After making a huge fuss about how important it is to be rational, and how rationality proves everything is meaningless, and dissing Heidegger for using poetical language to advocate meaningfulness, Brassier’s _Nihil Unbound_ advocates this ULTRA RATIONAL proof of meaninglessness
Brassier’s lust for annihiliation is so powerful that, after a hundred pages of reductionist neurobollocks, he explains the sun’s explosion “is at once earlier than the birth of the first unicellular organism, and later than the extinction of the last multicellular animal.”
Somehow nihilism makes you want to sound extremely rational at the same time it destroys your ability to check the simplest inferences for logical validity.
The book’s final paragraph exhibits the Cotard delusion, a symptom of extreme depression: you believe you are already dead.
This is regarded (by some!) as one of the most important works of philosophy of the last several decades.
Philosophy as a discipline has just gone absolutely, catastrophically, unfixably wrong. Wipe the disk, wipe the boot loader, start over with the bare metal.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For the first time, listened to JBP lecturing on his Maps of Meaning work from before he became famous. I was impressed. And, I now see why people compare our stuff. Considerable overlap in approach as well as content.
Am I redundant, then? I don't know what he covers beyond the first lecture, but let's suppose as a thought experiment that everything I will say he already has. Is it worth going on and saying it anyway? People who know both have said yes... meaningness.com
Slightly different presentation styles may be understandable for different readers/listeners/students, so that variation is worthwhile. But I think our styles are pretty similar too! That's probably not what might make the alternative valuable.
Reflecting on the regularity that for people who “have a personal philosophy” it’s usually a half-baked existentialism: realized this is almost tautological. Existentialism is the theory that “a personal philosophy” is something you can have.
Imo: don’t do this. Impersonal philosophy is quite bad enough. A personal philosophy is a conceptual prison, and existentialism is a catastrophe. There’s a reason its main proponents repudiated it 60 years ago.
Camus and Sartre both explained in their last major works that existentialism’s central claim, that we are free to choose our own values, is false. We have some wiggle room, but we are constrained (and also rely on) society, culture, biology, our engineered environment,…
... provides the missing piece for this essay on "a genial criminal" I promised four years ago, but did not understand quite well enough to write up then... it will be the seventh installment of my shadow-eating series... buddhism-for-vampires.com/we-are-all-mon…
... and I promised another, final essay, "Between Zero and Two Wise Old Men," which I am not yet quite old enough to write. Another few years perhaps...
I would guess that most Christians would agree that Jesus had a normal human body and a divine mind? Apparently this renders them heretics, with this error having been condemned by all theologians since 381.
Religions get weirder and weirder when you look at details.
Judging from replies, I may be empirically wrong about this… OTOH, people who read my tweets probably have a more detailed and accurate understanding of theology than most Christians.
I found out about this because Apollinarism was recently resurrected by William Lane Craig, an apologist who DISMANTLES Atheist after Atheist: mademanministries.com/2021/07/willia…
Crackpot theory du jour: Shantideva's ethical theory was influenced by Christianity. Shantideva is counted as the most important Buddhist ethicist by many Buddhist lineages. I find his stuff nauseating: a holier-than-thou, self-obsessed slave morality.
Is there internal evidence of influence? Shantideva's work is considered a major breakpoint in Buddhist ethics, as the first to attempt coherent philosophical arguments for it. Christianity was doing that for a long time; not previously found in Buddhism. vividness.live/traditional-bu…
@vgr Reading about sociopathy today. It’s a spectrum and a syndrome—a loose collection of traits—not binary.
I was always sure I’m not a sociopath—as far from it as one could be. Today I’m recognizing some tendencies in myself… cool experience in shadow-eating 👻
@vgr A stage 4 ethics, which by definition prioritizes principles and procedures over emotions and personal relationships, always appears sociopathic to those at stage 3. You probably can’t transition to stage 4 without developing your own psychopathy a bit.