|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 20th, 2006 03:20 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
 that little mouth
|
|
| Apr 20th, 2006 02:36 PM | ||
| Big Papa Goat |
I was more talking about Leo Strauss bah, I'm not finding a picture of OAO to compare it too, but the resemblence is uncanny to me |
|
| Apr 20th, 2006 05:02 AM | ||
| Sethomas |
Yeah, the UofC. More than anything it's considered the intellectual capital of Economics. What I was making fun of was the school's "common core", which dictates that to graduate you have to take sequences in Humanities, Social Science, various Natural Sciences, Mathematics, Art, and probably stuff I'm forgetting. Although Econ takes the lead in subject matter, the University is associated with something like 88 Nobel laureates, so you'd be hard-pressed to find a subject not represented to the highest degree. The beautiful thing about the common core was that they're totally spastic about who teaches what. I learned Newtonian mechanics from a string theorist, studied Homer, Genesis, and Socrates under an ancient Doctor of Slavic Studies (different from the aforementioned), and many other bizarre permutations. |
|
| Apr 20th, 2006 04:02 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat | ah, what I meant is that Political Philosophy sounds better than Social Philosophy. Also, are you talking about your experiences at the University of Chicago? cus I mean, wasn't that the home of the cult of Political Philosophy, not Social Philosophy? | |
| Apr 20th, 2006 03:24 AM | ||
| Sethomas | Like Social Science, only older. Locke, Mill, Rousseau, Hobbes, Nietzsche, blah blah. | |
| Apr 20th, 2006 03:21 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat |
What is Social Philosophy? doesn't have a good ring to it. |
|
| Apr 17th, 2006 10:24 PM | ||
| executioneer |
Quote:
|
|
| Apr 17th, 2006 02:37 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
Twelve hours straight of medieval philosophy does this to me I'm losing my edge. I started, tabula rasa, on a paper on Anselm at 1 am. At eleven and a half hours later, I turned it in with only thirteen pages. Back in first year, I'd write a 4-6'er evaluating only one or two primary texts starting on it two hours before its due date. AND I'D GET BETTER GRADES THAN I'M GETTING NOW, IN A COLLEGE THAT'S WAY MORE ELITE THAN THIS ONE. The prompts were so esoteric that if Smith, Marx, Durkheim, Hume Hayek, Schmidt, or whoever the fuck else read my respective papers on the works of Smith, Marx, Durkheim, Hume, Hayek, Schmidt, or whoever the fuck else, they would have NO FUCKING CLUE what was going on. The prompts were so obtuse that my opening paragraph had to be a collage of engimatic koans, on account of the fact that anything resembling a high school thesis statement would negate the history of my having written it, and by having not been written it could not be negated, and I think you get the picture that a universal paradox would ensue in which case WE'RE ALL FUCKED. So, you have a painfully German name yet you have a PhD in Slavic Studies? Sure, I want you to teach me everything you know about Social Philosphy from Hobbes to Mill! Yeah, I figured you don't know shit about Social Philosophy from Hobbes to Mill, but that's okay because I'll discuss the texts with legacy students who reckon themselves damn fine philosophers on account of the fact that they read the entire Timecube website and figured out that it's not logically sound! Oh, but I digress. The subject at hand is one Anselm of Canterbury, and why the fuck it took me so long to write only 13 damn pages on him. Medieval philosophy is just funny in that once you get started thinking in its terms, it's quite hard to quit. I read on an old high school friend's blog that she thinks the animal that best represents her is a peacock. So, I ask myself: What is the quiddity of a peacock? Is it cockness or peaness? Then stupid people inevitably entered my mind. Augustine tells us early in the Confessions that evil is the privation of good. Stupidity is the privation of intelligence. Intelligence, in the form of logos, constitutes the quiddity of the divine. We may take from the Platonic Dialogue Euthyphro that, although it is indeterminate what is or isn't the will of the divine, that the will of the divine exists indicates that evil exists antithetical to divine will. Stupidity, then, as a privation of intelligence is antithetical to the divine. Thus, stupidity is an evil. Yeah, I think I'll go to sleep now. |
|
