girdles_gone_wild posted:
that says welcome back to work, tom
girdles_gone_wild posted:that is correct
youre finnish?
anyway, thought I'd drop that little bit in the thread cause it helped me get through both authors, still trying to figure out where i stand on althusser, i feel he gets a bad rep though (understandably so, his work is used to justify post-marxism, nihilism, and bourgeoise philosophy masquerading as left wing academia)
babyhueypnewton posted:i've been reading 'reading capital' (althusser) and I found it very difficult to understand until I started reading spinoza too. not because althusser is that hard, but just because platonism is so deeply embedded into our psyches that a different conception of knowledge and separating object of knowledge from the real object is hard yo. also abandoning empiricism is hard unless you have some kind of alternative conception of knowledge which althusser doesn't bother to explain, he basically assumes you know from spinoza (and i guess nitezsche/foucault). ofc, spinoza is boring and abstract without althusser imo, you especially the discipline to suffer the repeated use of 'god' withouth being immediately repulsed.
anyway, thought I'd drop that little bit in the thread cause it helped me get through both authors, still trying to figure out where i stand on althusser, i feel he gets a bad rep though (understandably so, his work is used to justify post-marxism, nihilism, and bourgeoise philosophy masquerading as left wing academia)
read this book. philosophy of the encounter. always strive and prosper. allah saves all people. much love god bless
i think that 'theoretical anti-humanism' can only really mean two things. one is that history is not a matter of everyone doing some transcendental ethical duty and that social change is largely based on people pursuing their interests. the other is that duty ethics (either kantian or utilitarian) won't be 'political' in communism because of its stateless and classless nature.
i think this is possible if ethics is less about imperatives and more about qualities within a situation. so we can look at our society and say that there is a certain logic based on free cooperation, which is currently abstracted through property but might possibly be better expressed on a more social basis. and the point of this is to live a happy life. but not in imperative terms, you don't have a duty to be happy, it's just nice, and part of happiness involves honouring things we like about ourselves and others. the subject itself is sort of an abstraction (it is interpolated by the social), but we still have to have fidelity to our experience as individuals and come up with projects we want to do.
of course, that doesn't give socialism a rock-solid foundation, but that's because there is no rock-solid foundation, and people who think they need to go around killing everyone to impose their weird views are probably pathological.
blinkandwheeze posted:babyhueypnewton posted:i've been reading 'reading capital' (althusser) and I found it very difficult to understand until I started reading spinoza too. not because althusser is that hard, but just because platonism is so deeply embedded into our psyches that a different conception of knowledge and separating object of knowledge from the real object is hard yo. also abandoning empiricism is hard unless you have some kind of alternative conception of knowledge which althusser doesn't bother to explain, he basically assumes you know from spinoza (and i guess nitezsche/foucault). ofc, spinoza is boring and abstract without althusser imo, you especially the discipline to suffer the repeated use of 'god' withouth being immediately repulsed.
anyway, thought I'd drop that little bit in the thread cause it helped me get through both authors, still trying to figure out where i stand on althusser, i feel he gets a bad rep though (understandably so, his work is used to justify post-marxism, nihilism, and bourgeoise philosophy masquerading as left wing academia)read this book. philosophy of the encounter. always strive and prosper. allah saves all people. much love god bless
sweet getting on that. yeah i'm really starting to appreciate seeing a communist philosophy as completely separate from liberalism and democracy (obv) but also western metaphysics going back to plato and rebuilding my ideology from the ground up. marx did his doctoral thesis on epicurus and democritus actually:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/index.htm
interesting more for the historical value
getfiscal posted:i think that it's obvious socialism has an ethical basis.
i think that 'theoretical anti-humanism' can only really mean two things. one is that history is not a matter of everyone doing some transcendental ethical duty and that social change is largely based on people pursuing their interests. the other is that duty ethics (either kantian or utilitarian) won't be 'political' in communism because of its stateless and classless nature.
i think this is possible if ethics is less about imperatives and more about qualities within a situation. so we can look at our society and say that there is a certain logic based on free cooperation, which is currently abstracted through property but might possibly be better expressed on a more social basis. and the point of this is to live a happy life. but not in imperative terms, you don't have a duty to be happy, it's just nice, and part of happiness involves honouring things we like about ourselves and others. the subject itself is sort of an abstraction (it is interpolated by the social), but we still have to have fidelity to our experience as individuals and come up with projects we want to do.
of course, that doesn't give socialism a rock-solid foundation, but that's because there is no rock-solid foundation, and people who think they need to go around killing everyone to impose their weird views are probably pathological.
but it doesn't mean either of those things at all though?? and ethics as you define them are meaningless, you sound like one of those pop-philosophers like peter singer or michael J. sandel.
babyhueypnewton posted:i've been reading 'reading capital' (althusser) and I found it very difficult to understand until I started reading spinoza too. not because althusser is that hard, but just because platonism is so deeply embedded into our psyches that a different conception of knowledge and separating object of knowledge from the real object is hard yo. also abandoning empiricism is hard unless you have some kind of alternative conception of knowledge which althusser doesn't bother to explain, he basically assumes you know from spinoza (and i guess nitezsche/foucault). ofc, spinoza is boring and abstract without althusser imo, you especially the discipline to suffer the repeated use of 'god' withouth being immediately repulsed.
anyway, thought I'd drop that little bit in the thread cause it helped me get through both authors, still trying to figure out where i stand on althusser, i feel he gets a bad rep though (understandably so, his work is used to justify post-marxism, nihilism, and bourgeoise philosophy masquerading as left wing academia)
spinozism is basically orthodox ash'ari sunni theology 
blinkandwheeze posted:i would disagree this philosophy involves a rejection of western metaphysical thought - badiou is certainly one of the closest remaining followers of althusser's project, alongside perhaps zizek and balibar, and he is dedicated to saving a certain platonic thought. althusser and badiou both owe a lot to lucretius, epicurus, etc.
it's tough for me to say. on the surface it does appear badiou supports a kind of 'higher form' of knowledge (similar to althussers philosophical conception of fetishism) and communism as an ideal, even independent of historical materialism (opposed to dialectical materialism), however althusser is pretty explicit in limiting this to scientific knowledge of a structure/combination of structures and defining the real world as the 'raw material' of thought, which determines all possible modes of production of knowledge. platonism seems to be far more present in empiricism, which believes in the highest form of knowledge (truth) behind all knowledge and views knowledge as a discovery of 'pure forms' rather than as a production and conflict of wills.
for me, anyway, althusser manages to satisfy a conception of communism which deals with nietzsche's criticism of plato, avoids liberalism and empiricism, but also remains scientific and materialist and not transcendental and veiled behind rhetoric. but maybe I'm seeing what I want to see. as for badiou, I can't say too much, as you said his thought does seem close to althusser but I'm not that well informed on him.
babyfinland posted:babyhueypnewton posted:i've been reading 'reading capital' (althusser) and I found it very difficult to understand until I started reading spinoza too. not because althusser is that hard, but just because platonism is so deeply embedded into our psyches that a different conception of knowledge and separating object of knowledge from the real object is hard yo. also abandoning empiricism is hard unless you have some kind of alternative conception of knowledge which althusser doesn't bother to explain, he basically assumes you know from spinoza (and i guess nitezsche/foucault). ofc, spinoza is boring and abstract without althusser imo, you especially the discipline to suffer the repeated use of 'god' withouth being immediately repulsed.
anyway, thought I'd drop that little bit in the thread cause it helped me get through both authors, still trying to figure out where i stand on althusser, i feel he gets a bad rep though (understandably so, his work is used to justify post-marxism, nihilism, and bourgeoise philosophy masquerading as left wing academia)spinozism is basically orthodox ash'ari sunni theology
I actually thought about this a lot (and I thought of you 
) while reading the Ethics. I would say Spinoza is true Jewish theology which is slightly different from Islam (but far closer than Christianity which is totally different) but if you asked me to explain I don't have a good enough knowledge of Islam or Spinoza atm. Anyway, Islamic philosophy is pretty interesting, I still see these things for what they are, which is a skeleton and limited by a conception of god (even if it's a naturalist one) but I think it's far more likely that new, healthy philosophy will emerge from the muslim world than the western world.
babyhueypnewton posted:babyfinland posted:babyhueypnewton posted:i've been reading 'reading capital' (althusser) and I found it very difficult to understand until I started reading spinoza too. not because althusser is that hard, but just because platonism is so deeply embedded into our psyches that a different conception of knowledge and separating object of knowledge from the real object is hard yo. also abandoning empiricism is hard unless you have some kind of alternative conception of knowledge which althusser doesn't bother to explain, he basically assumes you know from spinoza (and i guess nitezsche/foucault). ofc, spinoza is boring and abstract without althusser imo, you especially the discipline to suffer the repeated use of 'god' withouth being immediately repulsed.
anyway, thought I'd drop that little bit in the thread cause it helped me get through both authors, still trying to figure out where i stand on althusser, i feel he gets a bad rep though (understandably so, his work is used to justify post-marxism, nihilism, and bourgeoise philosophy masquerading as left wing academia)spinozism is basically orthodox ash'ari sunni theology
I actually thought about this a lot (and I thought of you
agamben's the kingdom and the glory discusses peculiarly western-christian theological concepts (e.g. the bifurcation of divine being and act in opposition to spinozist/ash'ari occasionalism) and their fundamental position within modern thought, specifically regarding political thought and notions of sovereignty
im thinking about applying for a phd to use agamben against islamic theology
Edited by babyfinland ()
babyfinland posted:babyhueypnewton posted:babyfinland posted:babyhueypnewton posted:i've been reading 'reading capital' (althusser) and I found it very difficult to understand until I started reading spinoza too. not because althusser is that hard, but just because platonism is so deeply embedded into our psyches that a different conception of knowledge and separating object of knowledge from the real object is hard yo. also abandoning empiricism is hard unless you have some kind of alternative conception of knowledge which althusser doesn't bother to explain, he basically assumes you know from spinoza (and i guess nitezsche/foucault). ofc, spinoza is boring and abstract without althusser imo, you especially the discipline to suffer the repeated use of 'god' withouth being immediately repulsed.
anyway, thought I'd drop that little bit in the thread cause it helped me get through both authors, still trying to figure out where i stand on althusser, i feel he gets a bad rep though (understandably so, his work is used to justify post-marxism, nihilism, and bourgeoise philosophy masquerading as left wing academia)spinozism is basically orthodox ash'ari sunni theology
I actually thought about this a lot (and I thought of you
agamben's the kingdom and the glory discusses peculiarly western-christian theological concepts (e.g. the bifurcation of divine being and act in opposition to spinozist/ash'ari occasionalism) and their fundamental position within modern thought, specifically regarding political thought and notions of sovereignty
im thinking about applying for a phd to use agamben against islamic theology
that would be kewl, you should do it even though everyone on this board is apparently miserable in grad school
babyhueypnewton posted:babyfinland posted:babyhueypnewton posted:babyfinland posted:babyhueypnewton posted:i've been reading 'reading capital' (althusser) and I found it very difficult to understand until I started reading spinoza too. not because althusser is that hard, but just because platonism is so deeply embedded into our psyches that a different conception of knowledge and separating object of knowledge from the real object is hard yo. also abandoning empiricism is hard unless you have some kind of alternative conception of knowledge which althusser doesn't bother to explain, he basically assumes you know from spinoza (and i guess nitezsche/foucault). ofc, spinoza is boring and abstract without althusser imo, you especially the discipline to suffer the repeated use of 'god' withouth being immediately repulsed.
anyway, thought I'd drop that little bit in the thread cause it helped me get through both authors, still trying to figure out where i stand on althusser, i feel he gets a bad rep though (understandably so, his work is used to justify post-marxism, nihilism, and bourgeoise philosophy masquerading as left wing academia)spinozism is basically orthodox ash'ari sunni theology
I actually thought about this a lot (and I thought of you
agamben's the kingdom and the glory discusses peculiarly western-christian theological concepts (e.g. the bifurcation of divine being and act in opposition to spinozist/ash'ari occasionalism) and their fundamental position within modern thought, specifically regarding political thought and notions of sovereignty
im thinking about applying for a phd to use agamben against islamic theologythat would be kewl, you should do it even though everyone on this board is apparently miserable in grad school
my guess is that agamben is probably wrong about the western peculiarity of certain aspects of his archeology of sovereignty and that islamic theology probably shares many aspects of the problem despite not containing the alleged signatures of sovereignty that he identifies in his work, but i'd imagine that agamben's tools might illuminate a radical gap between the two pillars of western thought (i.e. western christianity and arab islam) that would allow for the potentiality without actuality that he argues we need, or perhaps indicate that thats a mistaken goal. agamben is a heideggerian really so its sort of traditional to criticize western thought and then appeal to the eastern magi for that sort, but that is itself a western civilizational trope; waha.
ive gotten to the point where i cant really see myself doing anything but brainwork anymore so it doesnt matter if grad school sucks or not hahah
getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
it would be totally rad. doesn't really matter though, capitalism is in a terminal crisis and i guess its a value judgement to say i would prefer a communist system to a cormac mccarthy hellscape. all those 'marxists' in the 80s/90s who either turned into liberals or nihilists didn't have the patience I guess, or were afraid of death and not seeing communism within their lifetime. feel bad for guys like hobsbawm who just seems really sad and old.
babyhueypnewton posted:blinkandwheeze posted:i would disagree this philosophy involves a rejection of western metaphysical thought - badiou is certainly one of the closest remaining followers of althusser's project, alongside perhaps zizek and balibar, and he is dedicated to saving a certain platonic thought. althusser and badiou both owe a lot to lucretius, epicurus, etc.
it's tough for me to say. on the surface it does appear badiou supports a kind of 'higher form' of knowledge (similar to althussers philosophical conception of fetishism) and communism as an ideal, even independent of historical materialism (opposed to dialectical materialism), however althusser is pretty explicit in limiting this to scientific knowledge of a structure/combination of structures and defining the real world as the 'raw material' of thought, which determines all possible modes of production of knowledge. platonism seems to be far more present in empiricism, which believes in the highest form of knowledge (truth) behind all knowledge and views knowledge as a discovery of 'pure forms' rather than as a production and conflict of wills.
for me, anyway, althusser manages to satisfy a conception of communism which deals with nietzsche's criticism of plato, avoids liberalism and empiricism, but also remains scientific and materialist and not transcendental and veiled behind rhetoric. but maybe I'm seeing what I want to see. as for badiou, I can't say too much, as you said his thought does seem close to althusser but I'm not that well informed on him.
both (later) althusser and (early) badiou work within an ontology that owes a huge debt to a specifically epicurean atomism built on concepts of clinamen and unpredictable swerve. badiou's incursions into the fields of geometry and the logics of worlds are a hugely platonic effort
The most obvious inconsistency might be inherent to Nietzsche’s philosophy of Becoming and its anti-Platonism. Badiou says that by fighting the stagnancy of the “platonic sickness,” Nietzsche’s Vitalism has turned into an “anti-platonic sickness” itself. The “static” platonic ideas that Nietzsche was fighting against are completely imaginative. It is Parmenides’ concept that is much less flexible than Plato’s. Nietzsche seems to interchange the two. Badiou points out that in the “Sophistes” and the “Parmenides”, Plato, himself, fought against the static quality of the parmenidian concept of Being.
The most influential inconsistency is probably the analytical philosophers’ Anti-Platonism. Wittgenstein and Carnap especially attacked Plato because of his granting an eternal and unchangeable status to mathematical objects. Badiou notes that the analytical project of reducing all properties of mathematical and other objects of formal language to mere conventions is still to be debated and that the analytical philosophers too quickly eliminated any idealistic concept of language. The Anti-Platonism of analytical philosophy must, therefore, be re-thought.
It was Marx who dubbed Plato the “philosopher of the society of slaveholders.” In this platonic objection, Marx chose to follow Aristotle. This affiliation is not only obvious in Marx’s famous reprise of Aristotle’s rejection of monetary economics, but also in Marx’s general belief in the supremacy of the “natural” over the “artificial.” In his preference of Aristotle’s natural philosophy over Plato’s mathematical idealism, Marx completely overlooks the fact that it was Aristotle who legitimatized the slave-holder society by creating the figure of the “slave by nature” (doulos physei) and not Plato, who said nothing at all explicit on the problem of slaves.
The democratic Anti-Platonism of today accuses Plato of being “totalitarian,” because it is an essential concern of Plato to take a step out of the plurality of the doxa (opinion) towards an absolute knowledge (episteme). The theorists of modern democracy do not acknowledge any possibility of an absolute scientific or objective truth. That disavowal is, of course, a very totalitarian concept of truth in politics and precisely the stance of the Sophists against whom Plato fought. By identifying themselves with the Sophists, who were lawyers and rhetoric teachers, democratic theorists completely exclude the ethic dimension of politics. But according to Badiou, that dimension of ethics is exactly what is necessary for a measurement of today’s political process. Otherwise, the only reliable measurement of today’s political and social circuity is money.
Badiou writes that today’s most important political and theoretical values – Becoming (Nietzsche), Language (Wittenstein), Sociality (Marx), Existence (Sartre), Process (Heidegger) and Political Pluralism (Popper) – can be identified by their differing forms of modern Anti-Platonisms. In addition to supporting an understanding of these paradigms’ overwhelming power, the study of Plato today offers possibilities for opening up toward the absolute, impossible decisions, which must be made in the field of ethics. More extensively than fluxus, positivism, oversocialization, epistemic and moral nihilism, epistemic and moral relativism, and other discourses whose only aims are ongoing discourse, Plato can tell us, what “is possible, besides from that what is given,” according to Badiou.
stegosaurus posted:theres no way that grad school could suck as much as working for a living. that's basically my stance
yeah seriously. Man i really wish i could be serving bloomin onions right now
babyhueypnewton posted:getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
it would be totally rad. doesn't really matter though, capitalism is in a terminal crisis and i guess its a value judgement to say i would prefer a communist system to a cormac mccarthy hellscape. all those 'marxists' in the 80s/90s who either turned into liberals or nihilists didn't have the patience I guess, or were afraid of death and not seeing communism within their lifetime. feel bad for guys like hobsbawm who just seems really sad and old.
well yes it is a value judgment, as is saying it'd be rad or whatever. but like don't you think that's a bit vague? like either a social system adheres to total transparent stateless ecocommunism a long time from now when everything is great or else it's not worth thinking about moral dilemmas? i just don't like that you seem so dismissive of ethics, which underpins a rejection of liberalism i think, for reasons that seem really vague to me, mostly because i tend to believe that it's a cop out generally to say you don't need to learn about something
babyfinland posted:zizek's harem
lol
getfiscal posted:babyhueypnewton posted:getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
it would be totally rad. doesn't really matter though, capitalism is in a terminal crisis and i guess its a value judgement to say i would prefer a communist system to a cormac mccarthy hellscape. all those 'marxists' in the 80s/90s who either turned into liberals or nihilists didn't have the patience I guess, or were afraid of death and not seeing communism within their lifetime. feel bad for guys like hobsbawm who just seems really sad and old.
well yes it is a value judgment, as is saying it'd be rad or whatever. but like don't you think that's a bit vague? like either a social system adheres to total transparent stateless ecocommunism a long time from now when everything is great or else it's not worth thinking about moral dilemmas? i just don't like that you seem so dismissive of ethics, which underpins a rejection of liberalism i think, for reasons that seem really vague to me, mostly because i tend to believe that it's a cop out generally to say you don't need to learn about something
actually it's because someone who is unwilling to present himself on the battlefield is not worthy of a joust. i appreciate your knowledge of marxism and philosophy, which makes you the only non-derivative troll, but my beliefs are shocking enough to not need to be veiled or pitted against phantoms. i can argue against liberalism and populism in real life with anyone.