Dont study white philosophers.

More from ‘let em’ ( the previous post):

It appears that my comment that i refer to in the pevious post, the Comment that was supposed to be in the comments of the Reposted post, is not there, so ill post what i remember i put.
I said sonething to the effect that we should let the idiots have thier day becuase everywhere we look, they already are.

And, my singificsnt point was that lets see what happens if people exclude all white, euro-centered philosophers. Nevermind how one might go about discerning what exactly constitutes ‘white’ philosophers; however they might do it, lets not censor thier effort and ideal by foreclosing the possibility involved to an obviously ridiculous notion.

Becuase, as i said, really we dont know if what we figure is of a common sensibility, which is to say, a natural and inevitable human ability to reason, is really common and sensible automatically. 

Who knows; maybe if a group excludes ‘colonialist’ thinkers, a whole new manner of reasoning might emerge.

And, isnt that what we are really aftaid of when we discount such a proposal? That this grand and apparently obvious tradition of thinking and argument might be shown to be merely but one manner of ‘reason’? Yet just as capable and able to be called and utilized constructively  as ‘reason’?

Is ‘reason’ itself merely a colonialist eurocentric white male power play? How can we test the presumption that it is not? 

How can we know for sure if european colonialism actually is merely an enforcement of a proper reality that stretches through history if we dont allow for certain tests upon the presumption that it is not??

Let the idiots have thier day!

( and i say ‘idiots’ to exemplify a particular manner of coming upon world that i will disclose more thoroughly later.)


  1. I think you look at this too optimistic. These kids want to live in a hole of information bias. Even if all the “white” philosophers are driven by some form of evil imperialism (which is quite questionable) it’s still worth reading the thoughts of those you oppose. School isn’t about being only exposed to the stuff you want to be exposed to. They live in London for god’s sake. These “white” philosopher are part of their continents history, they should read and study them and if they have a problem with them try to rip the material apart with arguments. Even bad people can have good ideas that can be used. So even if they were all “white” devils they might still have points that are worth learning about. The only reason not to do it’s if they think they might be brainwashed by the material which is actually a lot more possible if you exclude material and viewpoints and narrow your view. This seems not to be the public afraid of the “new intelligent” thought that may emerge from this. It’s the public acknowledging the stupidity of asking for less knowledge because of the authors birth place and skin color.

    1. Fair enough. I am sometimes a devils advocate. My point is that we donr really know if indeed this wAy that the ‘white devil philosophers’ have reasoned is indeed a necessary aspect of human reason. Im saying ‘yeah, lets try to get some thinkers starting from a kind of’tabla rase’ if you will; maybe wed find that what we see as great thoughts are actually conditioned by a kind of Frerrian oppression.

      Lets see if humans without a pre program actially end up finding the same isssues and solutions.

      1. You would have to isolate them at birth into an area that somehow doesn’t include human’s, which is impossible. They lived in this world for their entire life, they’re very likely already exposed to these “devil” ideas but don’t know where they came from, them wanting not to learn isn’t some innovative way of thinking it’s children following a borderline racist attitude against white philosophers.

        Many people have never studied or learned about any philosophers, so where are these original ideas?

        They have nothing to back their claim up and teaching them that they can avoid ideas by just calling it poisoned old thought is ridiculous. You give to much credit thinking these children have any pure scientific thought in their claims. They are ideologues that have zero respect for history and have no respect for the fact that they’re in a college.

        “People don’t have ideas, ideas have people”

        but these kids won’t learn about this or even have to analyze it because they don’t want to read Jung, because white people.

        I understand being a devils advocate but this has no sense or intelligence behind it.

      2. I do question the level of intelligence of young people. Indeed they are able to learn complex skills very well, but so far as what we could call ‘social humanities’, i sometimes feel like we give ‘equal voice’ toomuch latitude. Young people are iften plain stupid and too reactive.

        But they do offer a constant sourse of new things to capitalize upon, like the idea of youth itself. Lol.

      3. That’s very true, I mean I might sound like an angry old man here but I’m in the same age group as these kids (what adds to my dismissal of these people), but the difference between these children and intelligent young adults is a lack of respect and responsibility.

        We need the youth to explore and the old to keep them in check. It’s how we develop without falling apart. It’s a balance, if we want to put it in political terms. We need the young liberals as much as the old conservatives. Both need to call each other out but what I see is society completely slacking off in keeping these children in line. They have zero respect for the past or people who added to our knowledge and understanding, they just want to burn it all down which if we look at history is a thing that happened, we did once forget the rich cultures we had in Europe. It’s known under the middle ages or more fitting the dark ages. But these kids have no sense of their own history.

        Maybe it’s because Western culture romanticizes the idea to be forever young and to never grow up and take responsibility but that’s just an idea and I don’t have data backing it up.

        As someone who wants to go into the social sciences these kids are the reason social science is all over the place and is a laughing stock at this point where someone actually puts up claims like heterosexuality is just a reaction to the oppressive force of the male. Which is ridiculous on so many levels and basically says that the human species isn’t actually a species that naturally produces offsprings but does it only because of male force intervention and that’s from a Professor.

        No wonder these kids are going off the rails lol.

      4. Yes you sound like a grumpy old man. I thought you were older than me lol.

        But I still say let them try let them have the space for the effort. But then the problem may be the narrowmindedness that goes into such an effort. I mean that kind of misunderstanding that goes into such an effort can be found in the continuing “postmodernist “analyses of texts. I have a couple post about the Sokal Hoax. I see these continuing type of what I kind of call extreme postmodernism, in the sense that it’s extreme because it still continues, not so much that the views that they put forth our extreme; there are more just ridiculous to me. It’s a complete miss construe all of what the original postmodernists had in mind. But I guess The issue with me is that I think they should be allowed to pursue such theoretical avenues but at the same time if the patch awaits a kind a version of reality that I think is just plain false and almost religious. If you look at some of these post modern tax they really make no sense unless you fall into the abyss of deciphering what those various hybrid terms could mean and then you’ve done nothing more then reify that their project is on substantial ground.

        For how could you argue with such people without addressing the terms that they use? At some point you just got to step away from it and say you’re making no sense I’m not gonna address your proposal except to say that you are miss guided.

        One might imagine if there is a group of undergraduates who were allowed to selectively exclude authors in thinkers based upon their perception of color and/or association with the European arena. One could imagine a whole new discipline arising whereby people propose theoretical models by which to discern this group of colonialistphilosophers from that group whatever you would call itphilosophers. A whole new theoretical basis and discipline could arise just from this facet. One could imagine that they could go so far as to be able to classify particular types of thinking that are colonialist particular types of reasoning an argument better colonialist as opposed to other whatever they might be better better.

        And then at some point there would be no way to argue with this people of this discipline. It seems it might naturally are you at self into a privileged position that says if you don’t engage with our text then you yourself are racist.

        Yeah it’s pretty ridiculous all the way around, this liberal minded education so to speak. It’s kind of a catch 22; if we could begin to do you limit what liberal education is allowed to be then we might end up developing the very start of totalitarian rhetoric that were trying to avoid by being liberal. Yet we can’t just allow conservatism to stand without challenging assumptions and bases of beliefincluding mythological ones.

        One would only hope that within these kind of academic circles there would be a check somehow that could keep everyone not in line but at least not in sane.

        Indeed in my undergraduate there was a professor who led the charge against another professor of psychology who taught a psychology of religion class. this other professor who is a professor of the history of consciousness, saw that what the psychology of religion professor was really putting forthwas more a religious proposal. That particular psychology of religion class, through series of hearings and debates , was there by removed from the curriculum.


      5. The problem is the schools have no conservative balance. Also to be fair to the political spectrum and looking at the genius marxists coming out of my generation. Both liberalism and conservatism can lead to authoritarianism. That’s what I see in schools. The liberal school system isn’t challenged with much conservative ideas or perspectives which leads to an echo chamber that thinks it’s progressive and goes further and further left, leaving liberalism basically behind for thought policing. I don’t see them leaving out European philosophers as anything that can lead to brilliant things, it very likely will only lead to ignorance and ideas that can easily be debunked and we let these kids waste years in a fantasy world instead of waking them up. Knowledge is power and lacking knowledge in my eyes never leads to anything productive.

      6. Also the fact Darwinian Evolution was found by two people around the exact same time and many other similar examples show people can easily come to the same conclusions, so it’s nothing new, Jung explored that showing again smarter people have already done the groundwork for them. They either build on it or discredit it. But not wanting to hear it because the author was white is….stupid.

  2. Your comments are quite reasonable.

    On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Constructive Undoing wrote:

    > landzek posted: “More from ‘let em’ ( the previous post): It appears that > my comment that i refer to in the pevious post, the Comment that was > supposed to be in the comments of the Reposted post, is not there, so ill > post what i remember i put. I said sonething to the ef” >

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s