The tyranny of Big Abortion

Jump to navigation Jump to search

he was after modern. therefore "post modern". but really, my point was that is the time frame I start losing philosophy. I will admit i've not read Nietzsche much, just works about his works, so i'm not sure i get him or not. But I will read any of these 1920's and forward philosophiers and there is a good chance I walk away totally lost. I did ok with Bahktin and "othering", and understand "authorship" issues on their own (the individual authors writing about it, not withstanding), but the generic 20th century philo i've tried to read, confuses me.

As for Blue Velvet - that, too confuses me. It's... i sat there and said "huh?" I feel very, hum, intellectually "small" when I attempt to understand much of 20th century pursuits like "modern art", high literary play-writes, even cooking where the goal is to remove expectations and make a strawberry taste like fish. (molecular gastronmy i think is the term). Maybe I'm not abstract or creative enough? I don't know.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina07:05, 16 February 2012

Sorry, that ain't how it works -- Sartre was an existentialist. The 20th C. was a great time for philosophy (see Sartre, Camus, Foucault, Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper, Duhem, Dewey, etc.). You philistine! :P

Also, "20th century pursuits...high literary playwrights..." And your username is a Beckett play.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)07:22, 16 February 2012

(Yes, I knew it wasn't officially post modernism -- my jokes never go over well. it's good i do not think i should be a comedian).

Do you think I *understand* Godot? Do you think anyone understands Godot? absurdism is named well. But at least it's not meant to be understood (I think). Wittgenstein and Russell I also understand well, cause again, it was / is a very focused philosophy. Of your list though, Popper, Duhem, Dewey all lose me.

As for Camus, i must really not understand literature. I read L'etranger, (several times), and yet it's listed as absurdest by wikipedia. The character is dark, isolated, driven, cold but his actions follow from that isolation. I was with the author the entire time. I read Godot or Rhinoceros and the whole time, I'm saying "is this supposed to have meaning?" "am I supposed to extract something from it, or just go with it". Absurdest to me is a literature that does not follow from character formation. So why is L'etranger absurdest?

I do so much better on things that are more obvious, I guess. or I don't have the right guides to help "get" modern thinking or I don't know(?)

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina15:47, 16 February 2012

Ahem "comedienne"
/runs

PsyGremlinPraat!15:52, 16 February 2012