(no subject)
Nov. 13th, 2006 09:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
floweranzaA STERLING AND VERY POTENT ESSAY ON EXISTENTIALISM AS A VERY REPUTABLE AND FASCINATING STUDY.
Subtitle: Existentialism breeds crazies and smells like chimp.
I would like to extend some more on my conclusion that Sartre was the man. Okay. Let us start at a lousy, existentialist beginning, it be existence precedes essence or so. Right. Anyway, so, philosophy was trucking along and humming to a merry tune of dualism, and Kant and you know, Socrates and his gigantic ego and snack of bee resin, (he did that), and the occasional frat parties at liberal arts colleges. DARK AGES. (Me skipping around in history shall not affect the accuracy of my completely unbiased account in any way.) Then – kind of like that one religion Christianity / other religion / other religion – something breaks off from the norm. It’s like a little tumor growing on the branch of philosophy. It’s like a flapper, except not very female or buzzed, to say the truth, but pretty out there all the same. It wasn’t called it then, but it was an acne-like seed of EXISTENTIALISM.
Trumpet fanfare.
(It’s actually existentializzle, but people don’t like being formal, so existentialism it is.)
We eventually get types like Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus and Sartre. They are all crazy people – for one part because they chose to do philosophy, which is a profession fit for sending someone straight to the crazyhouse – and for another part because they all look very silly and have keg parties at frat houses at liberal arts colleges. Oh, philosophers.
TO GET FURTHER TO THE POINT.
Existentialism was to a lot of people an evil, evil, pesky little bugger kind of thing. To a lot of others it was simply a source of hilarity, because existentialists had names like ‘Soren Kierkegaard,’ which is a hoot. Hegel wrote about Spirit and Phenomena, which by my own experience is a HORRIBLY UNREADABLE AND UTTERLY UNEXCITING PAPER, but as I am unbiased, I would like to say that he was simply crazy. Kierkegaard was a brilliant individual – bringing upon himself years of student mockery to come (Kieeeerkegaaaard) – and so thus he makes his legacy in the ‘field’ of philosophy. (I say field because that’s where the philosophy students usually are when they start getting beat up by other people. There’s a possibility that I might be a philosophy student to some extent. I shall avoid these ‘fields.’)
Now, Nietzsche is an interesting sort, but alas! He too fell into a black hole and was forever condemned to eating peanuts (after his mind boomfed because he chose to study philosophy – children, do not try it at home), as he dared write Thus Sprak Zarathustra. No, Zarathustra did not sprak. He spoke. Essentially I hold a lot of respect for Nietzsche and his NIHILISM! war chant, but once again and like all the others he was a crazy man.
As I never understood a single word Heidegger wrote besides ‘MAN,’ the sexist pig, I would like to say that he was especially crazy and specialized in the fine art of the translations of his work grossly overusing hyphens. The pain will never end. Camus wrote in English. Good on him. He’s also of the model-type, and because he probably never did get beat up in his time as a philosopher, I will now be inherently furious and jealous and will put the Stranger next to ‘Gods of Aberdeen.’ An insult worse than this cannot be had.
And then came the shining star of Sartre. To experience the full effect of the writer’s intent, the writer strongly recommends that the reader direct themselves to Google Images, merrily type in ‘sartre,’ and at that point should have attained a very large piece of paper upon which the image of Sartre’s happy visage can be printed to be tacked up upon the wall. For the record, Sartre never looks at you. His eyes are simply too far apart. He is FO’ SHO’ a sight for sore eyes. One can never have a lack of jokes to be made about Sartre, our shining example of modern existentialist thought and handsome bachelor extraordinare.
AP PSYCHOLOGY, YOU KNOW NOT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
FOR THAT IS THE MESSIEST HANDWRITING THAT HATH EVER FLOWN ON INKY WINGS FROM MY NERVOUSLY TWITCHING HAND.
YOU CANNOT RECOGNIZE ‘PSYCHOANALYTIC’ AS PSYCHOANALYTIC –
Instead it seems to somehow look a bit like ‘BEHAVIORAL’
WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC AS I DESCRIBED PSYCHOANALYTIC.
FAITH RUNS ETERNAL.
Most of the time.
THE REST OF THE TIME IS SPENT SQUATTING IN BLACK HOLES ON THE OUTER FRINGES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND EATING PEANUTS.
PEANUTS ARE THE BREAD OF BRAIN MATTER.
NEURONS.
AND SYNAPSES.
IT MAKES SENSE.
(UNLIKE D&D, WHICH NEITHER ME OR PSYCHOLOGY SHALL EVER UNDERSTAND.)
(I JUST DON’T GET IT.)
Subtitle: Existentialism breeds crazies and smells like chimp.
I would like to extend some more on my conclusion that Sartre was the man. Okay. Let us start at a lousy, existentialist beginning, it be existence precedes essence or so. Right. Anyway, so, philosophy was trucking along and humming to a merry tune of dualism, and Kant and you know, Socrates and his gigantic ego and snack of bee resin, (he did that), and the occasional frat parties at liberal arts colleges. DARK AGES. (Me skipping around in history shall not affect the accuracy of my completely unbiased account in any way.) Then – kind of like that one religion Christianity / other religion / other religion – something breaks off from the norm. It’s like a little tumor growing on the branch of philosophy. It’s like a flapper, except not very female or buzzed, to say the truth, but pretty out there all the same. It wasn’t called it then, but it was an acne-like seed of EXISTENTIALISM.
Trumpet fanfare.
(It’s actually existentializzle, but people don’t like being formal, so existentialism it is.)
We eventually get types like Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus and Sartre. They are all crazy people – for one part because they chose to do philosophy, which is a profession fit for sending someone straight to the crazyhouse – and for another part because they all look very silly and have keg parties at frat houses at liberal arts colleges. Oh, philosophers.
TO GET FURTHER TO THE POINT.
Existentialism was to a lot of people an evil, evil, pesky little bugger kind of thing. To a lot of others it was simply a source of hilarity, because existentialists had names like ‘Soren Kierkegaard,’ which is a hoot. Hegel wrote about Spirit and Phenomena, which by my own experience is a HORRIBLY UNREADABLE AND UTTERLY UNEXCITING PAPER, but as I am unbiased, I would like to say that he was simply crazy. Kierkegaard was a brilliant individual – bringing upon himself years of student mockery to come (Kieeeerkegaaaard) – and so thus he makes his legacy in the ‘field’ of philosophy. (I say field because that’s where the philosophy students usually are when they start getting beat up by other people. There’s a possibility that I might be a philosophy student to some extent. I shall avoid these ‘fields.’)
Now, Nietzsche is an interesting sort, but alas! He too fell into a black hole and was forever condemned to eating peanuts (after his mind boomfed because he chose to study philosophy – children, do not try it at home), as he dared write Thus Sprak Zarathustra. No, Zarathustra did not sprak. He spoke. Essentially I hold a lot of respect for Nietzsche and his NIHILISM! war chant, but once again and like all the others he was a crazy man.
As I never understood a single word Heidegger wrote besides ‘MAN,’ the sexist pig, I would like to say that he was especially crazy and specialized in the fine art of the translations of his work grossly overusing hyphens. The pain will never end. Camus wrote in English. Good on him. He’s also of the model-type, and because he probably never did get beat up in his time as a philosopher, I will now be inherently furious and jealous and will put the Stranger next to ‘Gods of Aberdeen.’ An insult worse than this cannot be had.
And then came the shining star of Sartre. To experience the full effect of the writer’s intent, the writer strongly recommends that the reader direct themselves to Google Images, merrily type in ‘sartre,’ and at that point should have attained a very large piece of paper upon which the image of Sartre’s happy visage can be printed to be tacked up upon the wall. For the record, Sartre never looks at you. His eyes are simply too far apart. He is FO’ SHO’ a sight for sore eyes. One can never have a lack of jokes to be made about Sartre, our shining example of modern existentialist thought and handsome bachelor extraordinare.
AP PSYCHOLOGY, YOU KNOW NOT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
FOR THAT IS THE MESSIEST HANDWRITING THAT HATH EVER FLOWN ON INKY WINGS FROM MY NERVOUSLY TWITCHING HAND.
YOU CANNOT RECOGNIZE ‘PSYCHOANALYTIC’ AS PSYCHOANALYTIC –
Instead it seems to somehow look a bit like ‘BEHAVIORAL’
WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC AS I DESCRIBED PSYCHOANALYTIC.
FAITH RUNS ETERNAL.
Most of the time.
THE REST OF THE TIME IS SPENT SQUATTING IN BLACK HOLES ON THE OUTER FRINGES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND EATING PEANUTS.
PEANUTS ARE THE BREAD OF BRAIN MATTER.
NEURONS.
AND SYNAPSES.
IT MAKES SENSE.
(UNLIKE D&D, WHICH NEITHER ME OR PSYCHOLOGY SHALL EVER UNDERSTAND.)
(I JUST DON’T GET IT.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-14 02:12 am (UTC)You should definitely send that to Maureen. Or Danimal. Or just post in on the EXIT blog (does anyone even use that?). For it is genius.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-14 02:45 am (UTC)It's not finished, but I do believe I deserve a prize.
HOORAH!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-14 03:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-14 03:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-14 04:16 pm (UTC)But we can pretend it is. Think this should be one of my college essays in the future? It's that good! ;)