Interview the person below you

Post Reply New Topic

My least favourite fruit is probably passion fruit. Yuck.

What is your least favourite type of vegetable?

Hands down ...celery
Same q

Sprouts.

Same question.

I can't think of any vegetables that I really dislike. I'll say kale though I like it okay.

Do you enjoy driving? Why or why not?

I hate driving. It's too much to keep track of at once. I can do it but it's very stressful. And that's before you consider how many people are terrible drivers and make it more dangerous for the rest of us. Not to mention I'm so tall I literally can't drive most cars. My parents' car is made for tall people and I can drive it, but not comfortably.

Fortunately I live in a very bike friendly city so usually I don't need to drive.

Same q

Love driving.
Cranking the stereo up and drifting around the dirt roads in our forest.
Even the 2 hour drive to the big smoke is enjoyable with the right music.
Same q

I'm not really capable of driving except in situations where there is very little traffic because I can't keep track of everything going on around me, so I almost never drive, and I don't like it.

same q

I don't drive. Terrible motor skills and attention span prevent that. I enjoy being the passenger.

What famous philosopher do you admire and why?

i know prob. nothing on that, i'd choose Cicero, Marcus Tullius Cicero,
mostly bc that was on the school menu

but generally, i don"t think much of modern types, eg, the (neo)lacanian, & la psychanalyse lacanienne
(hi usa;, Lacan was a major figure in Parisian intellectual life for much of the twentieth century; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lacan/ creep, as many in these sectors)
better see wiki for this ; Criticism Theory of psychoanalysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan#Criticism

Former Lacan student Didier Anzieu, in a 1967 article titled "Against Lacan," described him as a "danger" because he kept his students tied to an "unending dependence on an idol, a logic, or a language," by holding out the promise of "fundamental truths" to be revealed "but always at some further point ...and only to those who continued to travel with him."

Lacan's charismatic authority has been linked to the many conflicts among his followers and in the analytic schools he was involved with. His intellectual style has also come in for much criticism. Eclectic in his use of sources, Lacan has been seen as concealing his own thought behind the apparent explication of that of others.

Lacan was criticised for being aggressive with his clients, often physically hitting them, sometimes sleeping with them, and charging "exorbitant amounts of money" for each session
Others have been more forceful still, describing him as "The Shrink from Hell"

there was a great fuss about the lacanian approach to autism, the only and abusive treatement of aut children in france
explaining autism as a lack of 'jouissance' -psychosis of childhood

The autistic mirror in the real: Autism in Lacan’s mirror stage
Abstract
The mirror stage is one of Jacques Lacan’s most well-received metapsychological models in the English-speaking world. In its many renditions Lacan elucidates the different forms of identification that lead to the construction of the Freudian ego. This article utilizes Lacan’s mirror stage to provide a novel perspective on autistic embodiment. It develops an integrative model that accounts for the progression of four distinct forms of autistic identification in the mirror stage; these forms provide the basis for the development of four different clinical trajectories in the treatment of autism. This model is posed as an alternative to the clinical and diagnostic framework associated with the autistic spectrum disorder.

https://shs.cairn.info/revue-champ-laca ... 19?lang=fr
Le malentendu de la jouissance, version lacanienne de la pulsion de mort freudienne -Par Jean-Jacques Gorog

Autisme : les psychanalystes dans « Le Mur »

owell that old rabbithole,

same q

Maybe Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers? I don’t know how famous they are, since they’re both modern philosophers (Dennett died recently, Chalmers is still alive). They’re main characters in the modern debate about consciousness.

Chalmers’ position is that science will never be able to explain basic conscious experience (e.g. what is it like to see pure green color?, how can I know my experience of green is the same as yours or that anyone but me experience anything?). He invented the term “philosophical zombie” (or p-zombie), which I used for my profile. P-zombie is physically the same as normal human, behaves in the same way, has the same beliefs and desires and so on, but doesn’t have any conscious experience. According to Chalmers, p-zombies are theoretically possible and no future science will be able to distinguish between human and p-zombie.

Dennett is his main enemy. He seems conscious experience as some sort of simplified representations of the world, which seem so mysterious because of this simplicity and their lack of precision. They’re an illusion of a sort, but an illusion which can be studied scientifically. If a p-zombie is physically identical, it creates the same illusion. If it has the same neural activity, it believes it has experience, and you can’t believe to have conscious experience without actually having it.

I like Chalmers for the precision of his writing, and Dennett for the fact he tried to write in a way that would be understandable and attractive to non-philosophers (with varying success, though). And I admire both for colorful thought experiments, and that they make philosophy which is not separated from science, but tries to give scientists some insight on how to study such complex subject as consciousness.

same q