katsucats's Anime List | katsucats's Manga List
katsucats's Profile

katsucats's Details
4 hours ago
October 25, 2012
9,905 (Find All)
Last List Updates
Macross 25th Anniversary Special Eizou: All That VF Macross Zero Version add
Completed at 1 of 1
Macross 25th Anniversary Special Eizou: All That VF Macross F Version add
Completed at 1 of 1
Macross Frontier Deculture Edition add
Completed at 1 of 1

Anime Stats

Time (Days) 126.9
Watching 22
Completed 375
On Hold 15
Dropped 36
Plan to Watch 13
Total Entries 461

Anime compatibility with katsucats is:
Unknown :(

katsucats's Random Anime

Manga Stats

Time (Days) 0.0
Reading 0
Completed 0
On Hold 0
Dropped 0
Plan to Read 0
Total Entries 0

Manga compatibility with katsucats is:
Unknown :(

katsucats's Random Manga
No manga to randomly pick.

About katsucats
I'm just a monster inside of your bed.

katsucats's Comments
Displaying 15 of 255 Comments
M_F_M | 09-02-14, 3:59 AM
Dont you mean under the bed? ._.

midnightblade | 09-01-14, 5:16 PM
What did you think of High School Dx D? I have not watched that anime, but I find the OP/ED very...ahem... O.O

Anmoly97 | 08-26-14, 9:47 AM
god damn mate, your forum avatar got me. I thought there was a new forum position or something.

LiYuxin | 08-25-14, 1:59 AM
Wow, thank you very much for sharing that!
It is another perspective. You have given me so many new approaches to this, I might need some time to digest it and to build up some new ideas on that as a fundament.

Having read your text made me think that it's maybe really just a vicious circle and that there are really no goals in philosophy.
This is a rather personal question: If you already know of the stage of mental paralysis resulting from nihilism, how have you managed to evade that state? Maybe it's just my personal problem, but it seems pretty much impossible to get out of that once you're in.

DerpHole | 08-19-14, 5:41 AM
I see your avatar is switching between fonts on the "forum antagonist" thing.

From skimming through the code, it seems the site uses Verdana & Arial fonts. Arial looks like the one you want.

Jayex | 08-17-14, 9:13 PM
You recognized me for what I am?

Welcome to the club, ignorant proles get on my nerves, and as such I'm glad you aren't one.

Meokii | 08-17-14, 5:00 AM
yes ;D

Citizeninsane | 08-16-14, 5:11 PM
Alright, katsucats, the reason why I wanted to discuss things was because I enjoy conversations over philosophy. I grant certain claims you have made about my certain misplacements in judgment, but there is a certain tone in this conversation that I don't necessarily want to partake in. Maybe you don't either given some of your comments. So I will resign myself from this conversation. I just wanted to give a certain perspective and I think I will leave some articles that I may not necessarily agree in their totality, but nonetheless gives philosophical perspective.

Also, when I quote, I intenfully do so. That is, I do so under the view that I cannot fully contain a philosopher's thought, I can merely give an interpretation and offer that via a quote. I usually use them since they express a sentiment that I agree with, insofar as I interpret them. I would also like to give insight into the fact that I think that insofar as Being and Time is concerned, Heidegger was attempting to re-work the german language to distance himself from metaphysical thinking, and in that sense, traditional epistemology. Granted, there may be nuances and ambiguities at stake that Heidegger may or not have intended. But he explicitly states in regard to themes such as inauthenticity, destiny, authenticity, guilt, etc. that these are not value-laden themes. One can take an argument up that they do, but it isn't as easy as just claiming and asserting it as if it was the main thematic goal within BT.

I recommend a checking out of this page, and if you are really interested I would recommend a reading of Richard Polt's Introduction to Heidegger, it translates the book into clear interpretative well-substantiated points.

Have a good one.

Meokii | 08-13-14, 3:20 AM

I'm just a monster inside of your bed.

Don't you mean under

Citizeninsane | 08-13-14, 2:51 AM
Let me ask, what have you read from Heidegger? And where do you get this 6 meanings of Being? Just curious, do you take every philosopher's thought to be monolithic? What Heidegger meant by Being at the end of his career was entirely different than what he meant in Being and Time. And if you think Heidegger was a prescriptive philosopher, well I don't really know what to say to that. That is like saying Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals was a prescriptive account of ethics.

My argument was quite simple:
1. In Aristotelian time, the now determines time
2. There are metaphysical issues with the now
3. Those metaphysical issues translate to time
C. Insofar as this time is concerned, existence is presence

What is done after the fact, is a re-thinking of time in light of existentialist and ontological themes. And by ontology, I mean an ontology of just description. Describing how things/human being expose themselves in the world. An entirely descriptive ontology. Not entirely sure what is up with the implications you have made thereafter, not my cup of tea.

What I mean is this, you are claiming that there is a principle that judges whether some statement is rightfully to be pursued and can be empirically verified. So, my question is whether or not that which constitutes the judgement, or the standards through the judgement is made, is that empirically verifiable? Or is it also the product of psychology? And if it that is the case, then don't you just run into just psychology predominating?

Edit: Stupid mistakes

Citizeninsane | 08-13-14, 2:01 AM
Ah, I forgot to ask, have you read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

Citizeninsane | 08-13-14, 1:50 AM
Right, but the logical positivist movement has largely been abandoned and has generally moved onto traditions such as the analytic movement. And also an American interpretation of some of the continental thinkers, most predominately, Heidegger, e.g. Rorty and Dreyfus. I think this is large in due to the fact that the claim from the logical positivist movement is that the claims that are unimaginable, e.g. theology, some ethical theories, etc. are meaningless, or cannot be empirically verified, how does one meaningfully judge the principle through which the judgements are made. That is, is the principle that verifies that which is meaningful, empirically verifiable?

Let me ask, are you speaking on behalf of the Wittgenstein that wrote Tractatus, or the Wittgenstein that wrote Philosophical Investigations.

Honestly, if I could manage to do both, I would, but I don't fancy myself devoted, nor intelligent enough, to pursue physics.

The point I was trying to make in that thread was there were particular presuppositions that were claimed and held. What I attempted to bring to the forefront were problematics in that conception of time, or some lapse, or whatever have you. In other words, to enumerate the fundamental metaphysical problems with the now, its divisibility, or lack there-of, its indefinite-ness, etc. I don't know how that is irrelevant. And what, is your claim that I was making a non-sequitur?

Citizeninsane | 08-13-14, 12:26 AM
Well I did, you asked the question about how is it the case that a human being comports itself to the world. I answered your question in the context of what I said originally. I was just elaborating on what I meant in regard to that comportment. Now of course you may say that comment originally was made in bad taste, and to a certain degree that may be true. But I figured I would at least attempt to speak on behalf of time in a new way at least one that can be distinguished from the usual conception of time aforementioned in that post. Moreover, that wasn't strictly the only avenue through which to challenge that conception, one could also take the route of critiquing the whole conception of metaphysics from a linguistic point of view. Which is what I gleaned from your recent posts on that topic. Which something that I tend to agree with, at least some of the stuff I have read from Wittgenstein where he questions the extent to which language can properly speak on behalf of things that aren't directly encountered in the world, e.g. time.

Right, I wasn't disputing the claim that the past comprises all conceivable thought. Nevertheless, you claimed "It does not reduce to common or popular thought", which wasn't what I was claiming. I wasn't claiming that the human being is consciously aware of this cognitive process and consistently speaks on behalf of all thought. But I was saying that thought is vital to the constitution of any given individual.

Wait, are you implying that there is some sort of transcendent object behind the appearance of the object. Kantian noumena? Or a Platonic object?

When I meant primary, I didn't mean in a hierarchical fashion, I meant the way in which I encounter the keyboard is predominately as a tool. But I might begin a rigorous scientific investigation of the keyboard, and then we could say that my comportment to the keyboard is truly in that relationship of being an object of inquiry.

Also, how I am I being reductionist? I am not leveling down any other conception. And I guess that is where we disagree to agree, because I find that which takes place in the most familiar territory, to be the most interesting. Usually the most familiar is that which is not investigated and assumed. Moreover, the familiar is that which is closest to us, which is why I find so much interest in that field. Thus, enumerating the familiar with lucidity is something I find to be a vital task in philosophy. I think that has been concretized in both Wittgenstein and Heidegger, I recall a statement by Wittgenstein that stated to the effect, "don't think, but look!" Which is to say, stop theoretically abstracting from daily life and hijacking language into unknown metaphysical territory and merely look at the behavior of how language is utilized.

Citizeninsane | 08-12-14, 11:32 PM
I decided I would give my response here since I figured that it was just de-railing from the original topic.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by "common or popular thought." Furthermore, I wasn't saying that they weren't objects. What I was saying is that the primary modality in which we encounter objects was the one that I presented. The other modality is just seeing the keyboard as object, as brute presence.

Furthermore, I am confused, when did I say that we are strictly limited to the past? I said that we are limited by the past and because of that situation and orientation, we have particular set of possibilities in the future due to that? Moreover, when did I say anything about acceptance? I was merely pointing out the importance of enumerating the phenomena to begin with, e.g. I could describe the inauthentic modes in which the human being conjures things such as religion, cults etc. and speak about the structures of those comportments, about how they came about, how that individual encounters things in light of that, but I don't necessarily have to accept or agree to what they believe. Not entirely sure how you made that leap.

Immahnoob | 08-12-14, 4:27 AM
Are you bored?

Write a Comment
Help     FAQ     About     Contact     Terms     Privacy     AdChoices