Recommend me something I haven't heard of

Read this next

I've heard this is good. Still reeling with Deleuze atm but catching up on Hegel is a thing I plan to do. Wanted to share this passage on the Beautiful Soul I read today:

>If one wants to be an “exception” without also being a criminal, then one can only express one’s individuality in poetry—in words rather than actions. One’s “genius” can then be admired by one’s “circle,” but at the cost of leading “a purely literary existence” in which what is recognized is not the actuality of one’s deeds but the sincerity of one’s expressed convictions. Only the echo of one’s speech returns from the community or “circle of friends,” who rejoice in “the mutual assurance of their conscientiousness and good intentions,” but this unmediated unity of self and others is just the emptiness of the “I = I” writ large. Such “indeterminate subjectivity does not attain existence or the objective determinacy of action, but remains within itself and has no actuality” . “It lacks the power of externalization” because “it lives in fear of besmirching the splendor of its inner being by action, and in order to preserve the purity of its heart, it flees from contact with actuality and persists in its self-willed powerlessness,” wanting its moral judgment to be taken for actual deeds, and ex- pressing lofty sentiments (Gesinnungen) in literary productions instead of acting.

> “Entangled in the contradiction between its pure self and the necessity to externalize itself in actuality,” the beautiful soul is unable to realize its vision of oneness with others, and goes mad or wastes away in yearning and consumption.

(1/2)

we need a list of answers that can answer every question. one other is def "wu wei".

read this recently, very well made

>biography

i needed to decompress

(2/2)

>To attain actuality, it is necessary to act, and all action carries with it the one-sidedness of partiality of a particular individual acting in particular circumstances, that is, a selfishness that contradicts the universality of duty; “only a stone is innocent.” In wanting to love all, in choosing for all and against none, the beautiful soul hopes to preserve the unlimited, infinite “determinability” of its full humanity in its purity and integrity (Schiller), but in refusing to pass from determinability to a determination that will limit it by actual- izing one potentiality at the expense of others and helping some at the expense of others, it in fact chooses no one and does nothing for anyone, and loves only itself. Not even its self-sacrifice in madness (Friedrich Hölderlin) or consumption (Novalis) benefits anyone; its “feeling” and “moral vision” accomplish no real change in the world. Real action would involve adapting itself to the world and finding effective means of realizing its ends, which would inevitably involve compromises, risks, and partiality, actualizing some potentialities and sacrificing others, benefiting some particular others at the expense of others. Not willing to do this, the beautiful soul’s supposed richness of moral sentiments is exposed as bankrupt, its supposed selflessness revealed as self-worship. Whether at the level of sensory experience or moral action, the unexpressed and the unactualized is the most impoverished and least real, not the richest and most infinite. Actualization requires determination, and so limitation, but without such limitation, infinite potential remains as ague, empty, and amorphous as unformed clay, much as children represent infinite potential, but have no definite character.

The Beautiful Soul parts are fucking crushing. I'm still reading Hegel through Deleuze right now (which is a terrible idea, obv) b/c yo dawg I heard you like Land &c.

But yeah, Hegel doesn't seem to go away. Cheers for the rec.

wittgenstein is dope. interesting man for sure. i won't pretend to understand even half of the stuff that he was after.
>dat philosophical silence tho
>i like that

wu wei is definitely in that category of Misunderstood Meme Answers to Everything
>& wittgenstein is perhaps the GOAT of this

deleuze is still insanely interesting tho. just fucking insane. my mistake was reading all this shit out of order, and now wanting to love hegel but somehow reading him after these other guys

aaaargh

duty of genius is v relevant to these passages. the authentic "literary existence" is a sacrifice of one's life, but it is doubly so when the essence of your corpus amounts to "show, don't speak", forcing you to live nonsensically. his preference for manual labor speaks volumes about this inner tendency to not compromise his convictions. his philosophy was a matter of attempting this showing but through language, but it came out as tortuous and easily misunderstood.

def mid-high tier endboss tier

>my mistake was reading all this shit out of order
i can only come to terms with my slow progress by convincing myself it was wise to leave the final bosses for last

here's another one for OP i guess, see if you can puzzle this weirdness out

nietzsche: god is dead
spinoza's cool tho

>I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange!

deleuze: hegel? no thx
spinoza's cool tho:

>Spinoza was the philosopher who knew full well that immanence was only immanent to itself and therefore that it was a plane traversed by movements of the infinite, filled with intensive ordinates. He is therefore the prince of philosophers. Perhaps he is the only philosopher never to have compromised with transcendence and to have hunted it down everywhere…he discovered that freedom exists only within immanence. He fulfilled philosophy because he satisfied its prephilosophical presupposition.

spinoza: god tho

aha yes, yes i see what you guys did there. yes

>tfw actually you have no idea
>tfw hegel did nothing wrong?
>tfw true, spinoza's monist god is not the same as hegel's trinitarian god
>but hegel's PoS seems like the best way of coming to understand some of this

fucking philosophers yo
ah well

maybe malabou can sort this out

"corpus" is btw an amazing word. literally the displacement of one's body and projected onto the fruits of one's labor. a huge problem nowadays i guess is that manual labor is borderline irrelevant and "intellectual labor" that is "authentic" (whatever that means) and not just financial or legal fuckery is ill defined.

i suppose working with code is the modern day equivalent of "manual" labor. code doesn't make claims to "foundational truth" but is self conscious about being an artifice of language, but one that enables one to conjure up (and convene with) the machine gods.

the other solution is to go full fight club.

>tfw did not go into compsci

witty: my conscience is god

plagiarist

>the authentic "literary existence" is a sacrifice of one's life, but it is doubly so when the essence of your corpus amounts to "show, don't speak", forcing you to live nonsensically
this all day

>his preference for manual labor speaks volumes about this inner tendency to not compromise his convictions
yup. he would have wanted us to learn machines
>so did spengler
>maybe deleuze too
>machines are a thing
>random thought: philosophers/metaphysicians, artists/metatechnicians
>kys girardfag place is random enough

>his philosophy was a matter of attempting this showing but through language, but it came out as tortuous and easily misunderstood
yup

>def mid-high tier end boss tier
def so

>i can only come to terms with my slow progress by convincing myself it was wise to leave the final bosses for last
good call

It's not supposed to be an insane cacophony, I'm pretty sure. Makes more sense as one insanely long story about Time that just keeps taking these incredible twists and turns, things that you would just have not thought were possible. You wouldn't think it would be possible for anyone to come after Guy X. And then it happens.

I think Deleuze is the guy right now, for metaphysics. But I'm sure Malabou can persuade me. I just want to make really sure I know what Deleuze is actually saying first or I'm just going to get swamped again.

>witty: my conscience is god
"Conscience is certainty on the moral plane."
checks out

dem hegel v deleuze battles tho
shit is cash

>In them Wittgenstein insists that, like ‘Moore’s Paradox’, Moore’s ‘Defence of Common Sense’ is a contribution to logic. For: ‘everything descriptive of a language-game is part of logic’.

>The line of thought here is strikingly reminiscent of the Tractatus (as Wittgenstein himself later acknowledges: On Certainty, see here). The idea is that, if the contrary of a proposition makes sense, then that proposition can be regarded as an empirical hypothesis, its truth or falsity being dependent on the way things stand in the world. But if the contrary of a proposition does not make sense, then the proposition is not descriptive of the world but of our conceptual framework; it is then a part of logic.

>Thus: ‘Physical objects exist’ is not an empirical proposition, for its contrary is not false but incomprehensible. Similarly, if Moore holds up two hands and our reaction is to say: ‘Moore’s hands don’t exist’, our statement could not be regarded as false but as unintelligible. But if this is so, then these ‘framework propositions’ do not describe a body of knowledge; they describe the way in which we understand the world. In this case, it makes no sense to claim, as Moore does, that you know them with certainty to be true

woke af
late witty had a tact for concise demystifications for complex profundities
wu wei

>but you have to start out with the totally wrong (but not exactly wrong) tractatus to fully appreciate it as more than an asian philosophy tier aphorism
>and then kripke
>let's not talk about kripke

>late witty had a tact for concise demystifications for complex profundities
>wu wei
that's one of the things i like about the tao. it's all about conflict resolution. it's good for solving problems decisively and effectively, making the question disappear via enlightenment
>sometimes this requires a well-timed roundhouse kick to the face
>you know i'm okay with this
>even when it's you?
>sometimes esp then inner self

wittgenstein was indeed a neat guy tho. BTFOs idle talk just as much as heidegger does, that's for sure

>kripkenstein
kek. not likely to talk about that either.

logic > girardfag

the terminate function is essential
do not forget the terminate function
it is the difference between a crash log and destruction of hardware