the-philosoph - Tumblr blog

[the-philosoph]

[the-philosoph]

“Clearly, for Spinoza, a body is not limited by a thought or a thought by a body. The two remain “parallel” and never intersect. The question of sexual difference, a question to be thought out particularly after and with the “death of God” and the period of the ontic-ontological difference, requires a reconsideration of the split between body and thought. The whole historic or historical analysis of philosophy shows that being has yet to be referred to in terms of body or flesh (as Heidegger notes in “Logos,” his seminar on Heraclitus). Thought and body have remained separate. And this leads, on the social and cultural level, to important empirical and transcendental effects: with discourse and thought being the privileges of a male producer. And this remains the “norm.” Even today, bodily tasks remain the obligation or the duty of the female subject. The break between the two produces rootless and insane thinking as well as bodies (women and children) that are heavy and slightly “moronic” because they lack language.“

-Irigaray, ‘The Envelope: A Reading of Spinoza’s Ethics, "Of God”’

[the-philosoph]

Happy 102nd birthday to Albert Camus!

(7 November 1913 – 4 January 1960)

[the-philosoph]

“Enter Stan(ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)man”

[the-philosoph]

[the-philosoph]

If poor dental hygiene, obesity, and type 2 diabetes can all be prevented by simply not drinking soda, why do we still drink it regularly?

Infographic courtesy of Oxford University Press.

[the-philosoph]

Michael Carini | As The Universe Falls Together

[the-philosoph]

The car of James Bond 007 - The Aston Martin DB10

[the-philosoph]

There are some people who would never have fallen in love, if they had not heard there was such a thing.

La Rouchefoucauld

[the-philosoph]

Your future has already been decided for you. Whether you have made the decisions, or whether someone else has made the decision for you, they cannot be unmade and will continue to have influence for the rest of your life. No matter how small the decision may have been, the consequences can be enormous (as the butterfly in the east brings an earthquake in the west). Do not fear what is to come.

[the-philosoph]

Never call yourself a philosopher, nor talk a great deal among the unlearned about theorems, but act conformably to them. Thus, at an entertainment, don’t talk how persons ought to eat, but eat as you ought. For remember that in this manner Socrates also universally avoided all ostentation. And when persons came to him and desired to be recommended by him to philosophers, he took and recommended them, so well did he bear being overlooked. So that if ever any talk should happen among the unlearned concerning philosophic theorems, be you, for the most part, silent. For there is great danger in immediately throwing out what you have not digested. And, if anyone tells you that you know nothing, and you are not nettled at it, then you may be sure that you have begun your business. For sheep don’t throw up the grass to show the shepherds how much they have eaten; but, inwardly digesting their food, they outwardly produce wool and milk. Thus, therefore, do you likewise not show theorems to the unlearned, but the actions produced by them after they have been digested.

Epictetus, 

The Enchiridion

(via studentsofphilosophy)

[the-philosoph]

Men are built, not born…. Give me the baby, and I’ll make it climb and use its hands in constructing buildings of stone or wood…. I’ll make it a thief, a gunman or a dope fiend. The possibilities of shaping in any direction are almost endless.

John B. Watson (via fyp-psychology)

[the-philosoph]

Do you feel that science and religion could ever be compatible?

There is nothing about religion per se that has to be incompatible with science. Certain types of Buddhism, for instance, have shown a drive to be compatible with science. ’[A]s in science so in Buddhism,’ said the Dalai Lama. ‘If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.’ If all religions were this open to scrutiny and change, then tension with science would relax. Unfortunately, most religion is coupled with the real danger: dogma—the rigid, autocratic refusal to adjust one’s beliefs no matter the evidence. Dogma is incompatible with science, so only religions that are free from dogma can make comfortable bedfellows with science. Sadly, non-dogmatic religions (and people) are few and far between.

The more we push ourselves to be free from dogma and to embrace open-inquiry and scientific progress, the more we can adjust our institutions to be free from dogma as well. In this way we can work for a future where science and religion are truly compatible.

[the-philosoph]

I cannot remember the books that I have read any more than the meals that I have eaten, even so, they have made me.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

[the-philosoph]

Does money own you?

We love money. People with it love to flaunt it, and people without it want it. Money can make things possible; we can fulfil our fantasies with big yachts and castles and Ferraris. Whatever you would do with your money, you probably want some. But despite our desire to simply accumulate more, it must be asked whether money owns you.

What if we money didn’t exist? We would have to return to the bartering system (trying to trade four hundred turnips for some shoes… Quite frankly it isn’t efficient) where both parties must produce goods that the other party wants; it didn’t work well, because who wants four hundred turnips. With money, trade becomes a lot simpler; money becomes an arbitrary system to underwrite the value of all goods and services. There is nothing that cannot be measured by money. Our turnips become cash, which the shoemaker definitely wants. We can obtain all of our desires with the system of money, far more than we could with bartering. It is deeply liberating.

But money does not stop at ‘economic liberation’. It has a darker side; when money becomes symbolic of all value, it allows anything to be exchanged for anything else; assassinations, kidnappings etc etc. Everything can be bought, from governments to girlfriends. Money erodes the old social orders that used to dictate behaviour (religion and family all but disappear), and in their place comes the law of exchange. We lose our basic humanity to the question of 'what’s in it for me’ every time we are asked to do anything.

What does it say for humanity when our self worth can be given an economic value? It’s dehumanising; we become tiny, expendable parts of an economic machine.

This is, of course, pure cynicism. Money can only own you if you let it, and Marx had a similar idea. Marxism was not so much about everyone being equal as it was about humanity regaining its freedom. Sadly, we are so inherently greedy that Marxism cannot function without an opportunist coming along and forming a dictatorship for personal gain. In such a sense, money does not own the individual, but it certainly owns humanity.

[the-philosoph]

What am I doing here?

[the-philosoph]

The most fundamental aggression to ourselves, the most fundamental harm we can do to ourselves, is to remain ignorant by not having the courage and the respect to look at ourselves honestly.

Pema Chodron (via liberatingreality)