Is their an individual in you? doubt it.
-
Re: Heidegger, "Building Dwelling Thinking" should be recommended reading for architecture students IMO. I stumbled upon it by accident when I was researching my final year thesis and I've got to say I continue to find it very inspirational. Admittedly he was rather fond of inventing/reinterpreting words (which are often confused further in translation), but never unnecessarily. I ought to say though that I have only read an English translation (which even then has to employ German/Heideggerian words)- perhaps his original German text is much harder to follow.
-
@jackson said:
Re: Heidegger, "Building Dwelling Thinking" should be recommended reading for architecture students IMO. I stumbled upon it by accident when I was researching my final year thesis and I've got to say I continue to find it very inspirational.
Good tip, thanks. I and my fellow students were once forced to read "Sein und Zeit". Though thankfully not in German.
@jackson said:
Admittedly he was rather fond of inventing/reinterpreting words (which are often confused further in translation), but never unnecessarily.
Making up words, at least in my opinion, introduces a certain amount of innacuracy. Fine for poetry, but not for philosophy. Certainly not when that innacuracy is exploited as a rhetorical means. Err, I'm with Wittgenstein. (As far as I understand him.
)Back to topic:
No need to apologize to GoD, I'd say. None.
-
@mike lucey said:
What DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO DO before you accept an apology at face
value and move on in peace?
They have to convince me that they're sincere. Jimmy has backed down or apologised before and always comes back with the same old same old (in this case incognito). Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.@mike lucey said:
I really now think you actually ENJOY
all this agro and would like nothing better than to see G o D come
back into this thread firing both six-shooters! If he does and was
aiming at YOU I would NOT be in the slightest bit surprised.
Well... that would kind of prove my point wouldn't it?
@mike lucey said:
Quite frankly I think you would deserve it. I would go as far to suggest that I think you now owe an apology to G o D and this forum!
As if. Jimmy Mackel/J1mmy/G o D can launch personal attacks on SCF members, rubbishing their work, questioning their intelligence, making homophobic comments, saying pretty much anything he wants about anyone (except you) and you jump to his defence with a diplomatic pseudo-libertarian flourish....but me simply expressing doubt as to the sincerity of his "apology" (and actually crediting him for his guile) has you demanding an apology from me? Please.
p.s. the best part is Jimmy can now sit back and watch us argue amongst ourselves- now that is check mate. Nice one Jimmy.
-
I can't believe this thread has gone on for 12 pages! but having said that, I need to add my 2 cents to this philisophical discussion. . .or rather 2 cents that I swiped from Monty Python. . .
*Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
'alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.-- Monty Python*I remember just enough of my philosphy courses to screw me up for the rest of my life!
Advertisement