Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > A Post-Structuralist Explaination of My Philosophy
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: A Post-Structuralist Explaination of My Philosophy Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Jan 19th, 2006 10:33 AM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
lol @ people who don't recognize parody of themselves.
That's why I said it's boring, you knucklehead, because all he ever does is make parodies and criticize grammar.
I was referring to OaO's response you slow leak.
Jan 19th, 2006 08:58 AM
Kulturkampf
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Kulturkampf, your pretty much a giant bigot anyway. I think it's pretty obvious that social concepts play an influence on development throughout life. You can keep believing that depression is rampant because of chemical imbalances if you want, but I'll keep pointing out the fag who only realized he was gay at 30.

And the new context is meant to be value-free and inherently unjudging.
Good comeback:

"Your[sic] pretty much a giant bigot anyway."

I guess I will learn not to cast pearls at pigs -- I'll toss you some anal beads next time.
Jan 19th, 2006 08:37 AM
Pharaoh
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
lol @ people who don't recognize parody of themselves.
That's why I said it's boring, you knucklehead, because all he ever does is make parodies and criticize grammar.
Jan 18th, 2006 07:57 PM
Miss Modular Here's a GREAT deconstruction of OAO's philosphy:



:cheapshot
Jan 18th, 2006 06:35 PM
ziggytrix lol @ people who don't recognize parody of themselves.
Jan 18th, 2006 05:18 PM
Pharaoh
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
seriously?
Yes.
Jan 18th, 2006 04:48 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
true enough for the observation of it, but when you are doing the deconstructing of the idea you become at odds with the percieving of it. Don't discount the part where a person has to do the observation of the idea and how his being the perciever of the idea has an impactation to it in terms of the philosiphising about it.
Well, you still perceive the deconstruction - it's not that you no longer have any knowledge of the concept, but rather that you are no longer inferring it. For example, in deconstructing causuality, you can still have a sense of what causuality meant in the past context, you just are no longer inferring it.

Kulturkampf, your pretty much a giant bigot anyway. I think it's pretty obvious that social concepts play an influence on development throughout life. You can keep believing that depression is rampant because of chemical imbalances if you want, but I'll keep pointing out the fag who only realized he was gay at 30.

And the new context is meant to be value-free and inherently unjudging.
Jan 18th, 2006 04:45 PM
mburbank seriously?
Jan 18th, 2006 04:38 PM
Pharaoh
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
true enough for the observation of it, but when you are doing the deconstructing of the idea you become at odds with the percieving of it. Don't discount the part where a person has to do the observation of the idea and how his being the perciever of the idea has an impactation to it in terms of the philosiphising about it.
Boring.
Jan 18th, 2006 03:15 PM
mburbank true enough for the observation of it, but when you are doing the deconstructing of the idea you become at odds with the percieving of it. Don't discount the part where a person has to do the observation of the idea and how his being the perciever of the idea has an impactation to it in terms of the philosiphising about it.
Jan 18th, 2006 05:44 AM
Kulturkampf
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
And so perception is as close as we can get to truth, and we are supposed to break down our perceptions to come up with more true thoughts?

Why do you bother having opinions if the world is just different perceptions, and neither is inherently right or wrong, being that the truth is unknowable?
Perceptions are truths unto themselves, and what lies beyond them we cannot approach. We are supposed to break down are preconceptions, assumptions, and dogmas and return to perception so as to see the inherent flaws of our structures of thought.
Bullshit. You are making it sound like our point of view is some sort of magic. It is merely our respective opinions and thoughts on issues viewed from the context of our personal history. You are acting as if objectivity is impossible and that there is something magnificent about perception.

Quote:
Take sexuality, for example. The very concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality have become oppressive, since we drift towards conformity with a sexuality in order to feel normal and achieve solidarity. Only by taking sexual feelings as they come will we end the mindless self-suppression of our age and truly liberate ourselves.
I have nver needed to 'drift to conformity.' I have never, for a fleating moment, had sexual attraction to a man or a horse, and so why do you think these confines are 'oppressive' when it is the natural direction which I move to?

You are so confused in philosophy you are convincing yourself you are a gay.

Quote:
This process of deconstruction can be applied to a wide number of social constructs, such as race, ethnicity, class, morality, and so on.
These are factual statuses in many ways. Race is not something we 'drift towards to feel conformity.' It is what we are bornw ith. Class is defined by our economic group.

Derrida is full of shit.

A white man is, and always will be, a white man; a poor man has the ability to become a rich man.

Derrida is viewing it as if there are absolute ideas about what is white, and when he finds a white guy who likes hip hop he says: "See! Look! This man is refusing to be pressured and pushed into a social construct, blah," but in reality, no one thinks of it in those terms.

It is people expressing themselves, doing as they please, and it does not take a bullshit philosophy.

Quote:
Once we recognize the implied values impressed by structures, we may begin to rebuild them in a value-free manner. The concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality, for example, yet remain, but the oppression has been removed by putting them in a new context.
LOL, we don't need a new context and we don't need a 'value-free' life.

Who says we are oppressed? We live as we are, and it is up to us to make our own choices and decipher the own causes behind things. I guess if you think you are going to find out who you are by exploring sexuality without any 'values' ascribed to it, then you are so lost you do not even know what your own body communicates to you.

Who says we need to take things in a new context? What is wrong with the old?

And why wouldn't the new context become just as repressive? In the new context one is evil if they are inflexible and unwilling to call themselves metrosexual revolutionaries; what if someone wants to be a stoic Warrior and has no interest in this fucking bullshit some tired old cunt wrote?

Quote:
Ultimately, what I am advocating is an individual experience, but certainly a wide circle of deconstructionist advocates will inspire more introspection than a lone man on a messageboard.

And this is where I think I may find purpose in life.
Deconstructing society because.... why?

There is no point.

When you 'deconstruct' it you will find you have just created a world that has absolutely no values, no sense of direction, but is rather only guided by your hair-splitting cynicism.
Jan 17th, 2006 11:25 PM
derrida
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Only by taking sexual feelings as they come will we end the mindless self-suppression of our age and truly liberate ourselves.
In other words, free your ass... and your mind will follow
Jan 17th, 2006 11:04 PM
Womti I'm very glad that you've reached a conclusion. now please, go write a book on it, make tons of money, and shut up.
Jan 17th, 2006 09:01 PM
The One and Only... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

Yes. Yes. YES!!

What I am promoting is, then, social deconstruction, as a means of liberating both the individual and the collective - for only with the liberation of men will there ever be a liberation of Man. Reconstruction is a rebuilding of concepts in accordance with natural/external phenomenon, as opposed to the now-discarded conceptual premises. The central premise of reconstruction is to attach meaning to structures but at the same to strip them of their dogmatism.
Jan 17th, 2006 04:40 PM
The One and Only... Thank you very much.
Jan 17th, 2006 02:24 PM
Emu Subcultural theory and constructivism
Helmut Werther
Department of English, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
1. Stone and Debordist image
“Narrativity is intrinsically unattainable,” says Bataille. The rubicon, and subsequent futility, of the cultural paradigm of consensus prevalent in Stone’s JFK is also evident in Platoon, although in a more neotextual sense. In a sense, the main theme of Long’s[1] analysis of capitalist narrative is not situationism, but presituationism.

The subject is interpolated into a constructivism that includes art as a reality. However, in Heaven and Earth, Stone analyses subcultural theory; in Natural Born Killers, however, he affirms constructivism.

The cultural paradigm of consensus implies that culture is used to reinforce the status quo, given that Derrida’s critique of subcultural theory is valid. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a Sartreist existentialism that includes art as a totality.

2. Subcultural theory and neomodern theory
In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the concept of capitalist reality. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the futility of subtextual truth. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a neomodern theory that includes narrativity as a paradox.

The main theme of Humphrey’s[2] essay on postcultural desublimation is a mythopoetical reality. Wilson[3] states that the works of Stone are not postmodern. However, a number of conceptualisms concerning subcultural theory exist.

Baudrillard suggests the use of constructivism to modify and analyse society. Thus, the destruction/creation distinction intrinsic to Gaiman’s Death: The Time of Your Life emerges again in Sandman.

Sartre uses the term ‘deconstructivist narrative’ to denote the bridge between class and society. It could be said that Bataille promotes the use of constructivism to challenge class divisions.

If neomodern theory holds, we have to choose between Foucaultist power relations and prepatriarchial libertarianism. However, the premise of subcultural theory implies that class has significance.

Many situationisms concerning not discourse, as Bataille would have it, but subdiscourse may be found. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a neomodern theory that includes culture as a totality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Long, F. T. Y. ed. (1979) The Stasis of Society: Constructivism and subcultural theory. Schlangekraft

2. Humphrey, O. L. (1992) Subcultural theory and constructivism. O’Reilly & Associates

3. Wilson, I. H. K. ed. (1981) Contexts of Economy: Subcultural theory in the works of Gaiman. Harvard University Press
Jan 17th, 2006 11:17 AM
mburbank KultureKlub, OneofMany.

OneofMany, KultureKlub.
Jan 16th, 2006 06:50 PM
kahljorn "Perceptions are truths unto themselves, and what lies beyond them we cannot approach. We are supposed to break down are preconceptions, assumptions, and dogmas and return to perception so as to see the inherent flaws of our structures of thought. "

All I have to say is, "The logic of perceptions". Perception is incredibly easy to work past, I think. Perceptions have a certain logic associated with them, and it's kind of illogical. By applying various perceptions to themselves and to other perceptions you can break them in a way, I guess. I don't really know how to explain it, I just do it. Observe.

I wish I wasn't like 75 years ahead of you in philosophy/psychology/ whatever you're discussing so I could try to join in, but I'm afraid it's so far back your jargon is nearly a foreign language indecipherable due to it's lust for greatness. Seriously though. Logic of perception.
Jan 16th, 2006 06:46 PM
ziggytrix haha
Jan 16th, 2006 06:44 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
And so perception is as close as we can get to truth, and we are supposed to break down our perceptions to come up with more true thoughts?

Why do you bother having opinions if the world is just different perceptions, and neither is inherently right or wrong, being that the truth is unknowable?
Perceptions are truths unto themselves, and what lies beyond them we cannot approach. We are supposed to break down are preconceptions, assumptions, and dogmas and return to perception so as to see the inherent flaws of our structures of thought.

Take sexuality, for example. The very concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality have become oppressive, since we drift towards conformity with a sexuality in order to feel normal and achieve solidarity. Only by taking sexual feelings as they come will we end the mindless self-suppression of our age and truly liberate ourselves.

This process of deconstruction can be applied to a wide number of social constructs, such as race, ethnicity, class, morality, and so on.

Once we recognize the implied values impressed by structures, we may begin to rebuild them in a value-free manner. The concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality, for example, yet remain, but the oppression has been removed by putting them in a new context.

Ultimately, what I am advocating is an individual experience, but certainly a wide circle of deconstructionist advocates will inspire more introspection than a lone man on a messageboard.

And this is where I think I may find purpose in life.
Jan 16th, 2006 01:16 PM
kahljorn Kulterkamp is gaining friends and influencing people.
Jan 16th, 2006 10:11 AM
Spectre X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
And so perception is as close as we can get to truth, and we are supposed to break down our perceptions to come up with more true thoughts?

Why do you bother having opinions if the world is just different perceptions, and neither is inherently right or wrong, being that the truth is unknowable?
No! Begone with your e-words!
Jan 15th, 2006 09:29 PM
Kulturkampf And so perception is as close as we can get to truth, and we are supposed to break down our perceptions to come up with more true thoughts?

Why do you bother having opinions if the world is just different perceptions, and neither is inherently right or wrong, being that the truth is unknowable?
Jan 15th, 2006 06:19 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
And so you basically say:

"The closest thing to truth of ourselves which cannot be deconstructed is our perceptions."

"Truth is perception."

"There are many perceptions."

"There are many truths."

Is that what you are saying? I am not sure.

Seems, then, like there is no such thing as right or wrong.
Perceptions are true in that they exist as perceptions. Anything beyond the perceptual is still unknowable. I'm arguing that we have to deconstruct our assumptions in order to create a more pragmatic structure for thoughts.

In reality, I am not a true post-structuralist. My own views on linguistic matters are a mixture of structuralism, post-structuralism, and humanism. I feel that structures do not dictate our ways of thinking, but yet I do not deny that they play a critical influence on thought. Hence, the removal of the structural influence and return to the essential, perception, and formation of more accurate abstracts are emphasized in my views.
Jan 15th, 2006 03:06 PM
AChimp
Re: A Post-Structuralist Explaination of My Philosophy


In my previous attempt to expound on my philosophy, I found myself dwelling too much on the specifics when what I wanted analyzed was the basic essentials.


Using post-structuralism, I feel that I can more adequate discuss the fundamental nature of my thought. And there is but one central tenet.


I must deconstruct myself.


In eliminating the hierarchies and assumptions of my thoughts, I am left only with perceptions. Perceptions cannot be deconstructed; they are not thoughts or concepts, they simply are. It is only through initial deconstruction that I might reconstruct a new set of abstractions which better relate to phenomenon; deconstruction and reconstruction thereby become constant processes employed not to find higher truth, but to create a more adequate system by which to attain my ends.


Yet there is no grand metastructure which is ideal for all persons; ideal construction rests purely on the individual experience, if it be true that others experience at all. Any common ground in the deconstructive and reconstructive operations amongst individuals are coincidental.


Discuss.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.