Oxford China Forum is Oxford University's primary platform for China-related discussion and debate. We hope inform a new generation about the central challenges facing the 21st century's most dynamic nation.
Check out our channel for information on:
POLITICS: Professor Rana Mitter's [University of Oxford] leads a conversation on China's political future.
ECONOMY: Will Hutton [University of Oxford], Jamil Anderlini [Financial Times Beijing Bureau Chief] and Ben Chu's [The Independent] discuss China's economic prospects.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Sir John Boyd [Asia House] and Professor Rosemary Foot [University of Oxford] talk about whether China has what it takes to lead the world in the 21st century
20:20 side note: let’s also not forget that it was thanks to Islamic philosophers that Europe got dragged out of the dark ages.. something that the enlightenment thinkers acknowledged openly up until the late 1700’s, but then suddenly this was written out of the history books as well…
Turn in your father for cheating on his income tax? Are you kidding?! You turn him in for murder, rape and violent assault, not something as trivial as jaywalking or fudging on his income tax.
Hm... let's say that under current conditions, in "The World", there were a device for inducing orgasm in an objectively quantifiable way. Then suddenly all talk of "sex" would be reduced to "this sex", were one to be without sense, correct? Let's say that, "Sex under patriarchy is violence" (Andrea Dworkin), such folk would be reliably self-destructive no? They do not understand, or cannot accept that This world, THEIR world, is not built to last.
Schopenhauer said "He who changes himself changes the world." (In the second volume). When the spirit of evil is JEALOUSY, then truly that Statement is True. (We can hear it scream from afar, and finally the Time has come).
Heidegger was clearly fond of China (and Chinese Buddhism). Is not Confucius' way the "Destruktive" path? The one found already in Hegel's preface (paragraph 31), or in Nietzsche's "Will to Power". After all, Confucius seeks to resurrect the De, "Virtue", which as much to the Latins as the Chinese implied Power. We have all forgotten the Way. I suppose I should find some passage to bolster my argument, but I imagine him hitting the Earth with a stick.
The Arabs before Islam were fond of nick-names. Are we sure Huan Tui is not Yuan Hui backwards and re-arranged by some common school child's language game?
7.20 The Master said, “I am not the kind of person who is born with knowledge. Rather, I am the kind of person who loves antiquity, and who diligently looks there for knowledge.” You know that could be a statement about Experience, empiricism v. rationalism, aristotle v. plato; that sort of thing. I guess I'm talking to an expert here, I shouldn't assume he doesn't KNOW.
In a sense... it's a simple rhetorical trick, like throwing rocks with words. I'm talking about evening, not morning, and suddenly I'm interrupted, "But, what, DON'T YOU GET IT!? They're talking about the same thing." That's missing the cognitive point of my statement. It's as if someone had a broken sense of "time" and "place". No sense of courtesy or decorum.
I mean inferring from "a = b" that "a = b" = "a = a". On the surface that sounds dandy, it's merely a question in some cases of total identity. BUT just because the morning star refers to the same as the evening star, does not mean there is no difference in sense. It is precisely in the difference in sense that the cognitive value lies. So sayeth Frege (indeed "a = b" is NOT the same statement as "a = a", EVEN IF both statements have the same reference)
Perhaps you noticed that Levi-Strauss' savage appears in Frege, as someone that makes thoughtless statements, someone with ill judgement, taking an utterly concrete form, "inferring" fallaciously (the demogogue in "Sense and Reference") from "a = b" = "a = a", I mean someone who eliminates sense from language. And when I say "concrete" I mean "bricks in the wall". (A magic spell of social isolation - total egotism).
You know my grandfather adored China, he thought she was the Future. Queer those Frenchmen, they liked Mexico AND China. (Derrida's concern with anthropology, Batailles and Artaud on Mexico, Kristeva on China)
I mean, look, have you ever considered that the notion of "a vessel" is paradoxical? It's a solid object, and yet it isn't. In context I think it refers to the Rectification of Names, since it is paradoxical that language can talk about itself, as paradoxical as it is that my eye can see itself (and yet we have anatomical science)
You know the Inkas forbade cannibalism and human sacrifice, much as did, the Zhou. 6.11 The Master said, “What a worthy man was Yan Hui! Living in a narrow alley, subsisting upon meager bits of rice and water-other people could not have borne such hardship, and yet it never spoiled Hui’s joy. What a worthy man was Hui!” I however, incline to make very public exceptions, no theater; I'm not "making examples" (humankind, I mean ren people, is nothing like them) - the idea is that no one will want to look outside.
6.7 The Master said, “Ah, Yan Hui! For three months at a time his heart did not stray from ren. The rest of them could only achieve such a state by fits and starts.” Sir, this man sounds like a cold and calculating hypocrite. Mao got the wrong people you see, it's the people that instigate that sort of thing, etc.
I'm sure you're familiar with Levi-Strauss' "Savage" (he's not talking about a tribe in Africa or Southeast Asia, he's talking about a demon that haunts centers of power, including influential people - influential for their genius, the spirit they are given, which may be Holy, for example)
Okay, so it's easy to infer that Kant was an esotericist because he had so much to hide from the tyranny of the State. Confucius was a "concrete task at hand" kind of guy?
Freud once said that the use of the hands is where a child first begins to assert control over his environment. Questions are raised about the general character of Mr. Hui. Is he a "small man"? Italians are known for their hand gestures, in Spanish the word used for "mani-pulative" is "mañoso".
5.9 The Master said to Zigong, “How would you compare yourself with Yan Hui?” Zigong answered, “How dare I even think of comparing myself with Hui? When Hui learns one thing, it allows him to immediately grasp ten. When I learn one thing, I am able to grasp two.” The Master said, “No, you are not the equal of Hui. You or I-neither of us is the equal of Hui.” This is a metaphysical statement about identity in logic. It's hard to deny that notions such as "last and the first" or "Noble Eightfold Path" have numerological connotations. Not to mention Plato's "the one and the many", or the way Biblical verses are organized. One might then raise the question about the meaning of "ten", for example "grasping" (as in Hellenistic philosophy "comprehension" really was compared to manual grasping) and the fingers on our hands.
Bodhidharma was a Persian. You know I always thought "Meinong" sounded Chinese ("Chinese Room"), and "The magical Chinese foreigner" is a character that comes up in Frege. John Money's boyfriend? A Chinaman.
"3.18 The Master said, 'If in serving your ruler you are careful to observe every detail of ritual propriety, others will [wrongly] think you obsequious.'" Surely you caught the bit of the... Lun Yu ("Analects" was probably coined by The Jesuits... You do bring up The Jesuits, right?) that says "[Student] asked the Master how one ought to serve his... 'Lord', Confucius responded, 'Do not deceive him, oppose him immediately.'" You are a fool if you think the parenthetical "wrongly" is appropriate. As for Mainland China, I shall be as a great Dragon. I shall conquer the World and spare no country, nor their petty delusions.
You know I'm the Son of God, right? I mean it's gotten to the point it doesn't even sound megalomanical when I say it. Anyway, one of the etymological translations of "Junzi", right? THANK YOU FOR THE LECTURES MR. NORDEN! I am also "Son of Man" because I listen closely :)
Btw Heidegger's "throwness" is in Hegel, it is the "throwing of the dice" in paragragh 712 of the Phenomenology. Dostoevsky's "Gambler". Shows up again when Foucault explicates his "Archeology" (since we proceed as without a guide, an "oracle" being the word both Foucault and Hegel uses.. In the revolutionary crisis, "the gods are silent" - Hegel; Foucault is of course talking about REVOLUTION!!!!)
Btw, "House of the Dead" by Dostoevsky refers to "the crystal" as "the meme" ("eternal return of the same") in the Phenomenology. The Crystal-Image in Deleuze which is speaking about a very OBJECTIVE kind of HYPNOSIS. (Hence "Anti-Oedipus")
He couldn't think. Reflect. Negation of the negation. Etc. Had to be, and Revelation is Genesis backwards cuz "The beginning is the end and the end is the beginning". We have to start THINKING and stop JUDGING IN THE SENSE OF CONDEMNING. (So Eve did the Right thing in doing the "wrong" thing; did you know that's in the Ha'dith of Muhammad? "How Adam over-powered Moses")
Prior to the creation of Eve, tradition has it, The Adam was One, primordial and androgynous. He also couldn't discern ("Knowledge of Good and Evil", judgment). So he was more like a crystal ("the crystal is the simulacrum of individuality", it's in Schopenhauer's first volume. Yes, really) or a tree (the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida) than a Man. Evolution is in the Bible. *turns in roulette chips*
Did you catch the part where Kant says his logic is based on "Mother Wit", or the "Second Part" of the logic of the Frenchman, Pierre de la "Ramie"? "Ramera" is how you say "Whore" in Spanish.
I mean, it's like people weren't ready for this stuff yet, and a "traitor" was only always willing to take advantage. (And play both sides... the Luther Blisset novel "Q"? about a reactionary spy that whispers into the Pope's ear during the Counter-Reformation)
You know about Frederick the Great's dad, right? The Prussian State was demonic. (The Teutonic Knights, the Templars, and the use of Romance as propaganda... Military Sodomy. Chretien de Troyes was an associate of Eleanor of Aquitaine, and I for one, believe in Love... So I believe it's all True.. even if the facts are fibbled a little)
