Is Philosophy Dangerous?

gue_barium

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

How could an episteme of hard insanity be achieved, without being formulated using language, the product of our social being? In order to deconstruct any sense of reality, we would have to abandon the symbols and myths we use to formulate our sense of self, community, culture, heritage, traditions and boundaries. We'd have to deprogramme ourselves from language. But wouldn't we just end up creating a new language to construct our hard insanity, which keeps us at as much a remove from this state as language keeps us from our present, objective, extra-linguistic reality?

I was just about to comment on this post til I saw Fins and Cate take a different turn.

I'll just sit here and smoke a cigar til it comes to pass.

catefrances

...besides the fact that the actions the premise the oedipal complex is based on were in no way intentional? come on, who besides jim morrison really wants to fuck their mother and kill their father?

gue_barium

catefrances wrote:

...besides the fact that the actions the premise the oedipal complex is based on were in no way intentional? come on, who besides jim morrison really wants to fuck their mother and kill their father?

You've got it the wrong way. You have to kill the father first.

catefrances

gue_barium wrote:

You've got it the wrong way. You have to kill the father first.

whatever. so long as someone is dead and someone else is fucked, it matters not to me.

genie

Ahnimus wrote:

Philosophy is great!

It's good to step outside of society and re-evaluate it. Else we live on in insane ways.

i agree, to be scared of philosophy is pathetic. Philosophy is a form of rebellion

gue_barium

genie wrote:

i agree, to be scared of philosophy is pathetic. Philosophy is a form of rebellion

Lots of things are dangerous, but not necessarily fearful. Driving to work, for instance.

Jeanie

Well I don't think philosophy is dangerous although some people's philosophies may eventually prove to be very dangerous, particularly if they are able to persuade others that their ideas and thoughts are valid and worthy of acting on.

Having said that I'm more than happy to keep reading what Fins has to say here. It's very interesting.

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

...besides the fact that the actions the premise the oedipal complex is based on were in no way intentional? come on, who besides jim morrison really wants to fuck their mother and kill their father?

Knowingly or unknowingly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_the_Oedipus_complex

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Knowingly or unknowingly?

yes.

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_the_Oedipus_complex

According to the interpretation of the Oedipus complex by Hélène Deutsch the girl doesn’t blame her mother for her lack of a penis but the father. Therefore she stops to identify with the father and the masculine personality. The relation with the father gets a libidinous meaning which results in fantasies about being raped.

oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

never in my entire life have i ever wanted a penis.(you know what i mean). nor subsequently have i ever blamed my mother or my father for my lack of one.
don't ever make the mistake of thinking i'm a feminist fins.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

yes.



According to the interpretation of the Oedipus complex by Hélène Deutsch the girl doesn’t blame her mother for her lack of a penis but the father. Therefore she stops to identify with the father and the masculine personality. The relation with the father gets a libidinous meaning which results in fantasies about being raped.

oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

never in my entire life have i ever wanted a penis.(you know what i mean). nor subsequently have i ever blamed my mother or my father for my lack of one.
don't ever make the mistake of thinking i'm a feminist fins.

Geez I don't know cate I've always wished for a dick on long car trips when peeing in a bottle would be useful!

gue_barium

Well, you did it Fins. You've got two women deciding on your penis.

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

yes.



According to the interpretation of the Oedipus complex by Hélène Deutsch the girl doesn’t blame her mother for her lack of a penis but the father. Therefore she stops to identify with the father and the masculine personality. The relation with the father gets a libidinous meaning which results in fantasies about being raped.

oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

never in my entire life have i ever wanted a penis.(you know what i mean). nor subsequently have i ever blamed my mother or my father for my lack of one.
don't ever make the mistake of thinking i'm a feminist fins.

Not consciously, maybe.

baraka

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Er, because?

I have to say that, as far as Freud is concerned, I somewhat agree with Cate. However, this is probably due to my ignorance in the subject. A few years ago, if asked, I would probably say that "classical" psychology/psychiatry in the vein of Freud/Jung/Adler was probably puesdo-science. Thanks to some folks here, I have a new appreciation for Jung, but I'm still on the fence with Freud.

As a discipline, my impression of psychology is that it attempts to be scientific. They learn a scientific form of methodology and are experts in statistical analysis like it's nobody's business. What they study, though, is extremely difficult to model, and the real problem is that psychology as a whole field operates in the absence of a unifying theoretical framework, like evolution and cell theory in biology, relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, etc. This leads to inconsistent conclusions and a lot of reasoning that looks wish-washy from the outside, ie some of Freud's 'theories'. Just a perspective from someone that knows little about the subject.

gue_barium

baraka wrote:

I have to say that, as far as Freud is concerned, I somewhat agree with Cate. However, this is probably due to my ignorance in the subject. A few years ago, if asked, I would probably say that "classical" psychology/psychiatry in the vein of Freud/Jung/Adler was probably puesdo-science. Thanks to some folks here, I have a new appreciation for Jung, but I'm still on the fence with Freud.

As a discipline, my impression of psychology is that it attempts to be scientific. They learn a scientific form of methodology and are experts in statistical analysis like it's nobody's business. What they study, though, is extremely difficult to model, and the real problem is that psychology as a whole field operates in the absence of a unifying theoretical framework, like evolution and cell theory in biology, relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, etc. This leads to inconsistent conclusions and a lot of reasoning that looks wish-washy from the outside, ie some of Freud's 'theories'. Just a perspective from someone that knows little about the subject.

How about the framework of "self"?

angelica

baraka wrote:

I have to say that, as far as Freud is concerned, I somewhat agree with Cate. However, this is probably due to my ignorance in the subject. A few years ago, if asked, I would probably say that "classical" psychology/psychiatry in the vein of Freud/Jung/Adler was probably puesdo-science. Thanks to some folks here, I have a new appreciation for Jung, but I'm still on the fence with Freud.

As a discipline, my impression of psychology is that it attempts to be scientific. They learn a scientific form of methodology and are experts in statistical analysis like it's nobody's business. What they study, though, is extremely difficult to model, and the real problem is that psychology as a whole field operates in the absence of a unifying theoretical framework, like evolution and cell theory in biology, relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, etc. This leads to inconsistent conclusions and a lot of reasoning that looks wish-washy from the outside, ie some of Freud's 'theories'. Just a perspective from someone that knows little about the subject.

I'm not sure a lack of unifying theory is a problem. I personally see that as a benefit, as there are vast levels of human experiences and contexts within which to understand them. There are some universal concepts, however, such as the unconscious/conscious, etc., that it seems are accepted across the board.

Psychology is a field that attempts to objectively look at subjective experience. It uses scientific methods, and yet is widely known as a soft science. It is necessary that it relies much on interpretation/hermeneutics with flexibility enabling understanding many contexts, and all kind of experiences without "objectifying" or dehumanizing them. That can be looked at as a problem, however, unlike hard science in general, this field understands the concept of the effect of the psyche of the observer affecting the outcome of what is observed. Also, empathic and emotional connections with the observer are necessary, unlike in hard sciences. Therefore in such contexts the interpretive aspects which might be seen as a flaw are also clearly a benefit. Psychology grasps being aware of the vast diversity of subjectivity and it's interaction with objectivity. The value is in the context, and the inconsistent conclusions can be quite consistent within various models and approaches by specific observers. I think the bottom line is that within psychology, imo, it's generally known that it's truths are not absolute.

It's interesting that Jung's and Freud's interpretations speak to the men themselves, and their own lives and experiences and awareness.

I once read that the penis envy thing with Freud came in an era where women were repressed under patriarchy and the dominant "male" schools of thought. And by such schools of thought, more typical female styles of processing information were not understood or valued. The female perspective came up "lacking". Women's dissatisfaction with life could not be understood, because the male view lacked understanding of more female "spatial" thought, as opposed to linear and typically "male thought". And given such context, Freud thereby interpreted that women feel sad and unfulfilled because they don't have penises..... :rolleyes: .....

FinsburyParkCarrots

angelica wrote:

It's interesting that Jung's and Freud's interpretations speak to the men themselves, and their own lives and experiences and awareness.

This is why there's no point carrying on with this avenue of discussion, because obviously no-one else has read any psychoanalytic feminism.

angelica

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

This is why there's no point carrying on with this avenue of discussion, because obviously no-one else has read any psychoanalytic feminism.

We see what we want to see, don't we.

angelica

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

This is why there's no point carrying on with this avenue of discussion, because obviously no-one else has read any psychoanalytic feminism.

I'm personally looking for communication and exchange of differing perspectives carried out on an even playing field, where we all exist. If my perspective does not resonate with you, that's great. I'm not looking to indulge your view, I'm looking to communicate.

beachdweller

mankind is dangerous, period.

Philosophy is good, but people can use it for bad, like so many things.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

Well, you did it Fins. You've got two women deciding on your penis.

:rolleyes: