Posts by Brandon Martin7

I mean, maybe without some heavy lifting or grinding, those neurons just start pulsing along perfectly in sync, I guess 😳

I honestly feel like if more deep thinkers were tapping into cannabis products, our whole landscape of philosophical thought would be way more lush and vibrant.
When you get properly high, it’s like you’re suddenly wide open to this downpour of new ideas... the clouds just sort of clear out, maybe you set aside those rigid logical crutches for a bit, skip right over the damn premises, and just land softly on a real insight—THC is probably the ultimate mental performance enhancer, I guess!
Right?
So, uh, you wanna go grab a joint?

nice 👍
really solid piece

So, because he split the world into noumenon and phenomenon, Nietzsche basically thinks Immanuel Kant is just a Christian in disguise. Nietzsche said:
'We have rejected the real world. What’s left? An illusion, maybe? No, even the illusion has been cast aside!'

I guess you could say Kant’s 'Critique of Pure Reason' is mostly just setting the stage for his moral philosophy. People seem to think he was primarily a moralist anyway.

If that's the case, why bother accepting this whole 'thing-in-itself' idea at all? Why not just go with phenomenalism?

Am I totally off base here, or is that kind of where phenomenology and Husserl eventually kicked off?

I guess it seems that way.
Maybe I'll change my mind once I finally get around to reading 'Critique of Pure Reason.' 😉

It’s not really an issue on its own, I guess... it doesn't have much of a connection to anything else, which is just how X always seems to be.

I mean, I guess it looks like they aren't really leading... maybe?

I haven't quite formed a solid opinion yet, honestly. I probably need to get a closer look at things first.

I mean, if big names like Hegel and Fichte are allowed to get the whole 'thing-in-itself' concept a little sideways, then I guess I can take a little risk and try to explain my own take on it too:
So, like, I mentioned earlier that most philosophers seem to trip up by treating the 'thing-in-itself' like some kind of Platonic 'essence'—which is actually kind of the opposite of how it works. My feeling is that Kant was saying essence is also just 'for us.' You can't ever really turn a 'thing-in-itself' into something 'for us,' mostly because once you do, it isn't 'in-itself' anymore. It’s just... well, it's gone. I guess what I'm trying to say is that nothing—not an essence and not a phenomenon—can ever be more than just a phenomenon, since everything pretty much relies on having a subject to perceive it in the first place.

.. maybe we could try practicing some patient listening...

I think I just need a little patience exercise. So, yeah, I guess I'll just keep bumping this thread until my original point somehow melts into view 😉

So, let's take this whole idea of the "thing-in-itself." I guess you could say this little concept basically represents our inherent tendency to stay stuck within our own perceived reality—you know, without needing any red pills or anything like that. Everything being offered just seems tailored specifically for us, centered right on our own ego.
What I’m trying to get at is how this "in-itself" thing has somehow morphed into just being "according to me." It’s funny... like, if you look at Schopenhauer, he saw the "in-itself" as the *Weltgrund*—the absolute bottom of the barrel, the core axis of everything, just this blind primal will. But then Hegel looks at it and thinks it’s always accessible, just some trivial, everyday reality. The Romantics? They thought it was this mysterious, longing "beyond," something hidden behind the illusion of the world. Then you've got Marx and Engels seeing it as something reachable through commodity production, while Adorno thought it was something else entirely (I can't quite remember what, honestly). For most other philosophers, they argue it's the essence behind the appearance, which, I don't know, feels like another misunderstanding.
Everyone just kind of wanders off doing their own thing, I suppose. Nobody really wants to sit down and truly squeeze all the juice out of these ideas. Is life just too short for that?
Is there anyone actually out there reading or listening patiently?

I feel like American sci-fi fantasy just doesn't have the same reach as Japanese stuff; it feels kind of banal, overly rational, cliché, predictable, commercial, and honestly... maybe just a bit dull and mindless...
Japanese anime, on the other hand, is like this total explosion of imagination—brilliant futurism, mysticism, surrealism—it just doesn't follow that Western pattern of being too simple, too stuck in logic, or too grounded in reality. I guess that's why the slow, rigid imagination of Americans struggles to navigate all the endless possibilities you find in anime.

forget Hollywood!

I might be wrong here, but I don't think that's actually an anime. Isn't it more like a live-action movie and a comic book series?

How much do you guys actually know about American animation?
Does anyone else feel the exact same way I do about stuff like 'Neon Genesis Evangelion', 'The Matrix', 'Akira', 'Appleseed' (the 3D one), 'Vampire Hunter D', 'Princess Mononoke', and all that kind of thing? It's just... I don't know, I guess I'm just really into it.