I'm writing a 17 page philosophy paper, tearing Descartes a new asshole

this is hardly worth mentioning but I have a heart of darkness poster in my apartment (it's the one where the prose is constructed in such a fashion as to look like the continent of Africa); once a black kid came over to shoot a short film in my place and he called me a racist for having the poster up, despite the fact, of course, that I was allowing him, a nigerian, into my home to film a fucking short film which I was to act in completely free of charge.

Lol. Sorry user. Did you still do the film?

Yes, because people have been programmed to overcompensate and just fire off the word "racist" at anything they feel uncomfortable about, which includes anyone who makes an attempt to explain to them why they're not thinking straight.

Working on my mathematics PhD.

>17 page
>tearing Descartes a new asshole

Embarrassing.

it was only after the fact and behind my back that he called me racist, so unfortunately I did.
well of course, because proclaiming someone is "racist" in the current sociopolitical climate is a ways in which to pat yourself on the back without actually doing anything about racism. for some reason the current racial activists of today refuse to look at the civil rights movement and see that said civil rights movement had concrete, attainable goals, and instead fight against the big bad boogeyman that is racism and just say "let's end racism" without realizing the absolute impossibility of their goal.

I'm writing a novel beating up Wittgenstein. It is difficult though; he has a wiry strength to him .

Making an essay on Quine's traduction and ontological relatavity for my philosophy of language class, though it aims to be monographic. And also working on my thesis on Heidegger.

Nothing because I don't need to

Professor of Classical Languages at Harvard.

Undergraduate detected.

looking into links between price fluctuations of non-essential goods and social conditions.

Nice! I'm the Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale.

Writing an essay on how women were portrayed in art in Nazi Germany

Essay on the Songs of Innocence and Experience and how Blake's belief in a theory of correspondence creates a secondary spiritual meaning to his works

Preparing a presentation on how the Bhagavad Gita influenced Schopenhauer's epistemological rejection of Kantian metaphysics

Should I be troubled that I find his writing to be clearer than Husserl's?

Reading Sylvia Plath and being depressed (again).

Creating my new-neo-platonist theory on forms. Its pretty cool tbqh famli.

How are you "ripping apart descartes" don't tell me you're actually challening cogito ergo sum. Problem with doing so may be that your argument is tenous or circumstantial, and like most philosophy, of you make a mistake in your beginning arguments then the latter portion and credibility of the essay as a whole will be poorly effective. Nevermind people debating the entire essay, no, they probably can't. Most will just go after the weakest link.

I'm Obama

Getting pissed about Hemingway man, I fucking hate Hemingway. Been working on this paper for fucking weeks about his short story Well Lighted Place, and I'm so upset. Rewritten about fifty fucking times, exploring it from different angles, and I still can't piece together a proper essay. It's so choppy and retarded sounded, fuck me.

writing a 1,000 word essay on swan lake that was due last night. 50 words written so far. just find the whole thing boring.

>attacking a guy who's been dead for 500 years

brave

Not him but
>hopelessly trying to understand Husserl's logical research 2
Pls help

>tfw to smart four prison

Is that you Patricia?

Just starting on Descartes today after working up to him chronologically.

have 2 more seminars to get through and I'll be finished with the course requirements for my masters degree (political science)

currently working on:

>research paper comparing aggregated personality profiles of Canadian citizens residing across the 10 provinces, and exploring links between certain traits with their overall opinion toward immigration. Early findings seem promising and it's been widely praised by profs/classmates. Hoping to get this published this summer

>editing a term paper on an epistemological solution to the positivist-interpretivist debate within international relations theory. Going to shop this around a few journals in the spring

>beginning primary research (interviews, archival work) on my master's thesis, which compares the internal bureaucratic cultures of Canadian surveillance agencies with their security partners in the 'five eyes' alliance. Arguing that efforts toward interoperability with the US has caused us to lag behind our counterparts in the UK, NZ, AUS with respect to public accountability. Hoping to self-publish this as nonfiction monograph in the fall

I'm building homes for people to live in.

what was your chronology?

>solution to the positivist-interpretivist debate

lmao gg

Hume on free will

it's pretty easy to challenge cogito ergo sum.

the first premise of his argument is an assumption

he says "I think" which already presupposes an I.

if anything it should be "x thinks, I am x, therefore I think, therefore I am", which can then be refuted more easily

Masters Art History here, working on three projects of varrying degrees currently.
Human Agency in Bosch and Van der Weyden's Last Judgements (pleb)
Political Hit Piece on Rockafeller Instituion via Indonesian Art (normie)
Combining Impressionist Visual Space with Literary Void (patrician)
The latter being the only one I care about, lots of interesting theory to wrestle with. The others are just filling space to keep academic momentum going. Feels good man.

artists do, bad artists study art history

yeah user, is right. Haven't you read the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil yet?

Can't argue with that, though I'd take it further. Art historians work in the field, bad art historians teach. Those who can't, teach ect.

For what it's worth, I realized very young that making art (>2017, "making" ""art"") wasn't for me, or ever hold any pretension to it, I've always been focused on the study and criticism, theory aspect. Great way to learn history and philosophy as it actually engaged with/worked against society.

does Nietzsche ever talk about the argument? i was referring to Kierkegaard

>I realized very young that making art (>2017, "making" ""art"") wasn't for me, or ever hold any pretension to it
fair enough. out of curiosity, what does "working in the field" entail? are there really art historians who make a living just publishing academic works without a teaching position?

slacking off on my assigned reading to absorb some more hegel

oh found it

> the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."—In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?" He who ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of INTUITIVE perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that this, at least, is true, actual, and certain"—will encounter a smile and two notes of interrogation in a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken, but why should it be the truth?"

More so those fortunate enough to work in museums or those fields that actually incorporate archaeology/examining private collections, etc. Ultimately it all comes back to academia one way or the other, it's just a matter of teaching Art 101 surveys for your career or being esteemed enough to teach grad-level on your field of expertise (that you've published/presented on of course).

I fucking despise people who don't understand heart of darkness, they should all be shot

wow someone who doubts Cartesian understanding of consciousness/Theodicy/free will. you must be really smart and original and not just regurgitation the thought of everyone since Descartes's era. not even considering the fact that to properly view Descartes or one of the great philosophers of his tradition(newton, leibenez,pascal,bacon) you need to view them from either and artistic or completely academic (i.e. from the perspective of presenting a new idea for the purpose of understanding the world better not so much believing it to the death).i have tutored twelve year old with the same complaints but at least they understood the importance of the propositions made by Descartes in the first place you self-righteous cunt