[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 202 KB, 840x712, smart pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14483482 No.14483482 [Reply] [Original]

Basically it boils down as all human discourse is mutually understood in a universal understanding, and so all misunderstanding is already understood. Without the work of institutions, society, culture, individualism,religion, etc etc, all misunderstanding would no longer exist but it is because these things that we fail to see the universal understanding intuitively within us all. When a difference in reason, religion, etc. is brought upon us, we see the understanding the general truth to it but, if we are sworn in to a reason, religion, etc, ourselves once the claim is perceived we immediately known intuitively the truth but, once its processed through our understanding, logic, reason and religion, philosophy(these two last but the former 3 I have yet to order specifically) the truth, the communication is lost. The only way to manage discourse between these things is not directly but indirectly in critiques such as is seen in the progression in philosophy. I'm honestly in the belief that every inherently knows that these 'conditioned' values are all not inherently wrong, nor correct in the absolute sense but all are in a way attempts at illustrating the universal understanding that we all have.

I summarized a lot for the sake of time here but this is a simplified version of what I attempting to communicate, just as everything a strive for universal understanding.

>> No.14484035

from what I can understand, I think plato, plotinus, F.H Bradley, and reza negarestani would appeal to you

>> No.14484064

>>14483482
your notion of universality and understanding are themselves embedded in a misunderstanding arising from your education. it is a form of thinly veiled cultural supremacy you seek to impose on others by morphing your ideology until it resembles theirs sufficiently to seem benign and then you begin to critique and deconstruct and undermine until all that is left is technology and it's brutal economic power.

in a way you are a missionary of capital and high finance. you do to the masses what low interest loans to do their respective elites. provide a hope for greatness only to snatch it away when it is swallowed. and you typically make no second pretense when it comes to ripping out the soul through the chest.

>> No.14484067

>human discourse
?

>> No.14484071

>>14484067
he means dialectics but he hasn't read hegel

>> No.14484108

>According to Weber, rationalisation (to use this word in the sense it has in sociological theory) creates three spheres of value: the differentiated zones of science, art and law.[20] For him, this fundamental disunity of reason constitutes the danger of modernity. This danger arises not simply from the creation of separate institutional entities but through the specialisation of cognitive, normative, and aesthetic knowledge that in turn permeates and fragments everyday consciousness. This disunity of reason implies that culture moves from a traditional base in a consensual collective endeavour to forms which are rationalised by commodification and led by individuals with interests which are separated from the purposes of the population as a whole.

>This 'purposive rational action' is steered by the "media" of the state, which substitute for oral language as the medium of the coordination of social action. An antagonism arises between these two principles of societal integration—language, which is oriented to understanding and collective well being, and "media", which are systems of success-oriented action.

>Following Weber, Habermas sees specialisation as the key historical development, which leads to the alienating effects of modernity, which 'permeate and fragment everyday consciousness'.

>> No.14484265

>>14484035
Plato and Plotinus I've already ran through but I've never heard of F.H. Bradley, I have heard of Negrestani but I fail to understand where to start with and probably lack in my over philosophical reading to get into him.
>>14484067
>>14484071
It can be viewed in a literal sense as well but its meant to mean something beyond that, I've never read Hegel so maybe your right. Although I am by far interested by Philosophy of History stuff.
>>14484108
From which book of Weber's is this quoted from?
>>14484064
Yes, you could venture to say that this theory is in itself self-defeating and narcissistic but it's always upheld that if we were to tear all these notions brought upon us by society all discourse and difference would be of the same, in fact all things in the former category would be communicated in a way the communicates the same truth. If I had a bigger vocabulary for popular Philosophical terms this would be much more understandable

>> No.14484377
File: 1.90 MB, 498x280, 1577054859589.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14484377

>>14484265
not that anon, but it would be from economy and society. that said, i don't think weber's ideas overlap yours much at all though.

>> No.14484681

>>14483482
J. G. Hamann