babyfinland posted:

Lessons posted:

babyfinland posted:

you got it all figured out kid

i'm re-reading the sickness unto death now. it's as fascinating as the last time, but he periodically takes on these unexplained and unjustified assumptions that make zero sense stylistically or logically and make the whole later 2/3 or so useless. his earlier stuff is still more practically applicable, and therefore more interesting, even though the anti-climacus stuff is supposed to be some sort of culmination.

kierkegaards probably smarter than you

if he's so smart why is he dead and i'm alive? guess he ain't that smart after all, fucker

Impper posted:

it's not a controversy that kierkegaard is smarter than lessons, the real fUcked up thing is what you mean when you say that

that lessons is not offered a qualified opinSHAAUUUNNN!!!

babyfinland posted:

lessons is always posting about how he doesnt understand things and consequently judging those things as stupid. this is a sign of stunted growth and a poor, arrogant egotism.

my growth is stunted, babyfilter. can i still post jokes?

parabolart posted:

babyfinland posted:

lessons is always posting about how he doesnt understand things and consequently judging those things as stupid. this is a sign of stunted growth and a poor, arrogant egotism.

my growth is stunted, babyfilter. can i still post jokes?

SHAAAUUNNN!!!

babyfinland posted:

Impper posted:

it's not a controversy that kierkegaard is smarter than lessons, the real fUcked up thing is what you mean when you say that

that lessons is not offered a qualified opinSHAAUUUNNN!!!

who gives a shit.

Lessons posted:

babyfinland posted:

Impper posted:

it's not a controversy that kierkegaard is smarter than lessons, the real fUcked up thing is what you mean when you say that

that lessons is not offered a qualified opinSHAAUUUNNN!!!

who gives a shit.

exactly

Lessons posted:

babyfinland posted:

*doesn't get economics* CAPITALISM IS STUPID!

lol yup

babyfinland posted:

*doesn't get attention from daddy* PATRIARCHY IS STUPID

Lacan insists that Freud regarded monotheism as an epochal divide that irrevocably altered all that came before and after it: “On the left of this (monotheistic) message, there are some things that are henceforth outdated, obsolete; they no longer hold beyond the manifestation of the message. On the right, things are quite different” (172). What, in Lacanʼs analysis, is the difference that monotheism has made, both during its periods of dominance and after? The laws, narratives, and symbols of monotheism continue to undergird key fantasies of personhood, nationhood, and neighborhood in the modernity that purports to have supplanted them. In Lacanʼs formulation, monotheism “supposes” the subject of these fantasies, precipitating it from out of the expanse of signifiers and in relation to a sublime object of both unbearable enjoyment and social obligation. Moreover, it is the scandal and the gift of monotheism that it not only creates moments of traumatic singularity, but also thinks the singular as trauma, rending the fabric of an animistic nature which would unite every polarity of being in the fullness of a sexual relation. Unlike the gods of Greek philosophy, the monotheistic God is not part of the nature he creates. In its decisive thinking of singularity, monotheism elicits and eludes all rapprochement with philosophical conceptions of the One, whether in the guise of Hellenized Judaism, Pauline theology, or Arab Aristotelianism. Lacan extends the monotheistic project of thinking singularity by insisting that “there is something of One” (il y a de lʼUn)—not the self-identical One of Greek logic, mathematics, and cosmology, but the One of a violent rupture that creates subjects and their worlds around a void, an un that un-does the primacy it speaks. If, from the Lacanian vantage, the singular invention of the God shared by the People of the Book forever separates religion from philosophy, we would also insist that religion is not simply a subset of “culture,” understood as the symbolic practices that unify a people and a period. Since its beginnings, psychoanalysis has been put to the work of cultural studies and anthropological speculation, with often embarrassing results. Such a vassalage runs counter to the Lacanian project, which refuses to reduce religion as a structure to the social formations in which it arises. Whereas culture is constituted as the mythically sanctioned circulation of goods, religion articulates those scandals that mobilize and arrest the economy of social and sexual exchange: religions thus exist at the limits of the cultures that enframe them (S VII E 75–76). Although religion is often placed in the service of monitoring the fl ow of the social, the social can itself be understood as a defense against the excessive expenditures—the potlatches, sacrifi ces, and self-mutilations—demanded by religion (S VII E 234–35). It is precisely religionʼs difference from both philosophy and culture, we argue, that gives it its specifi c gravity in Lacanʼs thought and enlists it in the task of formulating a psychoanalytic criticism beyond both the facile conjunction and the polemical opposition of theory and history.

Edited by babyfinland (July 20, 2012 20:19:54)

babyfinland posted:

animedad posted:

i remember reading some weird shit as a teen, like books targeted to inner city youths where some of the characters were doing lsd for weeks on end and iirc it mostly lacked judgement/moralization. i wish i could find that again

i read william burroughs and chuck palahniuk hahah

yeah i guess i mean middle school. my middle school library was full of awesome books from the 80s that i can't even find on the internet now