- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I would love to see a Department dedicated to the Great Dudes of the Past, both fictional and not, called Dudestory. This could be placed within Dudeist Studies, but, like, in my opinion it is its own separate category of knowledge not necessarily denoting the study of the Religion itself. This is a topic that would garner much friendly, mind limbering, and possibly eye opening debate. It is important to study the lives of these Dudes from the past and to determine from their lives what makes them Dudes. Conversely we can study the dudes who were not Dude to use as a guide towards our own Dudely salvation. There’s a lot of ins and outs so I won’t go into much detail now. I’d truly enjoy a discourse on this topic and whether or not my fellow Dudes believe that this should become its own Department separate from Dudeist Studies.
-
I like this, it just took me a day to think of a Dude that should be included in this discussion. Allen Watts. I find his wisdom insightful. Here is a taste of this Dudes brilliance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RMHHwJ9Eqk
-
I have been a fan of Joe Rogan’s for many years. Today’s interview with Ben Shapiro was vary good. They got into a deep discussion about Secularism, Religion, and the state of the world today. The discussion was honest and made many very valid points. Mr Rogan, I believe, is more of a Dudeist than he knows. This pod cast is time well spent.
-
I think those are both good examples of dude, the paleontologist Robert Bakker I would argue is also very dude especially when considering his contributions to the field of not only paleontology but also to skepticism. He and another Paleontologist named Jack Horner both worked on Jurassic Park as consultants. Dr. Allan Grant in the movie is based off of Horner and the paleontologist in the second movie The Lost World is based on Bakker. At the time of its release Bakker and Horner were arguing about whether or not the Tyrannosaurus rex was a scavenger or a predator. Horner actually pulled strings and managed to get the character based on Bakker eaten by the T-rex. When Bakker saw this he called Horner and said, “See, I told you they were predators.” The ability to laugh at oneself is to me very Dude but in his book the Dinosaur Heresies Bakker fought the ideas of the time that dinosaurs were slow moving cold blooded reptiles and as a result led to our newly rediscovered belief that dinosaurs were fast moving and warm blooded. If for nothing else I think he should count as a Dude for the skepticism shown in this book.
-
On the flip-side of our discussion though I want to bring up a “Character” from history that is very undude. King John of England earned the title “Lackland”very early in his life because his father King Henry III when he divided up his kingdom for his sons inheritance left nothing to John, giving England, Normandy, and Anjou to his eldest brother Henry the Younger, He gave Aquitaine to Richard, and Poitou to Geoffrey. For most of his life despite being the son of a king John had no property of his own and was never expected to become king. Eventually he did become king and held all the lands that had been given to his brothers. He gained this though through scheming and murder. Once he became king he faced setbacks and fought against what could have been seen as fate. If he had practiced Wu Wei he may have achieved his goals but instead through his fighting turned his friends against him and eventually his own people not to mention the condemnation of the Catholic Church. In all he is an excellent example of how to not be Dude.
-
New Department & Degree Program: ABSTRACT Phenomenology
What is the best description of Phenomenology?
1- (the) philosophy of phenomenology, objective of which is the direct investigation and description of phenomena as consciously experienced — without theories about their causal explanation, and as free as possible from unexamined preconceptions and presuppositions.Edmund Husserl, c. 1930.
Although, as seen from Husserl’s last perspective, all departures from his own views could appear only as heresies to him (and any individual studying it, so no scientific means exist that either “test/evaluate” nor refute Phenomenology. A more generous assessment will show that all those who consider themselves phenomenologists subscribe, for instance, to his watchword, zu den Sachen selbst (“to the things themselves”), by which they meant the taking of a fresh approach to concretely experienced phenomena—an approach as free as possible from conceptual presuppositions—and the attempt to describe them as faithfully as possible, and often fail.Moreover, most adherents to phenomenology hold that it is possible to obtain insights into the essential structures and the essential relationships of these phenomena on the basis of a careful study of concrete examples supplied by experience or imagination and by a systematic variation of these examples in the imagination.
I propose Abstract Phenomenology as our new area of unerring focus, in our error-ridden, unfocused state. Phenomenology is less studies, if at all. “ABSTRACT” study of an already tailor-made, obscure & murky, subject, coupled with futile chase after phenomenology , would suit us very well at ABIDE: no one else studies Abstract Phenomenology, because it doesn’t exist, never will, and –NO ONE WANTS TO, if ever thinks of it.
–Jason Barton “Phloomxl@gmail.com”
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
