Laghail Therin on the Peak of Dragonmount

[DarK_RaideR]

Not sure why I keep reading the title of this thread as "...on the peak of dragonaut"

 

[Grumble]

I always knew you preferred a cleansed taint.

[Mr_Willes]

On 28-12-2017 at 4:40 PM, Laghail said:

 

YES

 

I DID IT

 

I figured out the joke in one of @Laghail's comics!!!

 

This is gonna be a glorious day!!!

[brutalbears]

I hear this is where we post philosophy jokes:

 

 

[brutalbears]

Lol I also am quite fond of Kant be portrayed as a lawful good pally:

 

[Laghail]

@brutalbears wins all the internet points. Foucault's dissection of the orc/paladin dyad is my favorite, and also why I'm only a good DM for certain types of players. 

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

I wanted to see Foucault and Derrida get curb stomped.

 

I really don't like deconstructionism. 

[brutalbears]

I think Sartre is my favorite, killing himself just to prove he has other choices lol.

[Laghail]

Wrestling with Saidin

 

The gym is still dead in the mornings, but volume week is happening. Actually running a pair of first time competitors through a mock meet structure on Sunday to prep them for the newbie flight in my meet. Am I deeply happy that the same 200 competitor volume is being run as an experienced flight that's over around 1pm, and a newbie flight that starts at 2? Only severely, the meet was a blast last year but it took all day.

 

 

Courting the Yellow Ajah

 

Foam rolling - I did it today, for the first time this whole challenge. wooooot....

Chiropractic - Uh, awkwardly going on a romantic weekend with three chiropractors tomorrow. Mrs Laghail and Elsie will also be there, and it's actually a company retreat for which I'm a +1. Still counts.

Writing - changed my definition of "writing" for this week to be "anything on paper. Just goddamn anything." So far so good!!!

Sleeping - Holiday sleeping in helps me this week, at 30.5/49 hours this week.

 

 

[brutalbears]

2 minutes ago, Laghail said:

Wrestling with Saidin

 

The gym is still dead in the mornings, but volume week is happening. Actually running a pair of first time competitors through a mock meet structure on Sunday to prep them for the newbie flight in my meet. Am I deeply happy that the same 200 competitor volume is being run as an experienced flight that's over around 1pm, and a newbie flight that starts at 2? Only severely, the meet was a blast last year but it took all day.

 

 

Courting the Yellow Ajah

 

Foam rolling - I did it today, for the first time this whole challenge. wooooot....

Chiropractic - Uh, awkwardly going on a romantic weekend with three chiropractors tomorrow. Mrs Laghail and Elsie will also be there, and it's actually a company retreat for which I'm a +1. Still counts.

Writing - changed my definition of "writing" for this week to be "anything on paper. Just goddamn anything." So far so good!!!

Sleeping - Holiday sleeping in helps me this week, at 30.5/49 hours this week.

 

 

High five

[Laghail]

1 hour ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

I wanted to see Foucault and Derrida get curb stomped.

 

I really don't like deconstructionism. 

 

Hah, Tank with the honesty. Tell me about you and deconstructionism?

 

1 hour ago, brutalbears said:

I think Sartre is my favorite, killing himself just to prove he has other choices lol.

 

[brutalbears]

6 minutes ago, Laghail said:

 

Hah, Tank with the honesty. Tell me about you and deconstructionism?

 

 

Lol I am glad to find another philosophy nerd on here. Maybe I can start posting my philosophy jokes on here instead of driving my fiance mad...of course I had to marry a dual major in chemistry and biology who works as a researcher. I double majored psychology and philosophy and work as a therapist (among other realms of mental and physical health) with an emphasis in existential psychotherapy. Yesterday I used Hume's arguments that science can't prove anything just to mess with her for a while lol. 

[Laghail]

1 minute ago, brutalbears said:

 I double majored psychology and philosophy and work as a therapist (among other realms of mental and physical health) with an emphasis in existential psychotherapy. Yesterday I used Hume's arguments that science can't prove anything just to mess with her for a while lol. 

That sounds like the definition of excellent foreplay!!

But seriously, tell me about existential psychotherapy? I really like the tools of existentialism to bridge the gap between empirical and traditional values, and I worry that american popular thought wants to embrace to two poles of religious traditionalism and dialectical materialism, without having any appreciation of the contradiction.

[DarK_RaideR]

2 hours ago, Laghail said:

@brutalbears wins all the internet points. Foucault's dissection of the orc/paladin dyad is my favorite, and also why I'm only a good DM for certain types of players. 

10/10 would play a game with Laghail as the DM again.

[brutalbears]

2 minutes ago, Laghail said:

That sounds like the definition of excellent foreplay!!

But seriously, tell me about existential psychotherapy? I really like the tools of existentialism to bridge the gap between empirical and traditional values, and I worry that american popular thought wants to embrace to two poles of religious traditionalism and dialectical materialism, without having any appreciation of the contradiction.

 

Existential psychotherapy was a break from the traditional Freudian psychotherapy by Rollo May. Freud was primarily influenced by Arthur Schopenhauer(which I do love despite how dark he is), but May was more interested in Soren Kirkegaard (perhaps one of my favorites and the reason my husky puppy is named Soren). There is a reason why I push psychology students to study philosophy, lol it all stems from various philosophical premises. I would put existential psychotherapy halfway between traditional practices and a humanistic approach. Rather than working through deep-seated issues which cause fixations at various stages, like Freud, this style is focused on dealing with the concepts of death, meaninglessness, isolation, and freedom/responsibility. In short, a lot of the therapy process is focused on dealing with Sartre's bad faith and coming to own one's life, decisions, actions and develop a more effective set of tools for taking charge of one's life through confronting the concepts mentioned above. I typically use this modality with my more stable patients, as it is a great way to grow overall, but it is total crap for individuals in crisis and dealing with severe issues, I tend to use more CBT and reality therapy in those situations. 

[Laghail]

1 hour ago, brutalbears said:

I typically use this modality with my more stable patients, as it is a great way to grow overall, but it is total crap for individuals in crisis and dealing with severe issues, I tend to use more CBT and reality therapy in those situations. 

 

I can just see the session using existential therapy on a depressed patient struggling with suicidal tendencies, "but have you fathomed the chasm of meaningless that yawns beneath your feet? Really, it's like you're less than even a blimp on the cosmic scale, and you'd have been better off not being born at all."

 

 

But seriously, I was looking for a witty comeback to your comics in Kierkegaard's wiki, but I always had a hard time detaching his writings from the genre of Christian self-help where he's been shelved lately. I've been revisiting him lately as a post-fundamentalist while I try to get my head around the influences of German pre-war liberalism. Trying to put more of a footing under my rejection of fundamentalism than, "but they're mean to gays."

[brutalbears]

4 minutes ago, Laghail said:

I was looking for a witty comeback to your comics in Kierkegaard's wiki, but I always had a hard time detaching his writings from the genre of Christian self-help where he's been shelved lately.

It really is a shame that Kierkegaard has been shelved in Christian self-help by many because he really is so much more. It is hard to imagine any existentialism without him, and I find that Sartre and Camus make so much more sense after revisiting Kierkegaard. Further, I would argue that Fear and Trembling should be on the list of books everyone should read at least once. I would also argue that Kirkegaard would take some issue with modern fundamentalists. He talked a lot about how blind faith and herd mentalities are bad, and true faith is associated with quite a bit of risk, fear, terror, and uncertainty. He often described the feeling of angst and disappointment when discussing God, and thought it one how had faith must act in radical individualism. As such, he would take quite a bit of issue with intervening in the lives of others, as one should solely focus on their own from his perspective.

[Laghail]

3 minutes ago, brutalbears said:

It really is a shame that Kierkegaard has been shelved in Christian self-help by many because he really is so much more. It is hard to imagine any existentialism without him, and I find that Sartre and Camus make so much more sense after revisiting Kierkegaard. Further, I would argue that Fear and Trembling should be on the list of books everyone should read at least once. I would also argue that Kirkegaard would take some issue with modern fundamentalists. He talked a lot about how blind faith and herd mentalities are bad, and true faith is associated with quite a bit of risk, fear, terror, and uncertainty. He often described the feeling of angst and disappointment when discussing God, and thought it one how had faith must act in radical individualism. As such, he would take quite a bit of issue with intervening in the lives of others, as one should solely focus on their own from his perspective.

 

A sharp contrast from post-cold war Christianity, no? With the red scare looming, the boomers flocked to fundamentalist denominations, looking for cultural and moral absolutes for their growing families. The rise of evangelicalism and a large part of modern Christianity overlaps with cultural attempts to reduce uncertainty in the face of mass media, rapid urbanization and and several civil rights revolutions. The brief dream of American WASP hegemony collapsed after the 1950's, but the order and stability of white picket fence suburbs live on as Sefarad in the minds of American evangelicals. All this to say, yeah, I think Kirkegaard has some valuable things to contribute. 

[brutalbears]

5 minutes ago, Laghail said:

 

A sharp contrast from post-cold war Christianity, no? With the red scare looming, the boomers flocked to fundamentalist denominations, looking for cultural and moral absolutes for their growing families. The rise of evangelicalism and a large part of modern Christianity overlaps with cultural attempts to reduce uncertainty in the face of mass media, rapid urbanization and and several civil rights revolutions. The brief dream of American WASP hegemony collapsed after the 1950's, but the order and stability of white picket fence suburbs live on as Sefarad in the minds of American evangelicals. All this to say, yeah, I think Kirkegaard has some valuable things to contribute. 

Lol I agree with all your points. All I am saying is Kirkegaard would not have been the biggest fan of those people, and I don't think (evangelicals especially) are a good reflection of his work.

[Scaly Freak]

46 minutes ago, Laghail said:

But seriously, I was looking for a witty comeback to your comics in Kierkegaard's wiki, but I always had a hard time detaching his writings from the genre of Christian self-help where he's been shelved lately. ."

 

 

WTF? Why? Because of his faith? That's stupid.

 

This thread is inspiring me to get back into the philosophy parts of my book collection... keep going!

[brutalbears]

Just now, scalyfreak said:

 

 

WTF? Why? Because of his faith? That's stupid.

 

This thread is inspiring me to get back into the philosophy parts of my book collection... keep going!

Lol I have to go home and hop off for the night here in a second, but I can talk Kirkreegard all day. I am currently reading a work exploring Aquinas and Aristotle's arguments for God (which is not my normal type of philosophical read, though both those thinkers have a special place in my heart) in an in-depth modern light. It has been really heavy and wonderful so far.

[Laghail]

42 minutes ago, scalyfreak said:

WTF? Why? Because of his faith? That's stupid.

 

I know I know, but it's more a matter of what consumer demographic finds his work helpful, AND buys a shit ton of copies. Virginal religious guys in philosophy clubs, they love them some Kierkegaard.

 

Also

 

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism by Nancy Murphy would be a great read for anyone enjoying the philosophy going down on this thread.

 

I don't like deconstructionism because it's the philosophical equivalent of taking one's toys and going home. They spend so much time breaking down language by shoving a wedge into the cracks of of linguistic ambiguity and beating the hell out of it with a sledgehammer they never actually say anything. Now there is value in showing the assumptions implicit in communication, and in breaking down oppression. It's just that on an intuitive level it feels like their basic premise is because there is ambiguity in linguistic communication nothing has any meaning feels like they are going too far. One of my professors said that instead of being post-modern they were actually most-modern; the logical conclusion of modernity with it's emphasis on the indubitable foundation as the beginning of knowledge. With modernity's inherent suspicion of bias there is a theme that if you can point out the bias in a speaker you can discount that speaker's statements.  I feel like deconstructionism fails to recognize that even though there is ambiguity in language people actually manage to use it every day and despite it's flaws we make it work.

/rant

 

In the interests of full disclosure, I probably am not being completely fair to either Foucault or Derrida. 

[Laghail]

1 hour ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism by Nancy Murphy would be a great read for anyone enjoying the philosophy going down on this thread.

 

I don't like deconstructionism because it's the philosophical equivalent of taking one's toys and going home. They spend so much time breaking down language by shoving a wedge into the cracks of of linguistic ambiguity and beating the hell out of it with a sledgehammer they never actually say anything. Now there is value in showing the assumptions implicit in communication, and in breaking down oppression. It's just that on an intuitive level it feels like their basic premise is because there is ambiguity in linguistic communication nothing has any meaning feels like they are going too far. One of my professors said that instead of being post-modern they were actually most-modern; the logical conclusion of modernity with it's emphasis on the indubitable foundation as the beginning of knowledge. With modernity's inherent suspicion of bias there is a theme that if you can point out the bias in a speaker you can discount that speaker's statements.  I feel like deconstructionism fails to recognize that even though there is ambiguity in language people actually manage to use it every day and despite it's flaws we make it work.

/rant

 

In the interests of full disclosure, I probably am not being completely fair to either Foucault or Derrida. 

 

[Stronkey Kong]

Re: Deconstruction

 

I think one thing that needs to be better appreciated about D is that it, like much of post modern philosophy grew from literary analysis and hence emphasizes the primacy of text, as opposed to idea itself (logocentrism) which was the main focus of philosophy until the last century... or we should say that text as direct representation of an idea was taken for granted.  What Derrida set out to do was show that, because in the end what we end up with is text, we need to be careful how we work with it. By ripping it apart and showing how flawed it is we can see the ambiguity and not take it for the pure idea itself. The pure ideas die with the philosophers who think them. Further, deconstruction makes us more aware of the ambiguity and teaches us to be careful how we link our thoughts and words, and what ideas we can grasp from a given text. It was not intended to be a means to any end, and those who would use it to make a point aren't getting it. Derrida refused to call it a process, method, analysis, or even a philosophy. As such, it's post-modern AF. Only a blind modernist would see it as a most-modern philosophy.