Nothing. It was meant to represent an "idyll". The perfect marriage,IMO, is best represented by the two musicians... but the "latter" setting contravenes the meaning of an idyll.
Call me a Rousseauean. Society "corrupts," it doesn't "instruct". One needs "innoculations" against it so as to develop amour de soi vice amour propre.
...what Johnson misses in his "final analysis" is Rousseau's "Bible" for educating Sophie... Fenlon's "Telemachus". He see's Sophie as Emile's "Athena/mentor" not some third rate puppet. Her duty is to pull her husband's strings, not be pulled by them. Hers is the power "behind the throne."
ps - It's also interesting to note how a relatively "modern" philosopher like Johnston characterizes "Hobbesian Society" and the way the post-modern philosophers of today do (disciplinary/control). The bias of 20-20 hindsight and ressentiment is in FULL bloom.
...the "invisible hand" of the free-market has given way to totalitarian Government's manufacturing and polishing of legal/regulatory eyeglasses for Plutus. ;)
Okay. I see that I need to read Rousseau. When you described him as untrusting and somewhat paranoid, I decided to avoid him. But I like his concept of amour de soi.
I was just asking your opinion, or view of the painting. I saw it as impossible...actually it brought to mind Nietzsche's comments about a perfect marriage requiring a concubine.
He see's Sophie as Emile's "Athena/mentor" not some third rate puppet. Her duty is to pull her husband's strings, not be pulled by them. Hers is the power "behind the throne." ------- "He" is Rousseau? And you agree with Rousseau, obviously, being a Rousseauean.
I don't know who Stiegler is, I've never heard of him before. As for philosophers, I don't think it really matters which ones you read so much as you understand the ones you do read. I liked Rousseau.... he wrote very simply and clearly. He's much easier to understand than most. And yes, "he" is Rousseau. "Et vitam impendere vero" was his motto... and he lived it.
It's a nihilism that seeks to punish success. The very concepts used to describe society are born of this ressentiment.... "disciplinary"... "control".
I was "trained" as a systems analyst. The "technique" one applies to study a problem should NOT be the "result/finding" of the study itself (s system of control). It's like going searching for information about microscopic organisms and announcing to the world that all the micro-organisms in the universe live on stained glass slides...
It's a nihilism that seeks to punish success. The very concepts used to describe society are born of this ressentiment.... "disciplinary"... "control". ------ I see. It's prevalant and very dark, isn't it? I see no optimism in these philosopies. There's a doomsday attitude, it seems. Sometimes I wonder if we aren't a self-fulfillig prophesy.
The domain of the snark is an island filled with chasms and crags, very distant from England. On the same island may also be found other creatures such as the Jubjub and Bandersnatch. It is the same island where the Jabberwock was slain. The snark is a peculiar creature that cannot be captured in a commonplace way. Above all, courage is required during a snark hunt. The most common method is to seek it with thimbles, care, forks, and hope. One may also "threaten its life with a railway share" or "charm it with smiles and soap".
What does the painting say about a perfect marriage?
ReplyDeleteNothing. It was meant to represent an "idyll". The perfect marriage,IMO, is best represented by the two musicians... but the "latter" setting contravenes the meaning of an idyll.
ReplyDeleteCall me a Rousseauean. Society "corrupts," it doesn't "instruct". One needs "innoculations" against it so as to develop amour de soi vice amour propre.
So the painting was my attempt at an "innoculation." I suppose it failed...
ReplyDelete...for balance was NOT achieved.
ReplyDelete...more on Rousseau and the nature of society
ReplyDelete...what Johnson misses in his "final analysis" is Rousseau's "Bible" for educating Sophie... Fenlon's "Telemachus". He see's Sophie as Emile's "Athena/mentor" not some third rate puppet. Her duty is to pull her husband's strings, not be pulled by them. Hers is the power "behind the throne."
ReplyDelete've actually read Fenlon. I don't believe that Johnston has.
ReplyDeleteps - It's also interesting to note how a relatively "modern" philosopher like Johnston characterizes "Hobbesian Society" and the way the post-modern philosophers of today do (disciplinary/control). The bias of 20-20 hindsight and ressentiment is in FULL bloom.
ReplyDelete...the "invisible hand" of the free-market has given way to totalitarian Government's manufacturing and polishing of legal/regulatory eyeglasses for Plutus. ;)
ReplyDeleteOkay. I see that I need to read Rousseau. When you described him as untrusting and somewhat paranoid, I decided to avoid him. But I like his concept of amour de soi.
ReplyDeleteI was just asking your opinion, or view of the painting. I saw it as impossible...actually it brought to mind Nietzsche's comments about a perfect marriage requiring a concubine.
I preferred the music, myself.
oops. Foucault.
ReplyDeleteOn Deleuze and Foccault, I was keeping up until she mentioned Steigler. Steigler's theory is a contributory society?
ReplyDeleteWhere is the current ressentiment?
He see's Sophie as Emile's "Athena/mentor" not some third rate puppet. Her duty is to pull her husband's strings, not be pulled by them. Hers is the power "behind the throne."
ReplyDelete-------
"He" is Rousseau? And you agree with Rousseau, obviously, being a Rousseauean.
I don't know who Stiegler is, I've never heard of him before. As for philosophers, I don't think it really matters which ones you read so much as you understand the ones you do read. I liked Rousseau.... he wrote very simply and clearly. He's much easier to understand than most. And yes, "he" is Rousseau. "Et vitam impendere vero" was his motto... and he lived it.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the current ressentiment?
ReplyDeleteIt's a nihilism that seeks to punish success. The very concepts used to describe society are born of this ressentiment.... "disciplinary"... "control".
I was "trained" as a systems analyst. The "technique" one applies to study a problem should NOT be the "result/finding" of the study itself (s system of control). It's like going searching for information about microscopic organisms and announcing to the world that all the micro-organisms in the universe live on stained glass slides...
It's a nihilism that seeks to punish success. The very concepts used to describe society are born of this ressentiment.... "disciplinary"... "control".
ReplyDelete------
I see. It's prevalant and very dark, isn't it?
I see no optimism in these philosopies. There's a doomsday attitude, it seems. Sometimes I wonder if we aren't a self-fulfillig prophesy.
Self-fullfilling prophesy, indeed! They hunt for Snarks with spoons and find nothing but Boojums.
ReplyDeleteOooops. Forget the spoons....
ReplyDeleteThe domain of the snark is an island filled with chasms and crags, very distant from England. On the same island may also be found other creatures such as the Jubjub and Bandersnatch. It is the same island where the Jabberwock was slain. The snark is a peculiar creature that cannot be captured in a commonplace way. Above all, courage is required during a snark hunt. The most common method is to seek it with thimbles, care, forks, and hope. One may also "threaten its life with a railway share" or "charm it with smiles and soap".
...I hate Snarky philosophies. They turn the very word philo-sophie into an oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteI don't like that there's no life at the end of it. Very little affirmation...
ReplyDeleteCan't enjoy the few carrots you chance upon for all the sticks you imagine yourself soon to be beaten with...
ReplyDelete