1. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
Nybarius
Last Activity:
Feb 14, 2013
Joined:
Apr 27, 2005
Messages:
4,495
Trophy Points:
36
Positive ratings received:
0

Post Ratings

Received: Given:
Like 0 0
Dislike 0 0
Neutral 0 0
Agree 0 0
Disagree 0 0
Funny 0 0
Winner 0 0
Informative 0 0
Friendly 0 0
Useful 0 0
Optimistic 0 0
Creative 0 0
Lewd 0 0
Old 0 0
Ningen 0 0
Coolest Guy! 0 0
Deku 0 0
Tier Specialist 0 0
Diva 0 0
Bad Spelling 0 0
MAXIMUM 0 0
Kage 0 0
GODA 0 0
git gud 0 0
Plus Ultra 0 0
Get Out 0 0
Sad! 0 0
Dumb 0 0
Drama 0 0
Art Pimp 0 0
Chatterbox 0 0
Reznor 0 0
Done 0 0
Comfy 0 0
Birthday:
Jan 2, 1985 (Age: 34)
Home Page:
Location:
Japan's Secret Standing Military
Occupation:
Full time student, other NOS

Nybarius

Ennui Bores Me, 34, from Japan's Secret Standing Military

Nybarius was last seen:
Feb 14, 2013
    1. martryn
      martryn
      Nybs, fuck, man! Come back.
    2. furious styles
      furious styles
      nybber! how is the man who was one of my formative figures in my 16-19 year life period? law school eh?
    3. dreams lie
      dreams lie
      Just wondering, where do you live? Are you an American?
    4. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      Gama: I love the podcasts. Try to listen to them whenever I am taking a long drive or on the plane. I've even taken to inventing my own rockbusters.

      I think it is an act, but a good one.

      adee: No comment.
    5. Garfield
      Garfield
      Legal business is interesting indeed. Incidentally I'm hooked to and am watching Boston Legal, the series for the first time. Though, I must say, it doesn't seem to say much for the legal system neither do I find it to be particularly legally complicated.
      Any comments?
    6. Gamabunta
      Gamabunta
      ricky is indeed a winner. an i had heard of the project with karl. their podcasts are awesome
    7. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      I should say, I just finished my first semester. I have my grades but not my ranking, so perhaps it isn't finished yet.
    8. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      adee: My wife supports me currently. I'm in my first semester in law school.
    9. Garfield
      Garfield
      May I inquire as to you your profession?
    10. av
      av
      Fuck, I don't think a good one exists.
    11. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      Principled? Resoluteness? Steadfastness?
    12. av
      av
      Good antonym for "hypocrisy" Nyb? For example if I wanted to have people rate how much of a hypocrite someone is from 1 to 10, but I needed a higher rating to be "good," creating the need for the word.
    13. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      First, thank you for your recommendations. I don't have much time for leisure reading presently, but I will give some of them a try.

      My sense is that if somebody is making a political point, it should have some measurable positive influence on politics, or at least the capability of having such. Have any po-mo authors succeeded in this vein? This is what I was getting at with listing Kenneth Arrow, et al. Since they actually influence policy, they have succeeded as political philosophers in a way Derrida probably never will.

      Regarding Sokal, his point was that po-mo authors oftentimes use language derived from math and science without understanding it. The result is meaningless but 'suggestive'. This looseness with research causes him to doubt them on the substance of what they do. Similarly, Foucault is a famously bad historian, in terms of actually getting the facts right. Doesn't this give you pause about his philosophy?

      I suppose I still don't understand why people with political aspirations would write so opaquely. Continental philosophy fails epistemologically, as you acknowledge. I also think it fails aesthetically; I'd rather be watching a movie than reading philosophy-as-performance-art. Finally, it fails politically, because its influence is so limited. I admit to an inferior understanding, though, in that, despite having read various 'texts,' I can't form a clear picture of what the political message is supposed to be. "Don't let your mind be entrapped by the thought-structures of modernity?" Perhaps it doesn't help that I subscribe to evolutionary psychology, and think that thought is far more biologically grounded than, say, Lacan could have imagined. (We get consciousness by looking at a mirror--yeah, right!)

      In any case, I don't mean to set you on your heels and cast you as a defender. It is nice to speak with someone so well read. Sorry for the lateness of my reply,
      -n
    14. IBU
      IBU
      By identity terms I mean every and every term signifying a particular thing as a particular thing. Grass, human, phone are all identity terms.

      What Sokal fails to get at is what the distinctive project of the particular theorists is, and what they are trying to do. Foucault for example can seem absurd, unless you read his piece `What is Enlightenment`and get what he is trying to do. His purpose is not epistemological, but political. When people critique Foucault on epistemological grounds they are missing the point of what he is doing which is simply a permanent critique of systems of discourse (what is regarded as true and knowledge) and the institutions that sustain them. His point is quite clear when he says that he is trying to uncover the history of truth (the history of what is regarded as true). Here the term `truth`is not used in a metaphysical sense, but in a sociological sense to point to what is regarded as true. There is no sense in which postmodernists are doing philosophy as it has been done before, and when people read them as if they were they often read them as saying very goofy things.

      On the issue of science I think what they do is related to your idea of asking what is useful. I think this relates to a dual meaning of the word `science`. If one thinks of science as the rational way to achieve knowledge than one has a metaphysically loaded conception, and while usefulness may play a role, usefulness is not a necessary part of this conception of science because rationality does not necessarily imply usefulness. I have no problem with an idea of science based on usefulness, but I do not conflate this useful method for achieving technological advancement and a better understanding with rationality. The problem comes when science is exalted as rational, when while it is useful there are many ways to question whether it is more rational than another method of making the world intelligible. It certainly does not win on coherence, and if one tries to have it win on reference than one must beg the question by presupposing a conception of the world that it refers to and that we know it refers to not through science, but through some other method. Thus, it seems to me that science is best concieved as a useful tool, but not as this inherently rational object of worship. I think the whole thing about the gendered nature of mathematics is quite silly, so I see your point there.

      Besides Hegel all the people you listed are policy advisors not philosophers, and quite frankly I dont take modern economic seriously because I would question the commensurability of value. I don`t think you can rationally reduce all values to a single scale and without that the whole paradigm of economic analysis loses its validity. Nonetheless such policy advice is necessary in the real world, and is useful.

      I don`t like the term postmodernism myself because it really has little meaning.

      Also, I too like Hegel. Although people who come to mind for political philosophy in the postmodern tradition Chantal Mouffe and Hannah Arendt (it might be questionable to view her as a psotmodernist) come to mind.

      Other good political theorists but not pomo ones would be Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, Phillip Petit, Quentin Skinner....
    15. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      The Science Wars
    16. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      Re: Derrida -- huh? By identity terms, do you mean logical operators, or words like "I" and "me"? Try to put it in plain English, and tell me what it actually does. My Bayesian priors suggest it's all nonsense with a topcoat of fancy language. Pretend I'm a pragmatist or a Popperian and tell me the puzzle that has been solved by Derrida.


      What are Sokal and his ilk failing to understand? I'm not familiar with Ponty. I'll give you Heidigger, Schopenhauer, various monists, etc., because they're important to the history of philosophy. Derrida and Foucault are worthless, so far as I can tell. In areas I know well, they're consistently up to nonsense. Why should I attempt to learn from such lazy scholars? The fact that nobody has been able to write a precis of what they did without resorting to their obfuscatory language is very suspicious.

      What is useful about Feyerbrand and the like in the philosophy of science? I'm not even convinced Popper is particularly useful there. What good science have po-mo philosophers contributed to? I've read a lot of them want to "democratize" the enterprise, and tear down "sexed equations" like e=mc2, but it's just nonsense.

      What is the use of po-mo in political philosophy? When I want good modern political philosophy, I'll turn to Kenneth Arrow, Hegel, Julian Simon, Bryan Caplan. What have po-mo people done or proposed in political philosophy? They look like a bunch of obscuritanist Marxists to me. . .
    17. IBU
      IBU
      RE: Derrida-- The construction of identity terms as difference- the constitutive outside necessary to give a term meaning. While it seems like an obvious point; most analytic philosophers seem to ignore the truth of this point.

      Sokal and his ilk fail to understand postmodernism on its own terms and thus don`t really get it. But so do many so- called postmodernists, hence the hilarity of the Sokal affair. Also, I only really like Deleuze for his relation to Foucault, and my support for him in my original post was more pretentious namedropping by someone starting to study philosophy than anything else.

      Yes, there is bad shit on the continent, but there is good work done as well. I don`t think Merleau Ponty, Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault should not be studied because of people like Lacan, Agamben, and Baudrillard. And thus when I hear people say that continental thought is trash I just have to say yes some of it is crap, but much of it is important.

      I just don`t think continental thought can be categorically condemned (nor can postmodernism).

      I think that if continental thought is understood on its own terms it can add much to the debate, especially in social and political philosophy, and philosophy of science. I find it ironic that the most strict adherents to the fact-value distinction and various forms of meta-ethical emotivism are still looking for a demarcation criterion, despite the fact that the demarcation criterion is normative, and thus beyond reason.
    18. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      http://books.google.com/books?id=kuvOdCtr-P4C&dq=Deleuze+%22bricmont%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ZeeWKiaOgC&sig=Lmqpn8glig7lrQSDzyPsnw9FUOU&hl=en&ei=XTI8S-KOIsGXtgfB8fiSCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Deleuze%20%22bricmont%22&f=false

      -- re: Deleuze. People who write about technical topics without understanding them are a waste of time. I dislike intellectualism as performance art. Yet just such a travesty, along with mythicoreligious fantasy cycles, seems to make up most of continental philosophy.
    19. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      Okay, I'll bite, what does Derrida do?
    20. IBU
      IBU
      I think it is funny that I got pos repped for views I don't hold anymore.

      Searle is most certainly a dualist, despite himself. Although, I don't really see the problem with this. The position is problematic, but so is materialism, and any form of functionalism. It seems to me that phenomenology gives the best answer on that issue, but alas we cannot than achieve the scientific accuracy that many people desire.

      Also, I don't see why many people in the analytic tradition think continental work is trash. It seems to me that if you accept the later Wittgenstein there is much value in continental philosophy and a lot of overlap.

      There is certainly some trash from the continent (Baudrillard) but there is much to learn from. For example, after reading MacIntyre's three traditions, I gathered a much better understanding of Derrida, and actually appreciate what he does.
    21. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      Hiya Zacharia.
    22. Shunsui
      Shunsui
      ...you live?
    23. Ram
      Ram
      I am forkbrave, spoonshy and a knifeophiliac.
    24. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      avraell: Nice to see you.
    25. av
      av
      Hey Nyb. I come back for the first time in months and here you are, pleasant surprise.
    26. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      Kenneth: If only there were some way to long things up like that up without even having to rise from your desk.
    27. Kenneth
      Kenneth
      "I would like to request a rep of summum bonum. Failing that, I'll accept apex, pinnacle, peak human, acme, and zenith."

      Um, what does all of that mean? I really don't understand a word of it. D:
    28. Nybarius
      Nybarius
      re: "are you forkshy"

      Yes, I try to use a spoon whenever possible.
    29. Ram
      Ram
      Are you forkshy?
    30. Rice Ball
      Rice Ball
      Welcome back again mate :)
  • Loading...
  • Loading...
  • About

    Birthday:
    Jan 2, 1985 (Age: 34)
    Home Page:
    Location:
    Japan's Secret Standing Military
    Occupation:
    Full time student, other NOS
    Favorite Character(s):
    Kakashi, Sarutobi, Chiyo
    Favorite Episode/Chapter:
    Episode: 069
    Chapter: next week's
    Came, saw, conquered, came again - good night.

    Reading, Chess, Dancing, Finger Fitness, Loving Cats
  • Loading...
Loading...