From the philosophical point of view, art is most easily questioned by explaining whether art is alienated from the body and put into an environment where it can no longer live. Biemel is well aware of this. He carefully bypassed this accusation and pointed out that art creation is of course not a footnote to the philosophical concept. This kind of life belongs to his own life, that is, in art, the human world has gained some expression. What’s more, art has not revealed this world association, and it has even completed this world association.
Biemel’s explanation of "World Union" is that man understands his kind, man understands his non-human being and transcends his divinity. This divinity is very important to man. Similar expressions of understanding man and understanding his body are common in Heidegger’s place. Is it not sex? Of course, it is necessary to ask what kind of world union art has opened up and expressed. This is the sincere question of phenomenon description.
Why should we make a philosophical analysis of contemporary art? Biemel: It’s very simple. Art in this century can’t be active at a direct level. Artists must reflect on him and ask for appreciation. Biemel thinks that art is a language that needs interpretation, which is also suitable for classical art. However, in modern art, the necessity of this interpretation has become more urgent. What kind of philosophical interpretation is to the point? What kind of philosophical interpretation may be misunderstood? Biemel didn’t give a criterion for judging the phenomenon. The method required to face the facts, and the transcendental judgment was unbearable. Biemel didn’t brag or derogate.
It is said that life is always entangled in some obsession and falls into a dark and inexplicable ambiguous state, then the phenomenon vision teaches you to expose the phenomenon and make life shine again in the sunshine.
year
Pornographic articles provoke whoever.
In Wang Shuo’s hooligan, there is such a plot that three guys with excess male hormones are going to look for a well-dressed fat gentleman in the street to provoke one of them, Ma Qing, excitedly shaking his fist at pedestrians in the middle of the street and calling out who dares to mess with me. A man in five big and three thick clothes approached him and said in a low voice, I dare to mess with you. Ma Qing looked at this tower-like guy and said, "Who dares to mess with us?"
We can learn two lessons from Ma Qingshao. 1 It’s not important when provoking. It’s who you are provoking. According to Berlin’s two reasons, Ma Qing’s provocation is positive, not negative, because it doesn’t interfere with others’ reasons and violates Mill’s harm. Therefore, it must be controlled by the worker’s eldest brother, but the last sentence of the loser Ma Qing left us with the biggest suspense. Once the worker’s eldest brother works together, he will actively engage in activities. This problem is somewhat beside the point.
Going back to pornography, it must have provoked someone, but how to provoke it, who might it be?
In earlier years, the answer to these questions was clear. China stopped talking. In 177, British judges created the crime of indecency to punish those who corrupted the moral speech of British subjects. The subtext of this crime was that pornographic reading offended the unified moral law, and the people must force these obscenities to steal bad points and turn over a new leaf.
Although this argument is loose, it is very strong. Pornography has not been able to turn over for hundreds of years. Until recent decades, their speeches have been hardened by this principle. Less in capitalist countries such as the United States and Britain, it is impossible to suppress pornography with white and fat gentlemen like unified values
Good-doers put this change in Kuhn’s paradigm shift hat. The earlier paradigm was called obscene paradigm, which advocated multi-conservatism. Its characteristics were as follows: firstly, the majority’s will to identify with goodness took precedence over individual subjectivity; secondly, it was gender-neutral, that is to say, pornography provoked neither men nor women but human bodies.
Conservatism has made a Jedi counterattack since it became popular. They said that pornography is not speech, but a non-cognitive expression of reproductive organs. If you don’t think or talk for a long time, there is nothing to say. But Kuhn said that after the paradigm shift, there is nothing to say, saying that you are, you are not. Since pornography is speech in the new paradigm, this proposition is self-evident, and the last shot of a fat gentleman is actually a stinking bomb.
The new paradigm advocates multi-feminism, and they give up the moral accusation of indecent assault, which emphasizes that pornography provokes not the human body but the special group of women, which is even more serious. The theme of some pornographic articles is that men oppose women’s new paradigm and recognize gender discrimination. Sending some pornographic articles does not stimulate and induce men to rape and abuse women in reality, but also leads to a more common behavior in social culture, which devalues women’s status and dehumanizes women’s groups.
Facing the challenge of feminism, pornographic defenders mainly adopt two strategies.
Strategy 1 Pornography is not a positive reason for Ma Qing-style provocation, but a negative reason. According to Ronald Dworkin, the negative reason is actually offensive. People may dislike pornography, but we can’t ban it because we hate speech. Other speeches have the same protection benefits. Obviously, the key here is to define the concept of harm. The British Race Act prohibits the promotion of racial hate speech because it will insult and hurt members of ethnic minorities, but Haidian Court will definitely not ban workers’ eldest brother. Bare-shirted street, although it also hurts Ma Qing, the damage caused by pornography must be between the racist workers’ eldest brother, but the question is which side is more biased. This fact will be unclear for a while, especially after replacing the injury with feeling hurt.
Strategy Since feminism accuses pornography of causing men to oppose women, it seems that there is no place for gay pornography without women’s new paradigm. This move is vicious enough, but feminism still says that although there is no direct female image, the same person in gay pornography plays a passive subordinate female role in heterosexuality, so it is an insult and discrimination to female images. Once this way of thinking is countered, it is also said that the basis is sex. Active and passive role assignment in the line marks the identification of men and women, but first of all, Mr. Freud has long said that this distinction standard is too simple and insufficient. Secondly, this distinction model is a misunderstanding of gay men. Finally, it is inevitable to assign active and passive roles in the process of sexual intercourse, including the daily mode. It is impossible to say that both of them are active and have a try.
Feminism’s card is gender differences, but it will construct a knot, so opposing pornography means opposing all male-centered ideologies. However, the development of feminism has gone through a process of negation. In the 1960s, Simone de Beauvoir said that no one was born a woman, but in the 1990s, queerpliis, a queer politics propaganda, said that everyone is transsexual, in other words, it is not a male-centered problem, and the female center is also a problem. It should be hermaphrodite like Dong Fangbubai in postmodernism.
It has become clear that the real focus in this debate about who to recruit and who to provoke pornography is the old and new normal heresy. For advocating obscenity paradigm conservatism, individualism treats unified values too subverted, while for advocating new paradigm feminism, individualism treats identity politics too conservatively, while pornography is a handy stick from beginning to end. People take it to provoke each other.
5 years
The real Kant stood up
Philosophers say that it is shameful to write poems after Auschwitz, which is an angry word. However, the latter point of Auschwitz is true, that is, anti-racism has become the most politically correct political term. We agree with John Gray’s statement that modernity is not about acknowledging differences, but about demanding consistency. However, the question is what this requirement for consistency should exclude Jews, black people and yellow people. What is the problem of modernity, specifically, where and when is it?
Modernity or the tone of enlightenment-Kant’s universalism can be regarded as the starting point of tracing back. In January 3, radical philosopher RadialPhilsphy magazine published an article entitled The Truth of Kant.
The article "Stand Up" is an article taught by Robert Bernerskney, a great professor in Memphis, USA. It refers to some typical western philosophers, Biloch Kant Hegel, who once expressed their views that are obviously racist today, although they may not realize it. Their propaganda is contrary to ethics.
Locke, for example, said in the famous government theory that only those who were captured in a righteous war were slaves, but when he wrote the Carolina Constitution for the British colony at that time, he did give the slave owners absolute power to hold their black slaves. Willock did not talk about it on paper and practiced it. Recently, some studies pointed out that it was necessary to clarify Locke’s leading position in British official colonial activities, and he invested in the slave trade
Kant’s theory of racial data was discovered as early as World War II, but the philosophical circles kept it a secret until the 19th century, when Kant’s racism gradually became a topic in the philosophical circles. The topic in the philosophical circles was even more explosive than that in which Christian Newberg wrote Kant’s Hegelian racism in 1999 and Charles Mills wrote Kant’s racist speech in 1997. Biloch tried to give several examples. The most perfect form of human nature lies in the fact that white people, yellow skin and Indians are less talented, while blacks are less talented and the lowest. Some Americans can’t be taught. This race has no motivation, because it lacks emotion and passion, and they won’t love, so they won’t be afraid. They rarely talk and don’t love each other, and they are very lazy.
Hegel is not much better. It is almost impossible for an expert of Hegel not to realize that he is discussing the amazing words of Africans Lapland, and that he excluded China and Indians from the process of world history.
What is striking is that these three western philosophers all share a moral universalism position, which obviously contradicts their different views on a certain race.
The easiest way to adjust these two diametrically opposite positions is to interpret their racist views as the time limit. However, the defense methods of children in this era do not always work. Hegel’s feud Nietzsche’s words can refute Nietzsche’s saying that in Wagner’s incident, what is the minimum requirement for a philosopher to be a man of the times in his own time?
Another way is for us today to make decisions for the ancients. Compared with some Kant experts, Kant’s moralism can still express contemporary racial problems. Further, they say that Kant who advocates racism is not the real Kant, but this statement seems even more strange. Kant is actually more real in the history of philosophy than Kant in history.
The only way to give a clean image of Kant is to take Kant’s discourse on racism seriously. Bernerskney pointed out that cosmopolitanism is regarded as the best response to nationalism today, but its Kant meaning is different. Later, it was to answer the question of the historical significance of mankind rather than the antidote to nationalism. In the article on universal history, Kant wrote that the oriental nation will never rise. We must seek the continuous progress of mankind in the West and spread it to the world from now on. Bernerskney recognized this. Kant’s cosmopolitanism and his racism are more true because he called racial differences before. He believed that all non-whites are limited, and only whites have the talent to drive. Europeans will legislate for other human beings. However, in Kant’s cosmopolitanism, racism has a practical difficulty. On the one hand, Kant firmly believes that race is different in permanent characteristics, and on the other hand, he strongly opposes colonial racial integration, which leads to the conclusion because of his firm racist view. Kant’s cosmopolitanism position seems to never be realized.
One way to solve the contradiction of Kant’s cosmopolitanism and racism is not said by Kant, but Bernerskney believes that Kant is aware of this, that is, other genocide. In response to the question of human progress, Kant said that it seems that all Americans will be wiped out, not through murder, which is cruel, but that they will die in their private struggle, so that they will wipe out each other. When Kant said human body, he did not seem to mean that people wrote according to Bernerskney’s quotation of Kant’s more sinister style. All races will be extinct except whites, but this will happen, including genocide. In fact, in the 18th century, Native Americans were infected by Europeans, and they died in large numbers, so that the contradiction of racial inequality in cosmopolitanism could be solved. When those inferior races were eliminated due to external causes of the Holocaust, mono-racial cosmopolitanism was naturally realized.
Bernerskney’s image of the real Kant is frightening. Perhaps Kant’s cosmopolitanism does not necessarily contain racism-modernity’s pursuit of consistency may not necessarily contain racism, but considering that it contains logical terms and human beings often do not act according to logic, this guarantee does not make us feel relieved and never promise that it will be put into practice, but once the theory fails in practice, we can still find a theory.