I appreciate the effort here, but wow this is too long.
yeah, it's kind of habit, I'll try to make others shorter if I end up doing them still
First, and you almost acknowledge this with the AA comparison, is it's totally non-unique to TRP.
i don't think it's unique to trp, that also wasn't my point. in fact, i think there's not that much stuff that actually is unique to trp
Second, you've built an inappropriate relationship between science and truth, while simultaneously using authors like Plato and Heidegger who do not understand Truth in a scientific sense.
i'm not trying to make a statement about the relationship between science and truth in this, if it comes across that way then i done fucked up. when i mention science and truth, im mostly trying to look at how trp uses them. and trp certainly views science in such a way, at least in my opinion, while also not being entirely supported by science (generally. there's a lot of room and back-and-forth here, etc, but im on mobile atm so i'll just leave it at that). and i'm not saying this is different from how most other people view science and truth, nonrpers link studies on ppd all the time.
so i dont think we are disagree, maybe i am just misrepresenting what i meant to say.
Basically Plato, Arisototle, Hegel, Heidegger, Foucalt, etc. are deeply critical of huge range of conversations, and I don't think you've done enough here to show that the ambiguity present on TRP is somehow exceptionally bad or deliberate in some way.
i haven't done the sections on those yet, so yeah, i haven't done enough to show that
based on what you said about heidegger, i don't think we disagree in our readings of heidegger -- or of trp, for that matter -- but, as i haven't actually started talking about heidegger yet (if i get to it), i feel like your post is mostly making a lot of assumptions about how i interpret heidegger.
basically i wanted to talk about heidegger and gadamer in regards to language being the house of being and beings being in meaning through language (for gadamer, i think they could only be in meaning through language). like, nothing too out-there as far as heidegger goes, though i know heidegger is pretty out there already, but you get what i mean.
the purpose of examing heidegger was to look at the role of language and begin to talk about sex and sexuality and how they are figured discursively. there's definitely other people i could work with on that, but i feel if i go too contemporary it puts off rpers, so i thought maybe heidegger would be a good place to start
Anyway, bringing in Aristotle and Heidegger etc. to criticize a group of 20-30 year olds on the internet is like using an atomic bomb to demolish an old office building
yeah, i hear ya. i'll definitely, uh, be more careful with this shit next time.
actually, well, if there is actually any interest and i can get around to it, i'll run it by ya'll (the mods) before posting then next one