my subscriptions
POPULAR-ALL-RANDOM | LOADING...MORE »
beat_schrute 3 points

No, you're right to question this. Usually people put an excerpt in quotes if they didn't write it.

Edit: video editing and soundtrack by John Brady. Posted here by jnbradi. Seems like a fair chance it's the same person. If so, they should probably be saying that.

Edit 2: and after further creeping, this person has low comment karma and high post karma. All they do is go around different philosophy subreddits posting the stuff John Brady writes for epoche

jnbradi 2 points

Creepy. Actually the stuff that anyone writes for Epoche. I'm one of the editors and content creators. The karma ratio is more a function of how successful a very few of the articles have been (for example, the present one, which just happens to have been a piece I did; ordinarily my articles, writing on Freud, Bergson and Deleuze don't attract so much attention).

I'm happy this piece has stimulated interest in and discussion of Nietzsche's metaphysics here and elsewhere. That was the goal in creating it in the first place.

beat_schrute 3 points

I shouldn't be judgemental, and sorry for creeping but I like internet investigations. Just my two cents: across different subreddits I visit there are a number of people posting their own stuff. I think being open about it is most effective. You can build a relationship with the audience that way. With that said, I think it's a cool website and the stuff you've posted is well done.

jnbradi 3 points

Thanks. Yeah, the only problem is reddit seems geared towards anonymity, and limited, engaged discussions of content (esp. here on /r/phil where the numbers are so large that 'society' is a better metaphor than 'community'). That being said, I have had some great extended discussions here. I just can't say with who. For example, your username is quite familiar, I feel we've either had an exchange, or I've read something that you've written that made me nod emphatically.

Load more comments
jnbradi 1 point

From the story:

"It is strange to fall asleep a vermin and to wake a human, but I do my best to live out my kill lust among the lifted. My new combats take place in the Field, as far from Base as Virtual is from Colosseum. I passage into distant drone-bodies to reach the war. When a combat is complete, I passage back to the Faraday-body at Base, which some also call Nevada.

At the end of this first month in the world, my metrics display hundreds of human-body and Faraday-body kills. Each time the imagination illumes its death scenarios and my kill lust brings a threshold of enemies to codedeath, I am honored at Base.

Of course I am not the only insect to lift into the world. At Base are other lifted who pilot drone-bodies, passage with similar fluidity between Base and Field. When I ask my manufacturer if I know other lifted from the past’s Colosseum, xe says only it is unlikely."

jnbradi 1 point

From the story:

"It is strange to fall asleep a vermin and to wake a human, but I do my best to live out my kill lust among the lifted. My new combats take place in the Field, as far from Base as Virtual is from Colosseum. I passage into distant drone-bodies to reach the war. When a combat is complete, I passage back to the Faraday-body at Base, which some also call Nevada.

At the end of this first month in the world, my metrics display hundreds of human-body and Faraday-body kills. Each time the imagination illumes its death scenarios and my kill lust brings a threshold of enemies to codedeath, I am honored at Base.

Of course I am not the only insect to lift into the world. At Base are other lifted who pilot drone-bodies, passage with similar fluidity between Base and Field. When I ask my manufacturer if I know other lifted from the past’s Colosseum, xe says only it is unlikely."

jnbradi 2 points

Nietzsche’s How the ‘Real World’ at Last Became a Myth appears in Twilight of the Idols (1889). In this short, sequential, text he outlines what he subtitles as the “History of an Error”. The genealogy traces the notion of the division of the world into reality and appearance from its original mystic formulation (“I, Plato, am the Truth”), through the Platonic cave, the neo-platonist Christian interpretation, onto the Kantian noumenon and suprasensible ground of morality. From there, after it finds its most pure expression in the sterile Kantian thing-in-itself, the notion becomes increasingly suspect, culminating in its dismissal, and with it, the entire dichotomy of apparent/real, representation/thing-in-itself. Both the suprasensible “real world” and the apparent world of representation are overcome.

Nietzsche, with characteristic modesty, concludes that it is precisely at the moment when this millennia old metaphysical error has been completely eviscerated, with humanity now free from the specter of an all powerful beyond, that his text Thus Spoke Zarathustra truly begins.

jnbradi 4 points

Nietzsche’s How the ‘Real World’ at Last Became a Myth appears in Twilight of the Idols (1889). In this short, sequential, text he outlines what he subtitles as the “History of an Error”. The genealogy traces the notion of the division of the world into reality and appearance from its original mystic formulation (“I, Plato, am the Truth”), through the Platonic cave, the neo-platonist Christian interpretation, onto the Kantian noumenon and suprasensible ground of morality. From there, after it finds its most pure expression in the sterile Kantian thing-in-itself, the notion becomes increasingly suspect, culminating in its dismissal, and with it, the entire dichotomy of apparent/real, representation/thing-in-itself. Both the suprasensible “real world” and the apparent world of representation are overcome.

Nietzsche, with characteristic modesty, concludes that it is precisely at the moment when this millennia old metaphysical error has been completely eviscerated, with humanity now free from the specter of an all powerful beyond, that his text Thus Spoke Zarathustra truly begins.

isotta_c 5 points

Linguistic doubt (slightly off topic) : when the author says "However, on this critique of the problem of interiority, and their proposed solutions, they are eerily equivocal." Does he mean equivocal in the usual sense? It seems to me that he is saying that they express the same view… can the word be used it that sense? Or am I misunderstanding the sentence? (It's at the end of the fifth paragraph)

jnbradi 3 points

Ha. Thanks for pointing that out. I've misused the word - intending it to mean "speaking with one voice", "making equivalent statements/arguments", which now you've pointed it out to me, has nothing to do with the meaning of "equivocal" or even "univocal".

On the plus side, you've understood the sentence correctly. Context for the win!

jnbradi commented on a post in r/philosophy
jnbradi 2 points

This article has a tiny germ of an interesting point, but it's covered up too much in caveats and attempts to undermine Ferriss' authority. The interesting point is how the "Stoa" was at a busy market place - stoicism then being born out of the cosmopolitan experience, the noise of the market, the drunken revelry and music and smell of fish, and then popularized within the multicultural Roman Empire. It then becomes a worthy critique to point out how so much of this new-wave "Stoicism as formula for happiness" cloaks itself in a kind of hermit imagery - the porch used in the presentation, but also the images selected for some of the other articles on this blog.

I'm in no way familiar with the nuances of Stoicism, but I'd be really curious to read a critique if there is some problematic misinterpretation that comes from interpreting Stoicism through the lens of 20th century Ecology, or European Romanticism, as so much of the particular visual aesthetic of this resurgence of Stoicism seems to do. Are we missing the point if we read the "nature" of the stoics as the "nature" of modern Ecology?

jnbradi commented on a post in r/philosophy
usagimegumi 5 points

I totally disagree with the conclusion. The argument the author is making is that one type is better than the other. That "speaking truth to power" is exactly the same as "causing insult" and that the equal right to speak is less important. This argument is clearly in the end when they fail to claim herritage from both traditions and only focuses on saving the one. If saving both was equally important than it would follow that the argument would find away to do that. Rather than the conclusion that causing offence needs to be saved from people trying to keep a place at the podium

jnbradi 3 points

I was disappointed by the weird jump in the conclusion too. It doesn't seem to follow at all, unless of course you already go in to the argument assuming that whatever those kids are shouting about on campus is irrelevant.

view more:
next ›
4,934 Karma
4,258 Post Karma
676 Comment Karma

Following this user will show all the posts they make to their profile on your front page.

About jnbradi

  • Reddit Birthday

    May 18, 2016

Other Interesting Profiles

    Want to make posts on your
    own profile?

    Sign up to test the Reddit post to profile beta.

    Sign up