English Science and Literature club🤓✍️📖

307.

December 17, 2024 (14291)
Now, it’s time to review everything I’ve learned about Descartes over the past 33 days. I’ve read his Discourse, Meditations and Principles of Philosophy, as well as Hobbes’s and Gassendi’s objections to Meditations and Descartes’s replies. Although it seems that I can easily ridicule or make a fool of Descartes while I’m engaging with his texts, I’m not sure I would succeed if he had a chance to talk back. Both Hobbes’s and Gassendi’s objections are quite powerful, yet Descartes handles them in a way that makes their authors look like dumb idiots who have no capacity to figure out what he’s doing and why. I have to admit that I was lazy while reading Descartes, especially in those places where he tries to prove the existence of God. To solidify my understanding, I watched a series of lectures on Descartes’s philosophy by J. Kaplan. As many other philosophers, I think that studying Descartes is worth only for the purposes of making an intellectual exercise in refuting him. Obviously, Descartes’s influence is so pervasive that knowing its source and understanding the basic arguments against those who maintain that they are only and unquestionably “thinking things” saves a lot of time. It’s also interesting to see how Descartes’s framing of the contradiction between “free will” and “predestination” gave rise to a philosophical position of compatibilism. Here, again, knowing Descartes’s arguments and bringing him in when it’s necessary to argue against a compatibilist is a serious advantage. Unfortunately, I had no time and patience to get through “Passions of the Soul” to see firsthand Descartes’s ethical standing, but as anyone who tries to invent a wheel from scratch, here, arguably, he can be dismissed.
Let’s clarify why I’m making this series of lectures. My main objective is to draw attention to my book. I’d been training myself as a writer for nearly 16 years before I decided to write this book. It took me almost nine months to complete it. In my opinion, it’s one of the most important books written in the internet era. It is certainly the most important book for me. It has only 164 pages and deals primarily with the concept of psychopolitics. I postulate that every great thinker is driven by the intention to improve his language, making it as powerful as possible. Since we have great thinkers in virtually all languages, this leads to the security dilemma. When someone like Descartes makes his French more powerful than Cicero’s or any other great thinker’s Latin, it causes the transformation of the entire international system of languages (psychopolitics).
In this series of lectures, I’m attempting to show that psychopolitics provides a better framework for the study of philosophy, sociology, psychology, politics, religion, history, linguistics, literature, poetry – and whatever is happening right now on the internet – than any other framework. I’m not saying that psychopolitics is perfect and has no flaws. I’m saying that it’s one of the most promising sciences of the future. Whoever is interested in making one’s language the most powerful language in the world must pay attention to it.

www.tgoop.com/clubscience/90

28 viewsVladimir Svetashev, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:45

307.

December 17, 2024 (14291)
Now, it’s time to review everything I’ve learned about Descartes over the past 33 days. I’ve read his Discourse, Meditations and Principles of Philosophy, as well as Hobbes’s and Gassendi’s objections to Meditations and Descartes’s replies. Although it seems that I can easily ridicule or make a fool of Descartes while I’m engaging with his texts, I’m not sure I would succeed if he had a chance to talk back. Both Hobbes’s and Gassendi’s objections are quite powerful, yet Descartes handles them in a way that makes their authors look like dumb idiots who have no capacity to figure out what he’s doing and why. I have to admit that I was lazy while reading Descartes, especially in those places where he tries to prove the existence of God. To solidify my understanding, I watched a series of lectures on Descartes’s philosophy by J. Kaplan. As many other philosophers, I think that studying Descartes is worth only for the purposes of making an intellectual exercise in refuting him. Obviously, Descartes’s influence is so pervasive that knowing its source and understanding the basic arguments against those who maintain that they are only and unquestionably “thinking things” saves a lot of time. It’s also interesting to see how Descartes’s framing of the contradiction between “free will” and “predestination” gave rise to a philosophical position of compatibilism. Here, again, knowing Descartes’s arguments and bringing him in when it’s necessary to argue against a compatibilist is a serious advantage. Unfortunately, I had no time and patience to get through “Passions of the Soul” to see firsthand Descartes’s ethical standing, but as anyone who tries to invent a wheel from scratch, here, arguably, he can be dismissed.
Let’s clarify why I’m making this series of lectures. My main objective is to draw attention to my book. I’d been training myself as a writer for nearly 16 years before I decided to write this book. It took me almost nine months to complete it. In my opinion, it’s one of the most important books written in the internet era. It is certainly the most important book for me. It has only 164 pages and deals primarily with the concept of psychopolitics. I postulate that every great thinker is driven by the intention to improve his language, making it as powerful as possible. Since we have great thinkers in virtually all languages, this leads to the security dilemma. When someone like Descartes makes his French more powerful than Cicero’s or any other great thinker’s Latin, it causes the transformation of the entire international system of languages (psychopolitics).
In this series of lectures, I’m attempting to show that psychopolitics provides a better framework for the study of philosophy, sociology, psychology, politics, religion, history, linguistics, literature, poetry – and whatever is happening right now on the internet – than any other framework. I’m not saying that psychopolitics is perfect and has no flaws. I’m saying that it’s one of the most promising sciences of the future. Whoever is interested in making one’s language the most powerful language in the world must pay attention to it.

BY English Science and Literature club🤓✍️📖