Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Zoobot]

ChopChae: I'm not thinking of the Birth of Tragedy, an excellent book on Aesthetics; I'm speaking of a little 80-page tome that is a survey of pre-socratic philosophy (Pythagoras, Thales, Anaximander, Dieogenes, etc.). I seriously had an intellectual orgasm near the end of the book.

[tfunk]

Alan Watts, although he's more of a great 'non-thinker'.

[Woland]

[Slep]

Marshall Mcluhin, if you don't mind his fundamentalist streak, has some really fascinating things to say about the creatin of hte internet.

Ayn Rand had written some great books about human nature, in particularl the supremecay of hte individual.

John Rawls's original position is my favourite philosophical justification ever.

J Steiglitz - globalization and its discontents

N. Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent (while he went a bit loopy in his later years, this book is neccessary for anyone studying media)

bell hooks can be fun.

[Zoobot]

From that transcript Chomsky:

"It seems to me that one might speculate a bit further speculate in this case, since we're talking about the future, not the past-and ask whether the concept of human nature or of innate organising mechanisms or of intrinsic mental schematism or whatever we want to call it, I don't see much difference between them, but let's call it human nature for shorthand, might not provide for biology the next peak to try to scale, after having-at least in the minds of the biologists, though one might perhaps question this-already answered to the satisfaction of some the question of what is life."

That's what I call muddy thinking/speaking. I don't know what the hell he is talking about.

This is a breath of fresh air in comparison:

The history of knowledge has tried for a long time to obey two claims. One is the claim of attribution: each discovery should not only be situated and dated, but should also be attributed to someone; it should have an inventor and someone responsible for it. General or collective phenomena on the other hand, those which by definition can't be "attributed", are normally devalued: they are still traditionally described through words like "tradition', "mentality", "modes"; and one lets them play the negative role of a brake in relation to the "originality" of the inventor. In brief, this has to do with the principle of the sovereignty of the subject applied to the history of knowledge. The other claim is that which no longer allows us to save the subject, but the truth: so that it won't be compromised by history, it is necessary not that the truth constitutes itself in history, but only that it reveals itself in it; hidden to men's eyes, provisionally inaccessible, sitting in the shadows, it will wait to be unveiled. The history of truth would be essentially its delay, its fall or the disappearance of the obstacles which have impeded it until now from coming to light. The historical dimension of knowledge is always negative in relation to the truth. It isn't difficult to see how these two claims were adjusted, one to the other: the phenomena of collective order, the "common thought", the "prejudices" of the "myths" of a period, constituted the obstacles which the subject of knowledge had to surmount or to outlive in order to have access finally to the truth; he had to be in an "eccentric" position in order to "discover". At one level this seems to be invoking a certain "romanticism" about the history of science: the solitude of the man of truth, the originality which reopened itself onto the original through history and despite it. I think that, more fundamentally, it's a matter of superimposing the theory of knowledge and the subject of knowledge on the history of knowledge.

In what Foucault said right there you can see some of the reasons why there are tensions between foreigners and Koreans as exemplified by the antagonisms displayed on this board. Korea self-identifies as a collective culture. Our history of thought has traditionally devalued collective action and investigation. Clarity, man, clarity.

[Zoobot]

Ok, I just read that Chomsky quote again, and I think I am starting to piece together his syntax. Such grammatical obfuscation of a fairly simple thought!

[Satori]

[pastis]

[Grimalkin]

Okay it looks as tho' I will almost definitely be adding Foucault and Nietzsche to my reading list but..........


...are they accessible to a complete beginner like myself?

To be honest I am finding the Foucault extract below a little difficult to understand.

Should I be starting with simpler stuff? My major was a science major and while I can cope with popular science books (a brief history of time, the elegant universe etc) I might be way out of my depths in other fields and probably need recommendations that would be suitable for a novice.

[Satori]

[cbclark4]

[pastis]

[Rteacher]

OK, I'll modify my position and state that Bhaktivedanta Swami was "one of the greatest thinkers" of modern times. Here's a small sample of his thinking:

...We must know the present need of human society. And what is that need? Human society is no longer bounded by geographical limits to particular countries or communities. Human society is broader than in the middle ages, and the world tendency is toward one state or one human society. The ideals of spiritual communism, according to Srimad-Bhagavatam, are based more or less on the oneness of the entire human society, nay, of the entire energy of living beings. The need is felt by great thinkers to make this a sucessful ideology. Srimad-Bhagavatam will fill this need in human society. It begins, therefore, with the aphorism of Vedanta philosophy janmady asya yatha to establish the ideal of a common cause.

Human society, at the present moment, is not in the darkness of oblivion. It has made rapid progress in the field of material comforts, education and economic development throughout the entire world. But there is a pinprick somewhere in the social body at large, and therefore there are large-scale quarrels, even over less important issues. There is need of a clue as to how humanity can become one in peace, friendship and prosperity with a common cause. Srimad-Bhagavatam will fill this need, for it is a cultural presentation for the respiritualization of the entire human society...
http://www.prabhupadaconnect.com/Bhagavatam_Preface.html

[Grimalkin]

Rteacher The guy may well be a great thinker but the passage you quoted certainly doesn't illustrate that.

He starts of by telling us

[Slep]