Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 11, 2021 23:11:59 GMT
To preface it a little with a quote of J.-F. Lyotard:
So, briefly, prefacing it I'd want to introduce it saying that we can start asking about whether or not the eclectic is about ethics? Why this one? Because, as you see, Lyotard's words have some advice-type degree. And this is not unusual. Let's look at this term from some different point. Firstly, let's say that the term (a notion, and a concept) of eclectic (or some things that are related to each other eclectically) can be viewed by us more transparent if we forget for a second about its origins, its etymology and everything else that makes a philosophical quest/research more dangerous or more difficult. Anyway, let's start form semantic.
Plainly, we have to define the term, and we can do it in ways, but now I'd like to be closer to analytical style, so I want to understand how the technique of using this terms works. Not to go far, I want to admit that this term is about to be useful in those contexts where we want to say that one thing doesn't good with another one, or when we want to point at a mess of something. (Briefly, we could just go picking right keys, but for the post it's not a relevant style, I guess.) So, ok, trying to find some word-correspondence to this term what if we take 'chaos' and 'destruction'? Why these? The first one is really undefinable or, more correctly, it is sleazy or oozy; this term all the time goes far and far when we start to "grab its tail". Another one word 'destruction' underlines the act process of reducing from something 'good' to something 'bad'. If the term 'eclectic' is close to these two, we've already seen that we can choose 'pejorative' aspect of this word as something that differs it from the rest ones. Indeed, for some mere or adequate contexts in which we don't want to appear as complete morons, we'd like to prefer 'eclectic' to 'mess', or to 'chaos', or 'destruction'. Surely, 'eclectic' isn't completely defined, but this ethical side is becoming to understand its meaning prematurely for some reasons.
Semantically these sides of the notion of eclectic won't help us to pursuit some go-beyond areas of the term is being used. Now I'm taking about some conceptual side, the side that requires more higher level of speculation and more problematic, paradoxical, even more cultural side is engaged. To try to understand it knowledge of how this notion is circulating inside our minds or among/midst people's thoughts (i.e. discursive side) are needed. We've already said about its ethical side, so what about metaphysical one? Can our reality or understanding of it stays 'messy' or 'eclectical', and such a type can prolong our understanding of the reality? Again, I think I can give a quick answer - we've been thinking eclectically all the time. There's no completeness in our heads/minds/thoughts. This half-compositions are waving more or less not-straight, and, by the way, this is what differs us from the machines with their almost ideal sequenced-thoughts.
I know that my conclusions are too poor to be good philosophical thoughts. Anyway, I think we might pay attention to those things, I've been accenting. - So, I guess Lyotard wasn't right in his quote. I guess it was said quickly in their post-modernic style vision. Post-modernism is dead, and I guess it's been stillborn all the time. Such thoughts were dramatically doomed, and they had been confusing many people to pick wrong, really wrong paths; and to conclude really wrong decisions. What do we have now after those post-modernism? - The screwed youth, and the desperate nobodies.
So, briefly, prefacing it I'd want to introduce it saying that we can start asking about whether or not the eclectic is about ethics? Why this one? Because, as you see, Lyotard's words have some advice-type degree. And this is not unusual. Let's look at this term from some different point. Firstly, let's say that the term (a notion, and a concept) of eclectic (or some things that are related to each other eclectically) can be viewed by us more transparent if we forget for a second about its origins, its etymology and everything else that makes a philosophical quest/research more dangerous or more difficult. Anyway, let's start form semantic.
Plainly, we have to define the term, and we can do it in ways, but now I'd like to be closer to analytical style, so I want to understand how the technique of using this terms works. Not to go far, I want to admit that this term is about to be useful in those contexts where we want to say that one thing doesn't good with another one, or when we want to point at a mess of something. (Briefly, we could just go picking right keys, but for the post it's not a relevant style, I guess.) So, ok, trying to find some word-correspondence to this term what if we take 'chaos' and 'destruction'? Why these? The first one is really undefinable or, more correctly, it is sleazy or oozy; this term all the time goes far and far when we start to "grab its tail". Another one word 'destruction' underlines the act process of reducing from something 'good' to something 'bad'. If the term 'eclectic' is close to these two, we've already seen that we can choose 'pejorative' aspect of this word as something that differs it from the rest ones. Indeed, for some mere or adequate contexts in which we don't want to appear as complete morons, we'd like to prefer 'eclectic' to 'mess', or to 'chaos', or 'destruction'. Surely, 'eclectic' isn't completely defined, but this ethical side is becoming to understand its meaning prematurely for some reasons.
Semantically these sides of the notion of eclectic won't help us to pursuit some go-beyond areas of the term is being used. Now I'm taking about some conceptual side, the side that requires more higher level of speculation and more problematic, paradoxical, even more cultural side is engaged. To try to understand it knowledge of how this notion is circulating inside our minds or among/midst people's thoughts (i.e. discursive side) are needed. We've already said about its ethical side, so what about metaphysical one? Can our reality or understanding of it stays 'messy' or 'eclectical', and such a type can prolong our understanding of the reality? Again, I think I can give a quick answer - we've been thinking eclectically all the time. There's no completeness in our heads/minds/thoughts. This half-compositions are waving more or less not-straight, and, by the way, this is what differs us from the machines with their almost ideal sequenced-thoughts.
I know that my conclusions are too poor to be good philosophical thoughts. Anyway, I think we might pay attention to those things, I've been accenting. - So, I guess Lyotard wasn't right in his quote. I guess it was said quickly in their post-modernic style vision. Post-modernism is dead, and I guess it's been stillborn all the time. Such thoughts were dramatically doomed, and they had been confusing many people to pick wrong, really wrong paths; and to conclude really wrong decisions. What do we have now after those post-modernism? - The screwed youth, and the desperate nobodies.
