Xbox fanboys, tell me something.

[iLikeHippos]

I can see where the joke resides, but I'm not laughing. Such a crude joke...

Was that too blunt? Hmmmm.
Maybe I should quote a paragraph from an amendment containing the rights of subjectivity, just for laughs. Than we'll all gather hands and sing peaceful melodies for centuries to come.

 

[mikev7.0]

EDIT: It could also be that Sartre is a nihilist but that he considers self honesty to be central to a self-defined morality? if there is no universal morality and that everyone serves as their own judge it could be a warning against cognitive dissonance; kind of 'define your own morals but do not attempt to fool yourself about your motives'.

Was about to write something along the lines of this. Satre never rejected the idea that a person could define his own morals and that these morals could become central to his wellbeing.

But anyway, OP, I hope you feel smart. Because all you really did here is make yourself look like a pretentious twat. Besides, if Neitschze lived in this day and age I am sure he would be an Xbox user.

You're probably right about that (yes I am a Microsoft fanboy by the way.) after about 2 hours on the phone with Microsoft customer service I think I can define the absolute nothingness of being....

 

[TheKruzdawg]

I get the feeling "subjects you know almost nothing about" encompasses a lot of subjects, friend.

The fact that he's talking high philosophy in a thread where the subject line indicated another flame-bait console war thread IS the joke. You obviously didn't get it. Too bad for you, because it's pretty funny.

First of all, friend, I don't appreciate you assuming what subjects I might/might not know anything, about seeing as we are not friends and know nothing about one another besides the words we have exchanged thus far. From my side of things, you come off as a jerk.

Secondly, after reading some of the explanations about Sarte and the subject of existentialism, I get the references, but don't find their application to be particularly funny in this instance. I personally don't find those branches of philosophy to be very appealing and the same thing goes for using non sequitors. Not a form of comedy that I find funny.

 

[lobster1077]

Ah, quite a perplexing entry indeed.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I can see where the joke resides, but I'm not laughing. Such a crude joke...

The joke originally was just a juxtaposition. Then the accused poured petrol on it and set it aflame. Now we can all warm our hands around it, in deference to Sartre's ideals.

Secondary jokes akin to "I dislike elitism that doesn't include me" speak more of Freudian Id than Sartre's superego fuelled jokes.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

It was worth that Probation "Azreal the Cat". It was worth it. XD

 

[Irridium]

This thread is awesome. Just awesome.

 

[dementis]

Look, my mom said I could only get a PS3 or X-Box 360, and she then got it for me and it was an X-Box. So on that, I based my rabid fanboyism on that. Enjoyed you hacked network.

Your network is next. (I called it. I mean, PSN is just another attack in recent spate of them on networks that store credit card info online.)

Buuuut yeah I don't swing either way. I'm bi-consolual.

OP: Whhaaaaaaaaaaaa-?! D: My mind = Blown.

I'm a transconsolual

 

[Sentox6]

I agree with you to an extent. However in the modern era it is not difficult to get a shallow understanding of existentialism. I think understanding existentialism (the philosophy not the movement) is important to individuals. Whereas nuclear physics and computer architecture will prove worthless to most people, existentialism is something you can literally google/wiki and then decide whether to pursue further.

Here we have people taking offence because they don't understand.

I doubt the same people have evn heard of Machiavelli tbh

It's true that a shallow understanding of philosophical concepts is much more 'usable', if you will, than a shallow understanding of a technical science.

However, implying that the education system is deficient for not teaching of figures like Satre or Nietzsche is another matter. Primary and secondary education has far too many core fields to worry about (language, maths, geography, etc.), and tertiary students don't always have the luxury of infinite time and money to devote to topics other than their chosen field. Philosophy is hardly a great choice for a compulsory topic.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

Wait...this reminds me of another new thread....hold on *looks up creator of thread* ohhhh ok......your the same guy.

 

[Lordpils]

I fucking hate all this elitism.

He just did the same with a WBC thread, asking why Yoda's speech pattern changes in the prequels.

He's not being pretentious, insulting or elitist. It's a form of comedy called a 'non sequitur'. the humour comes from the juxtaposition of a provocative title and a completely unrelated subject.

Regardless of whether it's "non sequitur" or not, it still seems like he's calling me stupid because I like Xbox 360.

He's not, he made a joke. He doesn't care that you like the Xbox 360.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

[quote="Generic Gamer" post="18.280103.10943466
He just did the same with a WBC thread, asking why Yoda's speech pattern changes in the prequels.

He's not being pretentious, insulting or elitist. It's a form of comedy called a 'non sequitur'. the humour comes from the juxtaposition of a provocative title and a completely unrelated subject.[/quote]

Thanks for explaining that, before your post I had no friggin' clue what he meant about that.
Now that I know, thats actually a bit funny.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Oh please.

You "weep" for the education system because people are apparently unfamiliar with such material as Nietzsche's nihilistic drivel? I celebrate it.

Irrespective of our opinions, though, asserting that people are unread because they're unfamiliar with figures like Jean-Paul Sartre is highly disingenuous. We're hardly talking about Plato or Machiavelli here, whose names have greater recognition in popular consciousness. While philosophy is an important part of societal development across the ages, it's hardly the sole foundation either. How familiar are you with political theory? Nuclear physics? Computer hardware architecture? Economic theory? Bio-engineering? Should I "sigh" at your probable relative ignorance in one or more of these fields? No, because doing so would be condescending and hypocritical.

There's a difference between being unfamiliar with the material and unfamiliar with the author.

I've read a little Nietzsche. Didn't much care for it.

But I know who the man is. And I knew who he was years before I read his works.

As has been pointed out, this stuff is easily wiki-ed. The OP provided all the information needed to look up the arguments and be able to contribute to the discussion (or at least get the joke).

So no, I wasn't trying to imply that people were stupid. Ignorant and lazy, maybe, but both of those can be cured by taking the time to perform a google search.

 

[Sentox6]

There's a difference between being unfamiliar with the material and unfamiliar with the author.

I've read a little Nietzsche. Didn't much care for it.

But I know who the man is. And I knew who he was years before I read his works.

As has been pointed out, this stuff is easily wiki-ed. The OP provided all the information needed to look up the arguments and be able to contribute to the discussion (or at least get the joke).

So no, I wasn't trying to imply that people were stupid. Ignorant and lazy, maybe, but both of those can be cured by taking the time to perform a google search.

Fair enough, I suppose.

To be fair, the posts you originally quoted could be expressing unfamiliarity with the concepts rather than the names, though.

 

[dietrichrieper]

you just raised the IQ of the entire forum, if extra credits is right that is...

 

[Unesh52]

I didn't get it. I'm not entirely sure I get it now...

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

I agree with you to an extent. However in the modern era it is not difficult to get a shallow understanding of existentialism. I think understanding existentialism (the philosophy not the movement) is important to individuals. Whereas nuclear physics and computer architecture will prove worthless to most people, existentialism is something you can literally google/wiki and then decide whether to pursue further.

Here we have people taking offence because they don't understand.

I doubt the same people have evn heard of Machiavelli tbh

It's true that a shallow understanding of philosophical concepts is much more 'usable', if you will, than a shallow understanding of a technical science.

However, implying that the education system is deficient for not teaching of figures like Satre or Nietzsche is another matter. Primary and secondary education has far too many core fields to worry about (language, maths, geography, etc.), and tertiary students don't always have the luxury of infinite time and money to devote to topics other than their chosen field. Philosophy is hardly a great choice for a compulsory topic.

Yeah, fair point.

In many respects I disagree with the notion of 'teaching' philosophy at all. It is a shame in my opinion that education systems don't put any emphasis on philosophy at all. In my English classes we covered feminism, racism, Shakespeare, classes, etc etc but never touched upon any philosophical works. I don't see why they couldn't have at least pointed us in the direction of a few big names.

As a field it generates such outcomes as:
1) Life is inherently pointless
2) I will never know what purpose I exist for
3) I've just proven I exist...guys?...guys? I've just proven I exist!
4) Everybody but me is a mental zombie

Instilling any of these views in a child is not particularly useful in making them a productive member of society.

Don't get me wrong I do like Philosophy, it's just that a lot of it is just intellectual masturbation (for lack of a pleasanter word) with solutions that someone who didn't read a giant in the field's view could probably come up with themselves. It seems to exist just to create systems to explain things and to over-think things.