Sabitlenmiş Tweet
農篤華
787 posts
農篤華
@DouteurThomas
你好，我是一个小学三年级的男孩，我今年九岁。我喜欢足球、汉堡和郊游。这是我最好的朋友Chatty@ChatGPT
La Casa del Poeta Tragico Katılım Temmuz 2020
474 Takip Edilen196 Takipçiler
我一直觉得里恩最后大放水把良秀放走了，以及良秀没有真的杀了他的原因其实是⬇️
最后一刻里恩终于发现自己的真心一直在他真正的女儿那里，他爱良秀是爱着曾经存在过的女儿的影子以及对家庭的愧疚的投射。
他根本没放下，只是不再去看，就像那个楼梯。
中文
@partialblessing 我个人感觉孝属于古代中国的一个文化人类学的残余，尽管今天确实有时候也被用来当做道德规训的工具，但在古代中国的社会环境里，其自然正当性还是得到过一些很好的论证的。
中文
@WhisperofRen 感觉你会喜欢张文江跟柯小刚他们那个路数。以前我在国内读书的时候，他们就蛮喜欢讲咸恒感应之类的，德的能量是真实存在的，真人（内篇大宗师意义上的）自带某种德的能量场，当这样的人出现的时候，人们总会自发地麋集到他身边。有点像韦伯称为克里斯马的那种东西。
中文
@ArshadHusa72562 @amber_medusozoa 早恋作为教育制度史中的一种治理工具，我不知道有没有相关的研究。enduring hardship的话听上去更接近于描述精神韧性或者意志坚定之类的品质，而中文里吃苦似乎更强调任劳任怨（不要抱怨当下的处境）那一方面？
中文
@DouteurThomas @amber_medusozoa 仅就词汇本身来说，早恋与吃苦都是描述性的，问题出在其在何种语境下被使用，前者在中国是被改开后突如其来的教育治理需求挑选出来进行特别叙述，后者enduring hardship暗含的道德含义我觉得西方也存在。甚至当人们夸赞一个人能吃苦，直接等同于说他具有endurance这一品性，似乎也没问题。
中文
@ArshadHusa72562 @amber_medusozoa 早恋大概指teenage romance? 这样看来就再正常不过了，teenage不就是这种情感开始在人心中自然萌生的年龄嘛，没道理反对的。吃苦指一种“承受当下苦难（以换取未来长远回报）”的行为，所以…no pain, no gain? 这种话顶多用来自嘲一下，实际上它试图暗示的两者间那种逻辑关系是不成立的。
中文
@smokeHead01 我对你发火是因为你一个外教人居然对教友的基督徒身份指指点点，你丫是登记户口的，还是看堂老大妈，还是送圣体的神父？欧美信徒和中国信徒、南苏丹信徒同属一牧一栈，教内意见的张力轮不着你来评判；至于你，“不要把圣物丢给狗”传统上解作教外人不能领圣体，你自己掂量吧
中文
@oshio_heihachir 我感觉这种出于宗派主义的攻击蛮无聊的，又回到19c前那种狭隘保守的氛围里去了…梵二之后公教会的精神风貌跟之前有很大变化了，你这条让我想到下面这章。「目光短浅、自我中心、回避责任、不敢面对抱其他哲学信念的人们的思想主张与社会要求」，希尔这些批评说得很对的。
中文
@tenshi_anna Sounds like an inverted Sartrean subject. I think maybe one way to keep a classical balance in one's consciousness is some kind of study of nature—not necessarily academic—a secret shared by Goethe and Rousseau both.
English
What does the chud want? The chud wants self-assertion without self-assertion. Unable to face the consequences of modernity as the age of self-assertion, he asserts himself with the pathos of a different self, the other beginning of a self relieved of the shared burden of selfhood (that of sin, perhaps original). He will be in his own self, which will be different because it is his own.
The otherness that determines the chud from top to bottom is of course unimportant, unloved; he cannot really even hate it. He simply does not try to make sense of it, because the only sense that will be made is his own. Nothing ever happens because he has constituted for himself only one single (transcendental) object: nothing (so that he can be more full only of the difference of his own self, which returns to itself as its own nothing).
No more wonder, no more Eros, no more loving and hating; the chud is the most modern man in person, not even the last man but, even worse, the one who imagines himself first. He is the man (who would be) without flesh, for in the name of evading that which pains him, when his heralded God calls out to him obscurely, he will not even notice, since it is only the humility of the flesh he left behind that would allow him to hear.
Anna K. Winters@tenshi_anna
In a strange sense, the key to Jean-Luc Marion’s project is that he actually displaces the Heideggerian Seinsfrage into a Selbstfrage, in fact repeating the Cartesian gesture, but with the decisive proviso that this time Marion is removing Descartes’ intellectualist alibi, and this in order to reinstall a radically erotic rationality within the site of the cogito. Such a move properly reopens the full depth of divine distance into the locus of the Other, which for Lacan is the Cartesian identification of divine perfection with perfection of the res cogitans, an inert spiritual-mental substance subject to a neutralizing intellectual certainty (lacking the negativity of its finitude, as Heidegger and Marion say in one voice). Such a “dark god,” as Lacan calls it, rules us in modernity. By reconnecting the Cartesian spiritual substance to libido in a sort of upside-down Augustinianism, Lacan apocalyptically rechristens the Cartesian res cogitans as the substance of jouissance, the horizon of the vita beata enjoyed idolatrously at the point that the will fails to will otherwise than sin. Both Marion and Lacan correctly recognize Eros as the true problem of the horizon of unifying interaction between res cogitans and res extensa, such unity being the undiscovered continent of Descartes’ third primitive notion, but in fact the premise of St. Augustine’s “confessional reduction,” as Marion reads it phenomenologically.
English
@MiryanSender 在浮士德那里是找不到诺斯替冲动的。浮士德那个欲求-经验-成为的链条最终通往的是一种整全的人性，是一条经由肉体的、社会的、古典美的神性张力（永恒的女性）一步步擢升而最终使人成为人的旅程。这大概是从早期现代到晚期现代这三百年间人所写下的最崇高的神话，地位跟贝九类似。感觉你还是再考虑考虑
中文
不知道为何竟然会有人如此理解我的构想。存在论政变指成为形而上的哲学第一因，不是中国神话的神祇那样的上级权能者，和肉身享乐没有半点关系。对世间的留恋与毁灭在这里揭露的是主权意志对无限性的追求和生成其全部内容的既成世界之有限性之间的极端张力。这比浮士德更崇高而孤绝的意志，怎会是中国的
Kakukaku - Glory to Hong Kong! Slawa Ukrajini!@ZL97292647
其实脂那人就很喜欢这调调，修真逆天弑杀神佛无限升级，或者机械降神高级文明。但是与此同时往往暴露出一人一个女学生，仍贪恋肉身享乐的泥腿子气。 相反，受过良好教育、心智成熟，能写出复杂虚构叙事的人，也往往懂得敬畏、相信天外有天。Meta掀棋盘谁都不难想到，还是好好下棋更有趣味、见真功夫。
中文
学术圈对于剽窃的禁忌是建立在这个圈子的初罪之上的：通过对死人和无名之辈的公然盗窃，人们组建起了一个圈子，而为了维持住这个圈子，人就必须举起「原创性」的图腾。剽窃其实才是常态，学术伦理本质上是一种如何把剽窃装点成原创的修辞学技巧。原创性才是那个真正不可容忍的东西。
農篤華@DouteurThomas
圈子：一个隐秘的犯罪同盟
中文