tsinava posted:I still stand by my original point that our concepts of capitalism are a perversion of nature even though nature is a bunch of stuff that's constantly mutating and adapting.
Our idea that competition makes us stronger or better comes from a misunderstanding of nature.
but even the idea that competition makes us stronger isnt inherently capitalist. struggle is competition. in capitalism, nobody really competes, most of us just exist in a designated place and what is called competition is usually a series of foregone conclusions.
im so sorry. can we talk about something cool now.
c_man posted:babyhueypnewton posted:acknowledging the existence of an entire nature that encompasses reality outside of our perception but is also not identical to it and not fixed by it.
this is, imo, why latour is garbage and why people like karen barad are at least a step in a direction that makes sense. googleing "latour homeopathy" is great for postmodern ninnys who congratulate themselves on going to homeopaths and wondering why they use "western medicine" at all while doing their damnedest to avoid even considering that it could work better than something else. the idea that we have to get rid of everything that makes up capitalism and/or is subsumed by modern ideology and once we do that we'll be fine is extremely dumb imo because any other thing could just as easily take its place.
this is also the basic reason why i got into an argument about rights with swampman i guess. even if imperialists are using rights-based arguments, that has much less to do with some sort of "inherent essence" of such positions and much more to do with the fact that it was a type of argument that was around at the time. at the same time, a socialist/ecologically sound government wouldn't benefit from simply throwing away things that were produced under capitalism but would certainly have to work (hard!) to re-purpose the existing ideological or technical mechanisms that exist to produce a "better" living situation. lmao long post again
hasn't latour recanted a bit
Nature and Capitalism are both mutagenic and adaptive though.
I believe we get our idea of how we should treat economies and businesses and money from assumptions we make about nature. Just like how we mimic nature in a lot of other aspects of our lives. Sometimes we mimic nature wrong though, or in ways that cause really weird what I can only describe as "asymmetrical" problems.
blee bluh blee bluh
i agree though.
Doug posted:hasn't latour recanted a bit
he apparently said some stuff about how maybe its not universally a good thing to ignore all science completely but immediately proceeded to explain how important it was to give god "ontological weight" and how the only things that matter were things made of "social stuff" and everything else is just this mass of "plasma". why did the soviet union fall? plasma. what's the difference between taking penicillin and taking communion? plasma. the idea that science plays any kind of non-social role is still right out afaik.
c_man posted:Doug posted:hasn't latour recanted a bit
he apparently said some stuff about how maybe its not universally a good thing to ignore all science completely but immediately proceeded to explain how important it was to give god "ontological weight" and how the only things that matter were things made of "social stuff" and everything else is just this mass of "plasma". why did the soviet union fall? plasma. what's the difference between taking penicillin and taking communion? plasma. the idea that science plays any kind of non-social role is still right out afaik.
i read an article he wrote where he said that most of critical theory is unfalsifiable and thus bad and "critical theory" is basically done outside academia by conspiracy theorists and that critical theory needs to work alongside scientists instead of just yelling at them
tsinava posted:that can logically be assumed from what i said.
i agree though.
how do you differ your position from liberal technophiles who think computers will sweep both scarcity and class away
I don't think at this point our society is organized enough to engineer something that can even approach the concept of benevolent A.I. or whatever those nerds talk about.
I think that before we can even talk about going to outer space and all that dumb star trek shit we have to first figure out how to feed, get medical treatment, appropriate shelter and education for everyone and as of now we aren't even close lol
(be "we" i mean we as a planet)
Doug posted:i read an article he wrote where he said that most of critical theory is unfalsifiable and thus bad and "critical theory" is basically done outside academia by conspiracy theorists and that critical theory needs to work alongside scientists instead of just yelling at them
yeah this is what i was talking about. im pretty sure the thing you're talking about is Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? and the plasma garbage was after that in Reassembling the Social. he just shifted from actively disparaging the idea that science can say something about some kind of extrasocial reality to coming up with a metaphysics/ontology where its just impossible.
c_man posted:Doug posted:i read an article he wrote where he said that most of critical theory is unfalsifiable and thus bad and "critical theory" is basically done outside academia by conspiracy theorists and that critical theory needs to work alongside scientists instead of just yelling at them
yeah this is what i was talking about. im pretty sure the thing you're talking about is Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? and the plasma garbage was after that in Reassembling the Social. he just shifted from actively disparaging the idea that science can say something about some kind of extrasocial reality to coming up with a metaphysics/ontology where its just impossible.
ok.
MindMaster posted:tsinava posted:I still stand by my original point that our concepts of capitalism are a perversion of nature even though nature is a bunch of stuff that's constantly mutating and adapting.
Our idea that competition makes us stronger or better comes from a misunderstanding of nature.but even the idea that competition makes us stronger isnt inherently capitalist. struggle is competition. in capitalism, nobody really competes, most of us just exist in a designated place and what is called competition is usually a series of foregone conclusions.
it is however, inherently garbage trash for fascists while being blatantly and demonstrably untrue~ e: with at absolute minimum an important place in capitalist and imperialist rhetoric natch
chickeon posted:MindMaster posted:tsinava posted:I still stand by my original point that our concepts of capitalism are a perversion of nature even though nature is a bunch of stuff that's constantly mutating and adapting.
Our idea that competition makes us stronger or better comes from a misunderstanding of nature.but even the idea that competition makes us stronger isnt inherently capitalist. struggle is competition. in capitalism, nobody really competes, most of us just exist in a designated place and what is called competition is usually a series of foregone conclusions.
it is however, inherently garbage trash for fascists while being blatantly and demonstrably untrue~
well what i meant was that competition is just another myth capitalism tells itself about itself. it's an empty signifier, and if there can be said to be such a thing as authentic competition it is surely the non-materially determined competition of ideas towards truth, the only competition we are not supposed to engage in today.
MindMaster posted:tsinava posted:I still stand by my original point that our concepts of capitalism are a perversion of nature even though nature is a bunch of stuff that's constantly mutating and adapting.
Our idea that competition makes us stronger or better comes from a misunderstanding of nature.but even the idea that competition makes us stronger isnt inherently capitalist. struggle is competition. in capitalism, nobody really competes, most of us just exist in a designated place and what is called competition is usually a series of foregone conclusions.
that was a standard institutional keynesian/ organisational behavioural thing in the 70s and it didnt really turn out to be as true as they imagined
edit: monopoly capital as well oops
Edited by Doug ()
tsinava posted:Also explain how capitalism occurs in nature. (No humans.)
I was going to say Queen bees that exploit their workers but that's more monarchical or feudal.
tsinava posted:Um. I guess because I don't think that.
I don't think at this point our society is organized enough to engineer something that can even approach the concept of benevolent A.I. or whatever those nerds talk about.
I think that before we can even talk about going to outer space and all that dumb star trek shit we have to first figure out how to feed, get medical treatment, appropriate shelter and education for everyone and as of now we aren't even close lol
(be "we" i mean we as a planet)
and yet we have the ability to accurately measure and predict the earth's climate?
Believe it or not, measuring and predicting the weather isn't nearly as complicated as creating a sentient machine.
tsinava posted:Yes we do IWC.
Believe it or not, measuring and predicting the weather isn't nearly as complicated as creating a sentient machine.
weather /= climate
Edited by tehblackw0lf ()
c_man posted:he apparently said some stuff about how maybe its not universally a good thing to ignore all science completely but immediately proceeded to explain how important it was to give god "ontological weight" and how the only things that matter were things made of "social stuff" and everything else is just this mass of "plasma". why did the soviet union fall? plasma. what's the difference between taking penicillin and taking communion? plasma. the idea that science plays any kind of non-social role is still right out afaik.
no