Upload
Login or register

shibe

Last status update:
-
Gender: female
Age: 115
Date Signed Up:7/24/2013
Last Login:9/27/2016
Location:Heard Island and McDonald Islands
Stats
Comment Ranking:#17978
Highest Comment Rank:#432
Comment Thumbs: 7537 total,  9649 ,  2112
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 68% (68/100)
Level 261 Comments: Pure Win → Level 262 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:4
Total Comments Made:28006
FJ Points:6254
http://www.last.fm/user/youthhhh

latest user's comments

#179866 - nevermiiiiiiind  [+] (3 replies) 08/26/2016 on Music - new music, hip hop... 0
#179867 - anon (08/26/2016) [-]
Jw ? Cause that is s1mple
User avatar
#179868 - shibe (08/26/2016) [-]
fuuuuuck really?

when did s1mple get such a puffy face
#179869 - anon (08/26/2016) [-]
Those were the really weird pictures that mlg Columbus had edited. I just have a thing for zoomed in faces
#179864 - is that oink oink  [+] (5 replies) 08/26/2016 on Music - new music, hip hop... 0
User avatar
#179865 - MatthewsGauss (08/26/2016) [-]
?
User avatar
#179866 - shibe (08/26/2016) [-]
nevermiiiiiiind
#179867 - anon (08/26/2016) [-]
Jw ? Cause that is s1mple
User avatar
#179868 - shibe (08/26/2016) [-]
fuuuuuck really?

when did s1mple get such a puffy face
#179869 - anon (08/26/2016) [-]
Those were the really weird pictures that mlg Columbus had edited. I just have a thing for zoomed in faces
#561 - you wont completely understand foucault unless you understand …  [+] (5 replies) 08/25/2016 on teoyeezy's profile 0
User avatar
#566 - marxist (08/25/2016) [-]
And Marx on his own is pretty fucking deep. The first three volumes of Capital are pretty much a full semester on their own. And many of his later works are unfinished or finished by his friend, Engels. Also, Marx and Hegel go together pretty well, because Marx's materialistic dialectic was inspired by Hegel. What Marx does best though is explain Labour Theory of Value.
User avatar
#565 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
I should also add that while the history of philosophy is important to understand in order to put it in context with ideas that followed certain movements, like the enlightenment and important thinkers then, and how certain revolutions happened, learning from philosophy is very different. If it was my discipline and I wanted to be a professor in it, I would learn everything. That's why art history is so important to me - to really understand the whole of things i have to learn about it.
But I'm interested in the ideas, not the order. Like I said, a good writer cites things that came before him and makes this a lot easier. Philosophy isn't a set timeline, it's a circle that changes the points every time something exterior to you, because there's nothing to "completely understand" unless you're studying the objective history of it. If you read a philosophical text, and then three years later read it again, the text will have completely changed. You know what I mean?
User avatar
#564 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
also you forgot Kiekegaard, you should really look into him also
User avatar
#563 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
There's a reason other books exist that explain a lot of that for you

I've read Kant, all of these ideas every philosopher talks about are abstract ideas that (if you're reading a good writer, not Hegel) will be cited in the text. Tolstoy's What is Art spent the entire first half citing and explaining important past aesthetic theories

I've taken a few college courses in classes of no more than 15 people about this stuff, I don't need to follow a strict timeline of firsthand sources to understand ideas presented in contemporary text
User avatar
#562 - shibe (08/25/2016) [-]
oh yeah, to get kant you really need to understand what was happening with metaphysics up to his point, so take a step back and try hume, but to really get hume you... just fucking start with the greeks man
#559 - have you read on the genealogy of morality?  [+] (7 replies) 08/25/2016 on teoyeezy's profile 0
User avatar
#560 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
nah mane, never looked into him tbh
User avatar
#561 - shibe (08/25/2016) [-]
you wont completely understand foucault unless you understand his methodology

fuck man, you're like skipping a hell of a lot of continental tradition just straight jumping to foucault, i don't know how you understand anything since foucault can be a bit dense at times

it's almost necessary to be familiar with Nietzsche, Freud and Hegel before going right into Foucault. You should probably be familiar with Marx, Kant and Heidegger if you're gonna explore any other views similar to his. Without them, you'll get an incomplete interpretation. Also Levi-Strauss for just getting structualism in general.

I know it's a lot, but it's been what I've been working on for a little over a year now. I've gotten to be pretty familiar with the popular ideas of most popular continental figures, and it's extremely rewarding and eye-opening, but you can't really get post-modern figures unless you understand the guys listed above since they all pretty much root from them. Fuck man, I'd say it'd be impossible to understand anything made after the 1900's without knowing those guys and a few more. I'm not saying you have to read all their major texts (like fuck me if I'm gonna read Critique of Pure Reason, even though I have it and tried), but be able to understand their arguments. Philosophy works like a sort of progression with the guys arguing with the guys right before them.

If you're gonna do it, I'll give you a timeline.

Kant pretty much a necessary for understanding philosophy completely, you may not need his huge work on epistemology, but definitely get his ethics down -> Hegel (You won't completely understand this guy, he was probably the worst writer ever. No one really understands this guy except for like a few german dudes right after him, sadly one of those guys was Marx. But he's extremely influential, be able to understand the Hegelian Dialectic and the Master/Slave dialectic) -> Marx What do I have to say. An absolute must for too many reasons, be sure to understand his Marxist Dialectics, Historical Materialism, Base and Superstructure and Class Conflict , make sure to those three in that order

After that, you could probably do nietzsche and freud whenever because they're easier to absorb (although nietzsche can at times be pretty confusing, you really only need his geneology of morality understood and his general philosophy)

after that, make sure you get hegel, like you really gotta get hegel, he's hard but you gotta get him

move on to husserl, after husserl, read up on heidegger and ponty, after those two get to understand sartre, once you think you get phenomenology, read them all again

then get to structuralism, so get knowledgable on early linguistics and semiotics like levi-strauss and i guess barthes, lacan will be a bit of a step ahead of freud, so he's probably worth knowing too

after that, have a bit of general knowledge on sociology, marx will help with this a lot since he was the father of sociology, but it's good to know a lot of the popular figures like max weber and durkheim

then you'll probably half get foucault

yes this is a lot, and no i don't understand them all either, i still don't understand hegel, but i get the general ideas of a lot of these guys and it really messes with you

like seriously, just stay away from foucault and sociology, it's depressing, like honestly depressing, there is no happiness in capitalist societies, just read nietzsche and leave

User avatar
#566 - marxist (08/25/2016) [-]
And Marx on his own is pretty fucking deep. The first three volumes of Capital are pretty much a full semester on their own. And many of his later works are unfinished or finished by his friend, Engels. Also, Marx and Hegel go together pretty well, because Marx's materialistic dialectic was inspired by Hegel. What Marx does best though is explain Labour Theory of Value.
User avatar
#565 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
I should also add that while the history of philosophy is important to understand in order to put it in context with ideas that followed certain movements, like the enlightenment and important thinkers then, and how certain revolutions happened, learning from philosophy is very different. If it was my discipline and I wanted to be a professor in it, I would learn everything. That's why art history is so important to me - to really understand the whole of things i have to learn about it.
But I'm interested in the ideas, not the order. Like I said, a good writer cites things that came before him and makes this a lot easier. Philosophy isn't a set timeline, it's a circle that changes the points every time something exterior to you, because there's nothing to "completely understand" unless you're studying the objective history of it. If you read a philosophical text, and then three years later read it again, the text will have completely changed. You know what I mean?
User avatar
#564 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
also you forgot Kiekegaard, you should really look into him also
User avatar
#563 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
There's a reason other books exist that explain a lot of that for you

I've read Kant, all of these ideas every philosopher talks about are abstract ideas that (if you're reading a good writer, not Hegel) will be cited in the text. Tolstoy's What is Art spent the entire first half citing and explaining important past aesthetic theories

I've taken a few college courses in classes of no more than 15 people about this stuff, I don't need to follow a strict timeline of firsthand sources to understand ideas presented in contemporary text
User avatar
#562 - shibe (08/25/2016) [-]
oh yeah, to get kant you really need to understand what was happening with metaphysics up to his point, so take a step back and try hume, but to really get hume you... just fucking start with the greeks man
#2207438 - sorry 08/25/2016 on FJ Backroom +1
#557 - i haven't read anything by him, but i'm familiar with him …  [+] (9 replies) 08/25/2016 on teoyeezy's profile 0
User avatar
#558 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
his stuff is pretty hard to get too but i'm liking his historical input on everything

I jus am reading one of his books right now so i wanted to mention it
User avatar
#559 - shibe (08/25/2016) [-]
have you read on the genealogy of morality?
User avatar
#560 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
nah mane, never looked into him tbh
User avatar
#561 - shibe (08/25/2016) [-]
you wont completely understand foucault unless you understand his methodology

fuck man, you're like skipping a hell of a lot of continental tradition just straight jumping to foucault, i don't know how you understand anything since foucault can be a bit dense at times

it's almost necessary to be familiar with Nietzsche, Freud and Hegel before going right into Foucault. You should probably be familiar with Marx, Kant and Heidegger if you're gonna explore any other views similar to his. Without them, you'll get an incomplete interpretation. Also Levi-Strauss for just getting structualism in general.

I know it's a lot, but it's been what I've been working on for a little over a year now. I've gotten to be pretty familiar with the popular ideas of most popular continental figures, and it's extremely rewarding and eye-opening, but you can't really get post-modern figures unless you understand the guys listed above since they all pretty much root from them. Fuck man, I'd say it'd be impossible to understand anything made after the 1900's without knowing those guys and a few more. I'm not saying you have to read all their major texts (like fuck me if I'm gonna read Critique of Pure Reason, even though I have it and tried), but be able to understand their arguments. Philosophy works like a sort of progression with the guys arguing with the guys right before them.

If you're gonna do it, I'll give you a timeline.

Kant pretty much a necessary for understanding philosophy completely, you may not need his huge work on epistemology, but definitely get his ethics down -> Hegel (You won't completely understand this guy, he was probably the worst writer ever. No one really understands this guy except for like a few german dudes right after him, sadly one of those guys was Marx. But he's extremely influential, be able to understand the Hegelian Dialectic and the Master/Slave dialectic) -> Marx What do I have to say. An absolute must for too many reasons, be sure to understand his Marxist Dialectics, Historical Materialism, Base and Superstructure and Class Conflict , make sure to those three in that order

After that, you could probably do nietzsche and freud whenever because they're easier to absorb (although nietzsche can at times be pretty confusing, you really only need his geneology of morality understood and his general philosophy)

after that, make sure you get hegel, like you really gotta get hegel, he's hard but you gotta get him

move on to husserl, after husserl, read up on heidegger and ponty, after those two get to understand sartre, once you think you get phenomenology, read them all again

then get to structuralism, so get knowledgable on early linguistics and semiotics like levi-strauss and i guess barthes, lacan will be a bit of a step ahead of freud, so he's probably worth knowing too

after that, have a bit of general knowledge on sociology, marx will help with this a lot since he was the father of sociology, but it's good to know a lot of the popular figures like max weber and durkheim

then you'll probably half get foucault

yes this is a lot, and no i don't understand them all either, i still don't understand hegel, but i get the general ideas of a lot of these guys and it really messes with you

like seriously, just stay away from foucault and sociology, it's depressing, like honestly depressing, there is no happiness in capitalist societies, just read nietzsche and leave

User avatar
#566 - marxist (08/25/2016) [-]
And Marx on his own is pretty fucking deep. The first three volumes of Capital are pretty much a full semester on their own. And many of his later works are unfinished or finished by his friend, Engels. Also, Marx and Hegel go together pretty well, because Marx's materialistic dialectic was inspired by Hegel. What Marx does best though is explain Labour Theory of Value.
User avatar
#565 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
I should also add that while the history of philosophy is important to understand in order to put it in context with ideas that followed certain movements, like the enlightenment and important thinkers then, and how certain revolutions happened, learning from philosophy is very different. If it was my discipline and I wanted to be a professor in it, I would learn everything. That's why art history is so important to me - to really understand the whole of things i have to learn about it.
But I'm interested in the ideas, not the order. Like I said, a good writer cites things that came before him and makes this a lot easier. Philosophy isn't a set timeline, it's a circle that changes the points every time something exterior to you, because there's nothing to "completely understand" unless you're studying the objective history of it. If you read a philosophical text, and then three years later read it again, the text will have completely changed. You know what I mean?
User avatar
#564 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
also you forgot Kiekegaard, you should really look into him also
User avatar
#563 - teoyeezy (08/25/2016) [-]
There's a reason other books exist that explain a lot of that for you

I've read Kant, all of these ideas every philosopher talks about are abstract ideas that (if you're reading a good writer, not Hegel) will be cited in the text. Tolstoy's What is Art spent the entire first half citing and explaining important past aesthetic theories

I've taken a few college courses in classes of no more than 15 people about this stuff, I don't need to follow a strict timeline of firsthand sources to understand ideas presented in contemporary text
User avatar
#562 - shibe (08/25/2016) [-]
oh yeah, to get kant you really need to understand what was happening with metaphysics up to his point, so take a step back and try hume, but to really get hume you... just fucking start with the greeks man
#179753 - Picture  [+] (1 reply) 08/25/2016 on Music - new music, hip hop... 0
User avatar
#179811 - caet (08/25/2016) [-]
gun club was good