as an introduction to existentialism this work tends to allow for Barrett's preferences to take hold of actual facts. not that his notions and opinionas an introduction to existentialism this work tends to allow for Barrett's preferences to take hold of actual facts. not that his notions and opinions are clouded, but simply for an introduction it is opinionated. such as, a clear dislike of sartre is exposed via his adamant dismissal whereas heidegger amounts to a personal loved-one. nevertheless it still holds as a profound and enormous project in pinpointing the meaning of this errant philosophy; Irrational Man holds as worth reading and deconstructing.
my main disappointments with the work is Barrett's dismissal of nietzsche's Will to Power as basic marxism; not only to the lack of similarities but also to the author's seeming disgust at the concept of power and his portrayal of power as a main problem with modern man. this not only fails to take into account the Will to Power in heideggerian terms of Being, but instead leaves it on the same level of Sartre's Being-in-itself, or rather in a way that can only objectify or be applied over objects. essentially Barrett repeats the very methods he disparages....more
'As being is to becoming, so is pure intellect to opinion. And as intellect is to opinion, so is science to belief, and understanding to the perceptio'As being is to becoming, so is pure intellect to opinion. And as intellect is to opinion, so is science to belief, and understanding to the perception of shadows.'
Being begets Knowledge, Becoming begets Opinion. [Clause One:], this inference entailed by Plato states that true philosophers strive for knowledge of the eternal by perceiving being and ideals in themselves, i.e. Good. [Clause Two:], states that all humans are in want of Goodness so they seek it, thus it is virtuous to do [Clause One:]. Add dialectics, straw-man arguments, and dogmatic errors concerning being and thus the Republic. If you disagree on either two clauses be prepared to be deadened by endless ‘dialogue’, which is really a soliloquy. Or in other words bullshit.
to add however, plato is one of the most influential philosophers so to think critically about western philosophy and metaphysics it is necessary to begin with him. i do not agree however that plato promotes thought, or dialogue, simply because there is no debate and the fundamental answer given to the questions raised are idealistic, they lead essentially to forms and not life....more
just didn't like the way he used nietzsche's will to power as the common racist, selfish ideology it just showed a lack of understanding on the authorjust didn't like the way he used nietzsche's will to power as the common racist, selfish ideology it just showed a lack of understanding on the author's part. style, writing, and the overall story though are brilliant. ...more
when one slows down and takes the time to imagine, yes use one's imagination, in contriving meaning in waiting for godot one instinctively contrives twhen one slows down and takes the time to imagine, yes use one's imagination, in contriving meaning in waiting for godot one instinctively contrives their own meaning in preferences, axioms, and philosophy. that too could be said of how one's goes about creating meaning in the facet's of an external life. repetition, reality, communication, despair, indifference, the absurd, and meaninglessness are all potent in life, and one must find what to place meaning in, even if it is as minimalistic as waiting for someone that might never show.
as serge said, this work is, 'Completely vacuous. A skeleton inviting the imagination to invent the form.' and one can say the same of life....more