my subscriptions
POPULAR-ALL-RANDOM | LOADING...MORE »
jnbradi commented on a post in r/philosophy
DrGolabki 3 points

There's a lot of ways of believing in God... 1. Magic thinkers believe the bible is literally true, even the magic bits that contradict the other magic bits. This is classic faith. 2. Allegorical thinkers believe the bible is not literally true, but believe it in the sense that, taken as a whole, it is a powerful anchor for ones life and a central part of their culture. 3. Most folks believe in God and specific myths because they were raised in a cultural that taught them to believe it and they aren't really interested in rigorously interrogating the ideas.

If you an atheist arguing about the Easter myth with... 1. ...a magical thinker than you are a jerk because it's an impossible argument with no common ground upon which to build agreement. 2. ...an allegorical thinker than you are a jerk because you basically already agree on the core facts and are really just attacking how they choose to spend their free time. 3. ...most folks than you are a jerk because you are forcing someone into an antagonistic conversation that they have no interest in.

jnbradi 1 point

It's a bit of a stretch to call (1) (bible literalism) "classic faith" considering how relatively recent a phenomenon it is.

jnbradi commented on a post in r/TrueFilm
Choral 4 points

I've only given it a quick read and it's a nice little article, but the author does seem to cherrypick his quotes and philosophers. Especially bringing in Bergson and Deleuze seems strange, in particular because the author at the same time attributes a certain semiotic approach to Deleuze whilst not even citing the Cinéma books. Aside from the Cinéma books I would argue attributing anything semiotic to Deleuze is a serious misreading and misunderstanding of his philosophy. Similarly for Bergson the author cherrypicks Bergson's book on laughter without discussing it in light of Bergson's much more important concepts of duration and élan vital, where any constructed, static analysis or rational approach is exactly not what Bergson wants to put forward. It is an affective approach where life should be - overly simplifying now - experienced in the moment (cf. duration).

Similar to his other approaches, the author brings in the body and the apparatus as some locus of sorts, but doesn't specify what theories he's following for either - it just reads as he's using some hip buzzwords to make ... what point exactly? That the fight for cinema is over? It was over before the talkies even came around - moreover, there was never a fight for cinema. It has always been about capital and whilst I love Walter Benjamin, it is not because Benjamin writes that way about cinema that it was ever the reality at the time. The deciding factor in cinema's history has always been money, more so than anything else. Technological advances come in at a distant second place in revolutionizing cinema. 3D, stereo sound, and (almost) everything we now think of as modern cinema (everything attainable with analogue technology) was available in the 30s. Sound was available from 1889. Synchronised sound with amplified recording was available from 1921 onwards, showcased by De Forest in 1925, but it wasn't until the studios found the winning, i.e., moneymaking, combination, that they invested in converting theatres to sound. The "fight for cinema" was over before it begun, however much ideology you throw at it - it's always been money that decided the fate of cinema.

jnbradi 3 points

This was lifted from a thesis on Bergson, so it "assumes" a bit of understanding, as it begins mid-stride. Attributing anything semiotic to Deleuze is a bit of a misunderstanding? Except for the fact that Deleuze wrote the book on semiotics (LoS).

I didn't read Timofei's point as being nostalgic to when there actually was some "fight for cinema" going on, but rather pointing out at how in it's inception, there were theorists (ala Benjamin) developing excitement about what it could hold. The 90's era internet optimism tells us a very similar tale about this potential that exists in a new form when it emerges. Is that all naivete? Or, rather, is the insight when the medium is fresh worth returning to to see possible modes of short circuiting, lines of flight, etc etc? That's how I read the 'moral' of the story, or the "point" as you put it. Though, there isn't a rosey picture here. It also seems demonstrative of a pattern we seem doomed to repeat.

And the "reduction to money" argument is always the laziest. You can apply it to anything. Of course capital is the "prime mover" of anything you can point your finger to - we can barely conceptualize anything beyond the horizon of power conceptualized in this monetary way. There are no artists, only producers. No experiences, merely consumptions. Sex even; prostitution - 'the oldest profession', or whatever, etc etc. Cinema's all money. So is Picasso and pistachio nuts and bio-ethics. And?

jnbradi commented on a post in r/CriticalTheory
ElinorShenhav 2 points

That was a very thought-provoking read. So, umm, first of all I want to thank you for bringing it up. Personally, it comes about immediately after I finished reading John Law's book (I wrote a bit about it a few days ago), which basically argues, although from a different standpoint, that there is more than one truth, that subject is not a universal term, or concept, or idea. Where Law's point shines and this essay's stumbles, at least for my two pence, is in the ability to translate from one state of affairs, from one hermeneutic horizon to the other one, whatever each of them will be. Law's argument suggests that such a translation is hard, imprecise, close-but-not-exact, and yet (and this is the important point) that it is possible. The linked essay doesn't stress such a possibility. And for me, as a student for sociology, anthropology, English and American studies (which basically means lots of transitions between cultural conceptual apparatuses), this lack basically goes against everything that I'm hoping to achieve.

What I'm missing, in other words, is liminality. There is a beautiful book by Janice Radway, I think, called "Reading the Romance", which made a sociological analysis of how women readers understood the romance books they were reading. While aiming to show, to argue for the plethora of readings made, in action, by a public that wasn't (and still isn't) highly regarded intellectually wise, it unintentionally showed that those different readings do collide, do converge in certain places, that there is also a lot of common ground. What I'm aiming to argue with this comment, in other words, is the exact same thing: there is a plethora of readings, of conceptions, of concepts. But they also meet. But they are also somewhat translatable.

(I'm also a bit tired of the claim that language equals culture, but that is a different topic for a different post.)

jnbradi 2 points

Thanks for the thoughtful response (I'm the author). Personally, I don't think the picture I presented forecloses the possibility of translatability; merely to sketch out the nature of the structures such that translation is necessary. We can't just take it for granted that terms like "subject" refer unproblematically to some essential kernel. Though, I didn't really get into the possibilities of translation, so thanks for bringing it up, and putting me onto John Law!

The "language culture" thing indeed can get a bit tiring. I should have been clearer in my assumptions in that "frustration" discussion - that is; it seems reasonably safe to me that the absence of a term from a lexicon is a sign of that cluster of things the term refers to not mattering to the people who use that lexicon - as in, it doesn't "come up" very often, so there's no need for a term for it. That could be because language limits horizons yada yada, or perhaps it's just simply that it is not present, or that it does not matter. Though perhaps I'm being a bit naive in that assumption and using language as an interpretive "canary in the coal mine" tool.

Anyway, I hope the article offered a couple of leads from Nietzsche and Freud that might be of use to you and what you're working on!

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 5 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 3 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!

view more:
next ›
4,937 Karma
4,258 Post Karma
679 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