christian obsession with the unity of the number one"

There's nothing more resolved and closed than a "theorem", by the way.

There's a reason why they're not called the incompleteness arguments.

What the fuck is the last garbage you threw in there? Can you even explain what you mean without tripping over yourself and 500 undefined, vague concepts?

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2008 4:39:13 PM

right

but that's an Abrahamic belief.

Christianity is about the trinity.

10/11/2008 4:39:32 PM

Quote :

"Plenty of psychological and philosophical work over the past 200 years has gone into defining what "desires" are, and if you were remotely educated you'd know this."

meh I was baiting you into expressing desire as contingent upon lack

your semantics still require binary thinking

nice jargon though, makes you look smarter

10/11/2008 4:46:11 PM

what Deleuze is exploring is the possibility of new meaning

you might be receptive to this if your acute self-righteousness didn't trigger some sort of intellectual vaginismus inside your cunt of a brain

for Deleuze what is interesting lies in the milieu, the place where things mix and interact
he is not interested in the unending statement and restatement of primary principles or in declarations of their impossibility

10/11/2008 4:55:30 PM

Quote :

"your semantics still require binary thinking nice jargon though, makes you look smarter"

irony explosion

I just cashed out what I thought a theory of desire would be. The experience of desire might be ultimately ineffable -- but if that's true, the philosophy you're doing is garbage even by its own standards.

I see nothing wrong with accepting the law of the excluded middle, sry homey.

Quote :

"what Deleuze is exploring is the possibility of new meaning"

Funny enough, this statement has no meaning.

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2008 4:56:09 PM

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN TWO METROS ARGUE ABOUT WHO IS MORE METRO.

10/11/2008 4:57:52 PM

Saab your gimmick isn't funny

Ihatespida did it way, way better

Pack it in

10/11/2008 4:59:17 PM

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU THINK I DO THIS TO ENTERTAIN YOU? WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU THINK THAT I AM TRYING TO SEEM FUNNY TO YOU?

10/11/2008 5:01:14 PM

I'm not saying it's not funny to me

it's objectively unfunny

10/11/2008 5:03:05 PM

^^ clearly you're seeking SOMEONE'S approval

^ shit dude I didn't know you were from Rocky Mount

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM. Reason : -]

10/11/2008 5:03:23 PM

^ WHO IN THE FUCK'S APPROVAL AM I SEEKING SON? WHOSE APPROVAL ARE YOU SEEKING?

^^ AGAIN, WHAT IN THE FUCK MAKES YOU THINK I'M TRYING TO SEEM FUNNY TO YOU SON?

IN FACT, I'M HAVING A LOT OF TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHAT ABOUT ALL CAPS WOULD EVER BE INHERENTLY FUNNY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMOR SON.

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ]

10/11/2008 5:06:15 PM

Quote :

"^ shit dude I didn't know you were from Rocky Mount"

Yea meng.

I guess we can agree to disagree about the philosophy stuff

But one thing I think we can both agree on is that Saab's shitty gimmick was washed up before he started it

10/11/2008 5:07:51 PM

win

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 5:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2008 5:08:34 PM

this thread sucked from beginning to end, and there was arguing involved.


congrats guys, you all suck at this

10/11/2008 5:09:06 PM

Quote :

"this thread sucked from beginning to end"

I BELIEVE THIS MAN WINS SONS.

THIS SHIT WAS METRO FROM THE START.

Quote :

"But one thing I think we can both agree on is that Saab's shitty gimmick was washed up before he started it"

OH BOO FUCKING HOO METRO.

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

10/11/2008 5:10:32 PM

I agree. Can we just go ahead and delete this thread and pretend it never happened? It sucks that hard.

10/11/2008 5:11:25 PM

Quote :

"I guess we can agree to disagree about the philosophy stuff"

oh man that's all I needed to hear

I'm totally willing to live in a world where people believe all sorts of things
and I'm not looking for philosophy that will help me uncover "truth" - I just want something that helps me move forward

this thread has been fun cause I had an argument with someone literate
and then there was a parade of buffoons - I love a parade

10/11/2008 5:13:05 PM

did you go to HS in RM?

which one?

10/11/2008 5:13:38 PM

no i went to HS in Raleigh

10/11/2008 5:18:58 PM

ah okay

10/11/2008 5:19:49 PM

Besides I only really tossed the insults in because this is chit chat and i felt obligated

NO HARD FEELINGS IN MATH DEBATE, YA HEARD

10/11/2008 5:21:41 PM

st0foolish sounds like mike tyson would if he had graduated high school.


i use big words cause im smarter than you!

10/11/2008 5:22:01 PM

Mr Grace I could break down every single term and you still wouldn't understand

10/11/2008 5:23:57 PM

THAT'S HOW WE KNOW YOU'RE A METRO.

10/11/2008 5:25:10 PM

yes because i know things

10/11/2008 5:25:44 PM

Guess I'm metro.

10/11/2008 5:26:30 PM

I GAVE YOU YOUR NON-METRO CLEARANCE SON. YOU AREN'T METRO.

10/11/2008 5:28:10 PM

10/12/2008 8:16:18 AM

HOLY FUCKING SHIT THAT IS SOME METRO SHIT SON!

10/12/2008 10:33:32 AM