/lit/ - Literature

Is there anything this woman can't do?

I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread.

>>1768820
yes but . . . hegel?

>mfw.jpg hegelian dialectic

>>1768825
Hold her head up at family reunions?

>>1768825
I think you mean... is there anything this woman WON'T do?

ithankyou.jpg

Find myself agreeing with OP, despite he's a faggot.

So much of philosophy is a case of the emperor having new clothes. The books are purposefully written in convoluted fashion where the author invents new terms to replace ones that already exist. For what reason? Because stating your shit clearly means you suck at philosophy?

This is why stoicism will always be a bro's philosophy.

I think the reason for that first category (besides greedy college professors wanting to capitalize on hipsters) is that philosophy is very hard to get into. What I mean about that is that there is so much referencing and building from other works that people don't know what to read first. This makes it very hard to expand your horizon without actually going to school and studying.

>>1768830

>>1768836
It's too bad that people are just too fucking lazy to pick up a primary source and read it without expecting to understand everything. I'd say start with the Modern period, read Descartes' major stuff, move on to Spinoza, Leibniz, etc.
I'm fucking learning Naming and Necessity right now and hell if I'm having any shitty class summarizing it for me. He says "Mill was wrong"? I fucking go to the library and check out A System of Logic. Not that fucking hard.
I think if someone asks what to read to 'get into' philosophy, just tell them "whoever the fuck you want, as long as you finish it, then read the next popular philosopher by chronology."

if this is really sasha grey, i love you.

>>1768820
Nope. Already multiple results on Tineye, no timestamp, etc.

HEY GUYS I'M A PHILOSOPHER TOO DO I GET POINTS AM I POPULAR YET

>>1768876
you're a moron

OP's pic is internets oldest picture

http://www.amazon.com/Phenomenology-Spirit-G-W-Hegel/product-reviews/0198245300/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?i
e=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#RM5ZBMQY00GEW

>>1768890
said it for
>>1768871

The people who are more dedicated to the pursuit of philosophy will seek out and find the better works. Problem solved.

Anyways, I know Sasha has spoken out on her interest in such issues, but whenever I've watched interviews with her she doesn't seem to possess a higher than average level of intelligence.

>>1768895
Are you a wizard?

yeaimawizard.jpeg

>Phenomenology of Spirit 2deep4him
>Declares that *some* philosophy is pretentious hipster garbage (the stuff he doesn't get)
>Tries to maintain his credibilty, arrogantly bashes "the simple-minded laymen of the world" to make it look like his in a position of authority.

Never have I seen such a disgusting display of egoism kill yourself.

>>1768949
>Never...egotism

Funny, I just did.

>>1768820
That was a DAMN fine post, OP. I couldn't agree more. If someone has an idea worth writing about, they will do everything in their power to make it clear. If someone has a fuzzy half-formed thought, then the only way it makes sense is with convoluted writing.

>they are parodies of genuine thinking
That cuts right through the issue.

Nihilism here.

You fags still arguing about this shit?

I dare say there is no board less susceptible to trolls than this.

>>1769016
I think you want to say more susceptable.

>>1769033

I think he's trolling.

While I don't necessarily agree with OP, you can understand his reasoning if you re-read the first post. So we have 'philosophy' split between the banal and watered down examples and those that are simply verbose and not insightful. But if stupid people are going to be stupid and read diluted philosophy, who really cares? As long as stupid people are left to their own devices, (provided it doesn't hurt anyone else) then what's the problem? As for those writings that contain only 'empty verbosity,' let the reader be the judge. Those who truly care about the issues will seek out the best information. Those who do not care do not deserve the access to it anyways.

yeah... the problem though is stupid people aren't left to themselves. they go to church and vote.

>>1769060
True. I always go to church and vote. Voting at church is the best.

God, am I stupid, though.

>>1769060
Touche. But stupid people gonna stupid whether or not they read bullshit philosophy books.

Everyday when I'm trying to develop my terms of political thinking I'm torn between the "the majority of people are stupid so qualified leaders should make the important choices" argument, and the "well, we can't always trust those people in charge" statements; really there is no way to win with either I suppose...

As a resident of California (a state that is riven by direct democracy) this is a subject that is on my mind at all times.

>>1769068
I thought the biggest problem on the minds of Californians was whether to get a fake bake or anal bleaching this weekend.

>>1769060

Dude, you don't vote in a church. Or do you, actually? I've never voted. They do it in schools don't they? I'm not sure. I'm shockingly high.

>>1769074
California has a system where citizens can vote on amendments to the state constitution (like prop. 8, for example) and have it implemented. This makes our state prone to the rule of voters who are stupid and haven't read into the subjects that they're voting on. Very soon California will either become a complete disaster that is not able of repair, or a model to the rest of the world of what to do when you hit rock bottom. If you had to bet, I'm sure I know what you would bet on.

In situations like these I wish there was a provision for the state government to just have dictatorial powers to fix the problem. There sure isn't any way I see it being fixed by free will of the state citizens...

>>1769084

>dictatorial powers

I can't see how this could possibly go wrong. Nice /lit/ thread, btw. Enjoy your Soylent Green, Sacramento.

>dictatorial powers

>I can't see how this could possibly go wrong.

Because direct democracy under the rule of an uneducated majority is working so much better as the Californian economic and educational condition has tanked, amirite?

>>1769090

It might work if you put some kind of magic robot in charge. But I don't think I trust Schwarzenneger as generalissimo-for-life.

>>1769092
He's not in charge anymore. Not all individuals in positions of authority are evil; some are bound to have the citizen's interests at heart. Right now in California we can't do anything to fix the problem because everything comes down to a popular vote and people are too stupid to fix the problems. If we gave the people in authority the actual legislative ability to change things, we could actually have swift political change.

Jerry Brown (our current Governor) was also Governor in 1978 when the property tax proposition was passed. (He was originally opposed to it, but when popular support shifted, so did he.) Amending this tax legislation could fix our state's economy. He may be up for it since he was originally opposed. We'll see what happens...

I want to pose a hypothetical question to the members of this board.

Say you were paired with Sasha Grey in a Philosophy class at the college you attend as part of a student project. How would you react to this situation? Would you repel from her or treat her like an average person? If she came onto you, how would you act? If she took actual interest in you as a person how would her past affect how you view her?

>>1769097

I'd try to shag her. I don't know if that relates to her past or not.

>>1769099
>>1769097

ITT: people who have no friends that are sex workers.

>>1769138

Yeah because being friends with porn stars and hookers is common in the real world. I think you've been spending too much time online. It's distorted your sense of reality.

>>1769097
I'd probably be a bit intimidated, but otherwise I'd treat her normally. If she's in a philosophy class, she is probably there to learn about philosophy and not find someone to fuck.

>>1769141

i didn't say it was common. i don't have a good sense of how common it is. it has to do with the fact that i live in los angeles and work in the entertainment industry, more than it has to do with how much time i spend online. though i spend a lot, for work.

i think these questions mark an inexperience at relating to sex workers as people. that's all.

>>1769155

bingo.

>>1769159
I think it's kind of lame to so blatantly try and drop an impressive fact about yourself. Very tasteless. Anyway, the questions just show a lack of knowledge about women, and about people in general.

Also, fuck yes peej

>>1769155
This is the type of scenario I was looking for; being coerced into a non-sexual situation with someone who you would view as being overtly sexual.

>>1769164

the problem with this is that what i do for a living directly relates to the conversation. i'm sick and tired of being accused of dropping impressive facts about myself every time i talk about what i do for a living. it's not my fault or my responsibility if people are impressed, or irritated, or whatever.

i was simply making the point that my thinking is probably distorted, but not for the reasons this person said.

and i don't want to derail this thread, so we should probably stop talking about this.

>>1769175

what i think is interesting about this is that everyone has a sexual component of themselves.

one really interesting thing to do is, on the flipside of seeing the "real" nature of someone you've projected as inherently sexualized, see the sexualized nature of someone you just view every day as "real".

people are just waiting to bust out of their little shells, sometimes.

>i don't want to derail this thread, so we should probably stop talking about this.

>>1769185

way to help out

back on topic-- i don't know if OP's around anymore, but i'd love to know where Heidegger falls on his rubric.

anybody else's opinion too.

>>1769182
Well for me this reasoning sort of ties into the above mentioned individual who is acquainted with 'sex workers.'

There is an old saying that is best paraphrased by Jenna Jameson (and I am paraphrasing this quotation by myself) which is that "the most odd thing about being a pornstar is that everyone assumes that they can have sex with you." While I don't especially find the life of a female pornstar that respectable, I am fascinated by the lives of said women who pursue something else other than sexual related enterprises.

The reason I posed the hypothetical question (>>1769097) was to see how people would react to a sexual figure who does not want to be viewed as one in a non sexual environment. This is a question I have asked myself multiple times and seems relevant considering that Sasha Grey (the person posted in the OP) has renounced her "porn" ways to pursue other things.

>>1769194

(because i think that language sort of naturally distorts around the problem of being, so i think he was trying to do something genuine. others just regard him as a blowhard.)

>>1769197

i think the difficulty people have is related to the inability (for various reasons, probably nature and nurture) to see sex work as equivalent to other types of work.

one of the most interesting examples of this is people who say things like, "i'd like to hire a prostitute and then just talk to her or play chess with her or something. that would be so crazy"

the assumption here is not that you're hiring her to perform an act (sex) like you'd hire a gardner or something, but that because she'd have sex with you for money, paying her makes her somehow yours, to do with as you wish. sex is her job. you wouldn't be able to pay a waitress to scrub your toilet; she'd look at you like you were crazy. etc.

this feeling of 'sex as ownership' seems to contribute to the idea in people's heads that they own these women/men all the time (and so they should be/are sexually available all the time), even when they're NOT 'on the clock'

>>1769207
Well people wouldn't equate sex work to other types of employment because it is more rare. This causes people to postulate questions they wouldn't normally because it is an extraordinary situation, so to speak.

You discuss my notion of being stuck with an individual who is famous for one thing but in your situation would be framed to do another as something contemptible, and perhaps in this situation it could be. But if you were stuck in a Philosophy class with Derek Jeter or John Maynard Keynes, you would seriously wonder about your situation and how your ways of thinking are different from theirs. My hypothetical question about being stuck in an ordinary situation (suck as a college course, with a sex worker) is not an attempt to expose any bias, but rather explore how individuals would let the attributes of a person that are not similar to their own affect how they think. If I were in a Philosophy course with Sasha Grey and she were adept in dealing with the class material, my prior knowledge of her would slightly affect my opinions of her; that's just how human beings work.

>>1769218

good point. i think i was thinking in broad strokes and had my feminist cap on, and you're looking more for the subtle nuances of the situation.

one could speculate, but i imagine it would be hard to say without seeing it live.

>>1769226

i think my confusion partially comes from how difficult it is to relate employment to in-class behavior. what aspects of class behavior? the question is kind of broad. are we just talking about things as blunt as, people would be afraid to argue with her? or would expect her to like hedonistically oriented philosophers?

also, i'm still curious about Heidegger.

>>1769194

I looked int Heidegger myself because he was highly recommended on the intertubes. Had a real hard time and still havent finished Being and Time. Its not that I don't understand the words its that the sentence structure is so convoluted and bothersome I can't read more than 5 pages at a time. Maybe it's because its translated I don't know.

>>1769244

translating him is really difficult. certain german words he comes up with or uses represent entire concepts, and have to be written out. things like that. so the sentences get weird.

i was wondering if OP considered confronting the problem of being itself pretentious and masturbatory. an argument could be made. but it really is difficult to talk about those things since language is predicated in being, at least according to H. and he tried really hard.

i guess what i'm saying is, the dizzying maelstrom of linguistic bullshit that happens when human beings confront basic is-ness (through philosophy, mysticism, or whatever) may or may not be a waste of time. i'd say OP thinks it is. i'm not sure.

Hegel is best philosopher

>>1769068

there is one way to win and that is to go into politics

>>1769083
hipster spotted

I am outraged.

>>1768820

and then there's all the good philosophy that belongs to neither category. what is your fucking point op?

>>1768820
You are so right, OP.

Now. How much for the girlfriend experience? And will you do three ways?

Touching all of us in the most intinmate areas.

>>1768820
I am not so sure that the availability of philosophy has more to do with appealing to morons( which you did not prove yourself to be outside the category just by acknowledging their existence) than it does keeping up with the Joneses...with puters. You see Technology,Psychology,Mathematics...these have pretty much replaced philosophy. Just as rocket launchers will one day replace our kneecaps
I appreciate your post.>>1768827
For the love of god, may she at least keep her head up there.

white girl with the bomb ass pussy