Now I don't know what I feel, me neither, Jaki said that.rjhudsonOctober 15 2006, 20:48:52 UTC
On Talking Heads' *More Songs About Buildings and Food,* there's a song called "Artists Only." Byrne sings "I'm painting, I'm painting again. . . I'm cleaning, cleaning my brain." You could put a positive spin on brainwashing, and liken it to braincleaning. In that case, it'd be a wholesome, healthy thing. Reading philosophy would be an activity that clears away the dust and grease.
I'm pretty sure when I typed "brainwashing" in, though, I had things like propaganda mechanisms in mind. I was using the term in the old-school sense. It's a contested word. Psychology (as discipline), for instance, has some issues with the word. You can browse this, at your leisure. It's just a wiki article.
I myself prefer the word because it's got that ring of brutality to it. It sounds more concrete and unpleasant than "thought reform," or "mind control."
Anyway, I think the reading of philosophy can go either way. You can use the activity to mop-up your thoughts, which is a good thing. You can also be subjected to some reading that would--one way or another--change the way you think.
The degree to which reading philosophy constitutes brainwashing (in the nasty sense), probably depends on the degree to which someone is guiding those readings. The shit that goes down on Philosophy, typically, borders on brainwashing, sometimes. An autonomous reading of Heidegger would probably be healthier than a reading accompanied by a gaggle of hounding, and mean-spirited Analytics. Many of those guys (and I don't think this applies to any of the women, over there) really don't see anything wrong with living in a world populated by people who think exactly like they. That's precisely the mindset that promotes wholesale brainwashing on a mass-level.
Braincleaning: my scatterbrained responseragnar1787October 15 2006, 23:12:44 UTC
You're coming through loud and clear!
I think the reading of philosophy can go either way. I feel that. If a reader doesn't challenge and question the ideas being presented, brainwashing will likely follow. If the reader critically examines the arguments/assertions of a philosopher, the mind will become sharper.
But, then again, our mental capacities are limited and we can be rational only to an extent.
I don't imagine that we'd be better off never picking up a philosophy book. Perhaps more "authentic" (that is if we aren't brainwashed by non-philosophers) but with a more limited perspective. I suppose I do drugs for the same reason that I read philosophy: to expand my perspective.
I think words are very powerful and important. Have I been brainwashed by Schopenhauer into thinking that I am will? Would I be equally brainwashed if I thought that I was a soul, or matter, or spirit, or an animal, or a brain, or a mind, or appearance? If I came to a conclusion about my identity without reading anyone would I have reached a better conclusion or would I just have brainwashed myself? Ahhh!
Is the only escape from error to refrain from attaching a word to what is in reality mysterious?
I'm pretty sure when I typed "brainwashing" in, though, I had things like propaganda mechanisms in mind. I was using the term in the old-school sense. It's a contested word. Psychology (as discipline), for instance, has some issues with the word. You can browse this, at your leisure. It's just a wiki article.
I myself prefer the word because it's got that ring of brutality to it. It sounds more concrete and unpleasant than "thought reform," or "mind control."
Anyway, I think the reading of philosophy can go either way. You can use the activity to mop-up your thoughts, which is a good thing. You can also be subjected to some reading that would--one way or another--change the way you think.
The degree to which reading philosophy constitutes brainwashing (in the nasty sense), probably depends on the degree to which someone is guiding those readings. The shit that goes down on Philosophy, typically, borders on brainwashing, sometimes. An autonomous reading of Heidegger would probably be healthier than a reading accompanied by a gaggle of hounding, and mean-spirited Analytics. Many of those guys (and I don't think this applies to any of the women, over there) really don't see anything wrong with living in a world populated by people who think exactly like they. That's precisely the mindset that promotes wholesale brainwashing on a mass-level.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Reply
I think the reading of philosophy can go either way.
I feel that. If a reader doesn't challenge and question the ideas being presented, brainwashing will likely follow. If the reader critically examines the arguments/assertions of a philosopher, the mind will become sharper.
But, then again, our mental capacities are limited and we can be rational only to an extent.
I don't imagine that we'd be better off never picking up a philosophy book. Perhaps more "authentic" (that is if we aren't brainwashed by non-philosophers) but with a more limited perspective. I suppose I do drugs for the same reason that I read philosophy: to expand my perspective.
I think words are very powerful and important. Have I been brainwashed by Schopenhauer into thinking that I am will? Would I be equally brainwashed if I thought that I was a soul, or matter, or spirit, or an animal, or a brain, or a mind, or appearance? If I came to a conclusion about my identity without reading anyone would I have reached a better conclusion or would I just have brainwashed myself? Ahhh!
Is the only escape from error to refrain from attaching a word to what is in reality mysterious?
Reply
Leave a comment