I mean... really.
I mean... really.
They can't get their act together to be as disgusting as the Americans.
Europeans have a habit of reminding us that they share so much in common with so many Americans, one might suspect that they share common roots.
The Enlightenment. Everything just started going down hill after that.
hi Nacreous,nice to see u again here^^
on topic:well,what do europeans have??I'm european...what's wrong with that?
Whats is wrong with Europeans?
There's so many of them, i cant meet them all
Interesting, that's what my sociology Professor says. He says Kant, Marx, Descartes et al fucked us up.Originally Posted by Nacreous
In this sense we can blame the student who misappropriates the reasoning of such inspired people, as Descartes.
Kant is in another category, well open to the thought that his genius was more on the side of madness.
Marx would appear to be receiving a new found interest, during the current financial markets turmoil.
Kant and Descartes and Marx (order or importance) represent the foundations of the world in which the West represents something in the international scenario, for all the retroactive interpretations or Europe being anything resembling a powerhouse before 1500-1600. Before that, Europe was a jumble of old meaningless traditions and fresh forces confusely striving to exert their full powers.
Kant in particular represents something going beyond the world as we know it, in the West or anywhere else in any past or future era.
If we have to tell all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, this is the most corrosive element in the whole foundation of the Western world:
Scruff .....and a bit of body odor perhaps...
Greece, the Roman Empire and the Byzantine and Holy Roman who wanted to be just another Roman Empire were not "Europe" yet. You could as well have cited Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations as "Europe". In fact, they are all often cited as such, but only in the same slipshod and romantic way that the Chinese talk of their country as having "5000 years of history": in that case we are talking of a cultural area, but not of a consistent tradition. It's like when Iraqis say that "they" were building cities when Westerners still lived in caverns (my ass!). Some particular American or European can have more in common with an ancient Assyrian or Sumerian than any average Iraqi.
What is called "Renaissance" is a late medieval movement, which in part fucked up the posterior intellectual development in the continent (I mean by that the totally fucked up logics... no... the total absence of and disdain for logics in literary Humanism) but had at least the merit of breaking up the old shackles definitely.
The real "Renaissance" began right after the Leonardos and Michelangelos who were just demolishing old traditions to make room for a later development of new ones: you can take the visual example of that in Vatican St. Peter's.
Your vision of history is the typical one, established by Europe, of succesive more or less exotic rooms in a single house. Here the Greek, there is, there that... all considered diachronically in exactly the same manipulating and pseudo-scientific way the Chinese think today of their 56 ethnicities.
The real Renaissance had its genesis in Moorish Spain, before spreading to Italy.
I trust that you will consider changing your choice of wine, for it would appear to have corroded your capacity to rationalise European history.
Those whom we call teachers were once students themselves. Their students often became teachers in their own right. There are countless examples of students who debunked what their teachers taught them. Durkheim and Mauss are the first I think of. As long as we place those who went before us on pedestals we'll always be looking up to them instead of looking to ourselves and realising that we too can formulate great ideas by which to lead our lives.Originally Posted by kallipolis
A signpost is only an indicator to where we want to go - it isn't the destination.
They think they're high class and supposedly think they're more sophisticated and have a better fashion sense than us Americans.
They also have a thing called "tea time". That's right. Tea time.
Those snooty bastards. Making a time just for sipping on their organic tea whilst nibbling on their lo carb crackers and discussing current events. Just who the hell do they think they are?
The fact that they consider themselves the enlightened ones makes me sick.
USA 4 LYFE!
Further if the student becomes the master, of his teacher should we then presume that the student was always worthier of our adulation than his teacher?
Originally Posted by belamy
Descarte's and Kant's philosophy are full of that.
Marx was in reaction to it. He was a seriously fucked up man.
Kant was OCD to the point of being incapable of living a 'normal' life.
I never said every teacher had a student that debunked him. The premise of my argument is not all teachers that are held in high regard remain there or deserve to be there - there have been other philosophers who disagreed with Descartes such as Hobbs and Berkeley. Just because certain philosophers had a huge influence doesn't mean they were right or deserved that influence - many times that influence came about through political affiliations. Descartes served in two royal courts AFAIK.Originally Posted by kallipolis
edit: As for the second part of your question (kinda silly one K) - there may well be someone sitting on the bus beside you who someday you will look up to and admire - you can't know that until they realise their potential. Unrealised potential must 'become'.
Haven't I already said that?
You see? You are doing it again: all that ever was of any interest to the Europeans they NOW (YOU are doing it now) call "Europe".
Funniest of it all is when you seem to imply that you are talking about "facts" and "truth" when it's just a received fallacy, take the "Byzantine" for example: they called themselves "Romans" because they were the legitimate part of the Roman Empire that continued to exist after the fall of Rome.
"Byzantine" is the term coined precisely in the era (from 1500-1600 on) in which Europe needed to affirm its own identity because it was clear that they were not just something "coming" or "taking after" other nations and empires, they were getting out of the shadow of Rome and dismantling it (again a perfect example is the use of materials taken from old buildings in Rome to build the churches and palaces in modern Rome) and thus began the reelaboration and manipulation of history that you are defending with all the faith and conviction and vehemence others use when talking about the Bible.
What you call "the real Renaissance" in Moorish Spain is just a part of the Islamic Golden Age (VIIIth-XIIIth/XVIth centuries) but, of course, and like I have already said, you are talking from the European perspective that is interested in assimilating the achievements of a different civilization to its own glories. Those Islamic achievements were produced independently of anything related to the old Mediterranean world, let alone independently of the barbaric proto-Europeans: at most they were produced with them (as far as Christians were citizens) and in spite of those Christians and even in spite of the Islamic world itself, headed already back then to the sorry condition in which it is today.
The Spaniards, who like to showcase an Islamic palace here and a mosque there have NEVER developed any tradtion linking them intellectually to what you called "Moorish Renaissance", very much unlike the British, French or the American, great nations that could acknowledge and use (and to some extent manipulate) those foreign achievements to develop their own.
What you are talking about is, again, of something much less concrete than stones and boundaries, but infinitely more substantial, more important to the development of a sound and healthy (as far as that is possible) civilization. It's putting elements from the past and the force in the present together and bring them in a definite direction towards the future. But since it is all so abstract, it seems easier to think and make others believe that it had "always been there".
You are talking the European Bible
Descartes' maybe, Kant's philosophy (the Kritik, in particular the first one) most certainly not, if you really ever became familiar with Kant's thinking instead of becoming one of those Kantian who would use Kant like a Mormon uses the Evangile. That Kant himself was "full" of the Bible is a different matter.
If you don't see any of that you are the typical European... what the hell... the typical "enlightened" in any country, age and credo who is an erudite in everything and doesn't really understand a shit of anything.
BTW, the obsession of Kant was the development of his philosophy, which he started developing seriously only after he abandoned the merry living he had led up to his 31st year, more or less.
As for Marx, he was against the dogmatism and obscurantism implied in ANY religion, the Christian like the Buddhist, which may have began as "philopsohies of life" blablablablah, and ended up... as Marxism itself ended up: opium and shackles (more or less golden) for the masses
What is wrong with Europeans?
That's what I was asking when I watched America's Next Top Model last night. If anyone else saw it then you know what I mean.
What I'm saying is that you should be aware of precisely what you are saying: that "the history of today's Europe" does not equal with, does not "reflect" what happened in the geographical part of the world called Europe (which is basically a cultural term, you only need to listen American people who are reluctant to call Russia "Europe", or Europeans who won't like the Turks to be called "Europeans", but have no problem in doing so with the Icelanders who haven't even been sad footnote in European history).
Your idea of European history, the official idea of European history (like any other official history) is in fact like one of those old sagas, like the legends surrounding the foundation of Rome or like the French kings dating their ancestry back to Trojan kings.
Ok, i havnt read everything you guys have said about the enlightenment, but it didnt work anyway did it.
It was all a load of nice ideas on paper but in practice, not so practical.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/Kant's Philosophy of Religion
Throughout his career, Immanuel Kant engaged many of the major issues that contemporary philosophy groups together under the heading “philosophy of religion.” These include arguments for the existence of God, the attributes of God, the immortality of the soul, the problem of evil, and the relationship of moral principles to religious belief and practice. In the writings from his so-called “pre-critical” period, i.e., before the publication of the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781, Kant was interested principally in the theoretical status and function of the concept of God. He thus sought to locate the concept of God within a systematically ordered set of basic philosophical principles that account for the order and structure of world. In developing his critical philosophy he proposed a new role for philosophical principles in understanding the order and structure of the world. As a result, the critical project had a significant impact upon his treatment of the status and the role of the concept of God within the theoretical enterprise of metaphysics. In addition, the critical philosophy provided a locus from which Kant could address other important dimensions of the concepts of God and religion more explicitly than he had done in his earlier writings. Chief among these are the moral and the religious import that human beings attribute to the concept of God. In view of these developments in Kant's thinking this entry thus will locate his earlier discussions of these topics within the general philosophical context of his pre-critical period; it will then reference his treatment of these topics after 1781 to key elements of his critical project. It will also highlight issues that remain important for philosophical inquiry into religion. These are the philosophical function of the concept of God, arguments for the existence of God, the relationship between morality and religion (including the notions of “moral faith” and “radical evil”), and the role of religion in the dynamics of human culture and history. A supplementary section, “The Influence of Kant's Philosophy of Religion,” discusses the impact of Kant's account of religion upon subsequent philosophical and theological inquiry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_moralityThe argument from morality is one of several arguments for the existence of God. This argument comes in different forms, all aiming to demonstrate God’s existence from some observations about morality in the world.
Moral order (Kant)
1. The summum bonum (Highest Good) is where moral virtue and happiness coincide.
2. We are rationally obliged to attain the summum bonum.
3. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
4. If there is no god or afterlife, it is not possible to attain the summum bonum.
5. God (or the afterlife) must exist.
Kant's writings are filled with Christian influences. From the concept of good and evil (he never went beyond good and evil) to the concept of immanence - he was basically espousing Christianity through philosophy.
As long as humanity is tied down to believing in a deity or any hand-me-downs from such a deity it will be in ignorance IMO.
Boys, if you know not Greek, German or Swedish, then please avoid philosophy.
As for this thread, I personally prefer the Europeans over most others except the Aussies and Kiwis, and our Canadian neighbors and Mexicano neighbors.
Touch, Arouse Me, Kiss & More!My signature picture was designed for me by Reone.
Talking bollox doesn't disqualify?Originally Posted by Shepherd 2
I don't know. But according to my friend from Belgium, he told me that Europe is much more conservative in some ways than America. He told me that you would never see a black leader voted in. Once Obama gets in, that may change.
Whether that is true or not, I have no idea. He spends half the year in Europe (Belgium & France) and have the year in California.
My friend has been wrong before so I take his information with a grain of salt.
We have Arab Muslims and Black Christian fundamentalists elected as city and county councillors here in Ireland. We have an Arab in our Senate and people from all races and religions ran in the last elections for government (though it was overwhelmingly white and male that won).
Europeans do suck cock the best though. I tell them no teeth and they say none to worry about. Blimey!
Well, that would be easy because Americans simply don't have any sense of style at all.They think they're high class and supposedly think they're more sophisticated and have a better fashion sense than us Americans.
There I COMPLETELY agree with you.The fact that they consider themselves the enlightened ones makes me sick.
USA 4 LYFE!
You're talking about morals there, that's why I particularly singled out his first Kritik (the Kantian imperative is + ), but if you boil down Kant to his morals or to Christianity I doubt you ever actually read his work, even if you have perused it word by word, because it is not so much about his idealist (your reference to the concept of immanence) content as about the road he opens but wouldn't follow himself .... and, please, NOBODY apart from Nietzsche has officially ever tried to go beyond good and evil...
The only way not to believe in a judging deity is by not believing in good and evil... and who would do that when everybody aspires to get rid of a god to become another one themselves or, even worse, replace one by the same one but under a different ritual?