/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 9081
228 kB, 671 × 1099
1,1 MB, 640 × 640, 0:20
>>9070
>Since there is no philosophy threda
here it is.

i was lately toying with a little idea and wanted to hear Ernst's input on it.

As you all may know we have a serious problem with plastic pollution. We developed some genetic engineered fungi capable of breaking down plastics and reintroduce the parts into the "normal" biological cycle. I'm not aware of some genetic engineered bacteria capable of doing such, but let's suppose we have some.

would you introduce these into the wild bio-cycle?

I would tend towards "yes". First, let's try to imagine/determine all possible consequences. Ya, yaha. I know impossible task to do so; just look at what fuckery we did to the australian bio-cycle.
First off, we do not exactly know how fast these genetic engineered bacteria would be able to mutate towards something else. That's a big red flag for most, but this could be monitored and analyzed in closed (as in spacial) studies beforehand.
For the Pro's i would list the possibility of saving tons and tons of life on earth (even human life) and long term stability of the earthern ecosystem. Most likely this bacteria would spread far, prolly across the whole globe, since it has plenty of food, aka plastic trash, everywhere. But it is not only plastic trash it also would break down tools and other stuff made out of plastics. The economic infrastructure would have to shift their production towards other materials, if they want longlivity of their products. On top of that most of the current products would need to be replaced. This would create a new short-ish boom similar to when every household "needed" a fridge.
I would imagine a never-seen-before economic boom worldwide because of this. Sure, current market leaders would have to change or be replaced, but such is life. Plus, the long-term Pro's , if no major fuck-up happens because of mutation, would assure a few more generations of human life possible on this little ball before we need to find a new ball to reside on.

I know, I'm quite blind on my one eye which is supposed to look on the cons. That's why I'm seeking additional input.

I have a few other topics I would like to talk about. Like using Newton and Leibniz as an historical example for the problems intrinsic to the idea of intellectual property.

t. dummernst
>>
No. 9085
>First off, we do not exactly know how fast these genetic engineered bacteria would be able to mutate towards something else. That's a big red flag for most, but this could be monitored and analyzed in closed (as in spacial) studies beforehand.

Is bacteria mutation limited? Does it have a finite number of possible mutations? You could never be sure.
I've been contrarian to the idea of technology for a long time and human scienctifical progress in general because it fucks up often enough. Yet the alternative of going back in time for a whole earth society won't work and I don't think that is what we should strive for. HOW do we employ technology is the crucial question and yours is a really tough one. I cannot really say how well genetically modified organism can be controlled once they entered the eco cycle in vast numbers. It's different from dead matter I could imagine.
>>
No. 9091
The possibility of mutations is in my understanding a moot concern since mutations happen all the time in different organisms anyways and most of the time they don't change anything. So it would just be incredibly bad luck if it happened to the engineered bacteria and resulted in something harmful.

Besides I doubt anything like that would get implemented at scale any time soon. As you said it would not only affect plastic trash, but also all sorts of other plastic tools etc., so any established person who uses anything like that would be heavily opposed and would lobby gainst it without regard for the environment, as you can see in energy industries etc.

Maybe some small projects will see the light, but I only see something like that getting implemented at scale if some unipolar eco-fascist superpower takes over and enforces it
>>
No. 9092 Kontra
613 kB, 1200 × 1192
This isn't a philosophical issue and life has already found a way:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/could-a-new-plastic-eating-bacteria-help-combat-this-pollution-scourge
Recently scientists accidentally made the enzyme to make it more effective: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/16/scientists-accidentally-create-mutant-enzyme-that-eats-plastic-bottles

Bacteria isn't magic. They will do well somewhere like a dump where plenty of plastic is around but outside a dump they're not going to have much luck. The population will be controlled without us getting involved and will become itself a food source.

Hypothetically if it does get out of control then we have plastic rust whose annoyance ranges with the speed but can be controlled the same way we deal with rust. Doing as little as possible is always the best option.
>>
No. 9097
>>9081
Well, to take this topic from the realm of scientific conjecture a bit closer to philosophy (but not really), I would say that the reason there is so much plastic pollution in the first place is because unlike other materials of similar utility, plastic has disproportional materially high material persistence than form persistance. The form (and therefore the utility) of a plastic object will deteriorate rapidly, but its material composition will persist.
Unlike plastic, other materials used for similar purpose have their material and form persistence in an equilibrium. Just like a plastic chair, a wooden chair loses its utility once the integrity of its form is compromised, but unlike plastic, the material composition of wood deteriorates rapidly, avoiding the problem of there now being a useless object that takes up the same amount of volume as the useful object. Same for cloth, leather, etc.

The effect of the bacteria on plastic items with current utility would be negligible, because plastic items are manufactured to be disposable in the first place. Their form would give faster, or at a similar rate, as their material composition would under the effect of the bacteria.

That is actually the reason why plastic is such a pollutant: we use an incredibly persistent material for manufacturing incredibly short lived and disposable products.
>>
No. 9099
2,5 MB, 540 pages
Any Ernsts interested in academic philosophy?

Metaphysics asks questions about existence: for example, do numbers really exist? Metametaphysics asks questions about metaphysics: for example, do its questions have determinate answers? If so, are these answers deep and important, or are they merely a matter of how we use words? What is the proper methodology for their resolution? These questions have received a heightened degree of attention lately with new varieties of ontological deflationism and pluralism challenging the kind of realism that has become orthodoxy in contemporary analytic metaphysics.

This volume concerns the status and ambitions of metaphysics as a discipline. It brings together many of the central figures in the debate with their most recent work on the semantics, epistemology, and methodology of metaphysics.
>>
No. 9102 Kontra
>>9099
I'm not sure if it counts, but what's the branch of philosophy concerned with watching Asian girls livestream their grocery shopping?
>>
No. 9103
4 kB, 225 × 225
>>9097
also, persistence is stasis, and therefore death

life requires volatility.

the most volatile things are the most alive.

also it's kind of gross thinking about the fact that you are constantly entering into chemical reactions with your environment, constantly shifting in form, shedding material then regrowing, oozing liquid and grease. literally can not interact with the world without compromising your physical integrity. when you smell a fart, it's literal shit particles chemically interacting with your sensory organ.

If there was a sentient species made out of, say, metal or something, they would look at us with the same disgust we look at fantasy races such as the zerg, The Thing, nurglites, etc.

In fact, The Thing is such a great movie because it addresses this very point. The monster is not an object or entity, the monster is the very concept of volatility of flesh, and the mind's dependency on volatile flesh to exist. True apex body horror.
>>
No. 9104
>>9102
I watch Asian girls grocery shopping everyday.
r8
>>
No. 9110
>>9102
It's probably a symptom of general societal alienation where people are addicted to the screen, yet they still long for human interaction in a non-malicious, innocent way (Essentially pornography free, kinda)
Same reason why you see some "gentle care" usw. ASMR videos with views in the millions.
>>
No. 9113
Test
>>
No. 9116
692 kB, 1690 × 2720
>>9079
I was talking more from a historicist / marxist point of view.

In hegelian dialectics, the "spirit" of the universe evolves through a logical argument with itself, until it reaches the Final Thesis.

In historical materialism, history is driven by Kapital (evolution). So everything in history that is under the process of Kapital, is capitalism. Communism is the point in history when there is no more Kapital, and humanity reaches an enlightened state of... enjoying being humans I guess. At that point, according to marxist theory, history stops. Literally. Communism is the final event in the material history of the world. Just like the final thesis (Gnosis) is the final Truth that precedes all other Truths.

(I actually have no idea if I'm interpreting dialectical materialism correctly, but my schizo brain LOVES making logical leaps of faith, and I can't help but draw parallels between various philosophical ideas/frameworks. Such as between Marxism and Gnosticism in this case)
>>
No. 9117
>>9116
GET IT?
LOGICAL LEAPS OF FAITH?

LE KIERKEGAARD REFERENCE
>>
No. 9131
>>9117
>making such references and being appreciated for it
Welcome home EC man

Although I wouldn't at all draw those parallels between Kapital and Communism, in fact your entire description of Hegelian dialectics as a process of being in communication and argumentation with itself until reaching the final thesis is literally the base description of Gnosticism. Like, that is literally the entirety of the core of a Gnostic's thought, and in a sense has much more in common with Eastern mysticism and philosophy than it does with anything Abrahamic at its core unless one posits that much of Abrahamic faith is just generally misinterpreted gnosticicism by crass materialists, which is what I believe in. Likewise, I would posit that in the same vein that descriptor of Communism is much more the Luciferian counterpart to the crass secular materialist thought that's been perverting the Abrahamic religions since anitiquity, wherein the material universe is the be-all end-all with the only deviation being whether one bows down to be enslaved to it and rewarded with earthly desires (the idea of getting 72 virgins and being in a garden is not that different from what Christian peasants believe about God being "very very big" and a guy who rewards you with pleasure and happiness and such and, I might add, is much more similar to the lies told to the Hashishins) or to simply attain mastery over it and reward yourself with earthly desires. Note that ultimately neither one of these is a mystical system and therefore unlike the inferior, counterfeit versions of faith like the others, but rather I think closer to what that German was trying to understand about Buddhism which is more of an "internal" reward in a sense. Or rather, your entire reward is a greater wisdom and beingness within and in tune with the universe, a prevailing expansion of consciousness and essence, whereas the other systems really don't ultimately aim to transform you or your inner being, but merely to give you stuff as it were.
>>
No. 9135
>>9081
Oh and as for OP were I a multibillionaire among other things I would found is the Uplift Institute and publicly just have it known as a place where we're "making good people better" and instilling in them some greater sense of virtue, purpose, peace of mind, and undertaking various forms of counseling, psychotherapy, and sort of motivational seminars. Meanwhile I'd just be brazenly using the name in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_(science_fiction) as a way of testing our ability to uplift various species to a human intellect. This would of course be wildly reckless to even attempt so far as I'm concerned, but well then again some scientists didn't know if we'd ignite the atmosphere with the first atomic weapons testing.

That being stated I am generally opposed to the use of genetically modified bacteria and nanomachines for the simple fact that it's more uncontrollable. Remember always that Life Finds a Way anything genetically modified is by virtue of its very essence uncontrollable. The added problem of bacteria is that they undergo rapid mutations and would get absolutely everywhere. You'd effectively introduce rusting to plastics on a global scale, all of which stipulates no greater form of danger from it. One big problem is the byproducts of their plastic conversion. I always try to refer people to the Great Oxygenation Event where, the theory goes, anaerobic bacteria essentially genocided themselves and most forms of life by releasing tons of oxygen into the atmosphere, which is poisonous by being highly reactive (even to this day there is oxidative stress on O2 breathing life forms). Bacteria tend to produce wildly toxic byproducts like that. So if that thing mutates and starts pumping toxins into the biosphere you can cause a mass extinction event way more quickly than plastics doing anything.

>I would imagine a never-seen-before economic boom worldwide because of this.
This is, by far, the dumbest fucking possible reasoning you could come up with and it is exactly why our descendants will be scratching their heads at why ancient Americans were so fucking dumb and why the ancients used such a shitty, destructive economic model and ideology like consumer capitalism.

>would assure a few more generations of human life possible on this little ball before we need to find a new ball to reside on.
Our initial problems have little to do with the degradation of plastics, at lease for the next several generations. Altering the atmosphere is a rather critical one, as is killing off the biosphere, poisoning the water, terraforming the earth and generally behaving like a witless bacterium 3 billion years ago blindly poisoning itself and all life around it precipitating a mass extinction event. If anything, those plastic particles would just be a long standing geological reminder that just winds up in one very ultrathing layer of sediment that appears in the geological record like a flash of lightning and then just as suddenly and mysteriously disappears. This is how things would see it another 500 million years from now.
>>
No. 9157
110 kB, 1080 × 1395
>>9135
> Remember always that Life Finds a Way
aren't our creations by default part of this? In this sense conscious genetic engineering would also be part of "life finds a way".
On top, where is the difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering? both methods try to alter the genetic code; one is just a more advanced technique.
and at some point we need to alter our own biological body, if we want to survive on other balls of this universe, i would assume.

> >economic boom
>This is, by far, the dumbest fucking possible reasoning you could come up with
i would agree.
but, wouldn't that be an argumentation NTs could be convinced with? i would assume an economic boom would happen, if you have to replace pretty much everything (unless, like said, you do not care about longevity of your products).
not to mention that our current monzeys system is totally fucked up; no value behind it. we burn so much energy, a real resource, to create imaginary numbers, aka monzeys which is not a resource whatsoever. it's dumb as fuck. only brainwashed sheeple could do such dumb things.
(luckily the east is somewhat further advanced; they have been starting to use crypto currencies widely, which has far less inherent problems than the "old" central bank monzey system)
>>
No. 9161
>>9116
>marxist point of view.

But Marx makes distinctions between capitalism and feudalism in Das Kapital e.g.

>In historical materialism, history is driven by Kapital (evolution)

I think you mix up things here, the first sentence of the manifesto is:
>Die Geschichte aller bisherigen Gesellschaft ist die Geschichte von Klassenkämpfen

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles

History is not driven by Kapital, but by class struggle, that's the dialectic.

>So everything in history that is under the process of Kapital, is capitalism.

Yes, I think you can say that.

And you can also say that both correlate in their teleology, Marx built his on Hegel
>>
No. 9164
615 kB, 141 pages
>philosophy

What bullshit!

Your body is everything, your mind is nothing!
>>
No. 9165
>>9157
The whole economic aspect is very complicated, e.g. green energy might be generally a good idea, but see what happened with it in the 2000s, lots of money wasted
https://www.wired.com/2012/01/ff_solyndra/
>>
No. 9172
>>9157
>aren't our creations by default part of this? In this sense conscious genetic engineering would also be part of "life finds a way".

I was making a Jurassic Park reference. The more academic terminology would be spontaneous order whereby (from a distance) various interrelated parts in the ecosystem arrive at order. As humans are actors in their own right and we deliberately plan such things it's another kettle of fish and life adapts to us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWToUATLGzs

I'm talking about our super-bacteria being balanced out by the wider ecosystem that will adapt to it. If you plant the carrots the rabbits will come.
>>
No. 9178
>>9081

>would you introduce these into the wild bio-cycle?

I doubt that would make much sense, most likely such bacteria would only thrive in specific environment (certain temperature, level of moisture, surrounded by huge amount of plastics powder etc.). If we had such bacteria it would be most likely utilized in huge bioreactors of some sort where they could be utilized at highest effiency level.
>>
No. 9179 Kontra
101 kB, 887 × 592
337 kB, 2845 × 1556
>>9165
Not everything is that ogre, though.
>>
No. 9201
Plastics have been engineered to last and not break down, to be incredibly strong

That's why a plastic bag that weighs 10g can take 100kg of tension

It's also why plastics replaced metals in lots of engineering applications

To make biodegradable plastic is literally to just use less stable polymers that were improved on. It's to go backwards

The real issue is not having an incredibly strong, light and durable material. The issue is irresponsible waste disposal and production of disposables because businesses profit more and typically don't have any responsibility to clean up the mess produced by their products - the government pays people to pick up water bottles and plastic bags, not the companies that package their products in them.

Address the real issue.
>>
No. 9202
>>9201
>not the companies that package their products in them.
So these companies will end up charging customers.
We had such machines ten years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3r31EYxdPg
I can't say they were very successful, they paid up to 30 kopecks, or a bit more than 1 cent.
Either "rewards" should be higher or law enforcement should be stronger, I don't know.
>>
No. 9203
>>9202
certainly, that's one approach
the company pushing the cost onto the consumer is not necessarily a bad thing. If it costs the company more to recycle, but overall the cost to society is less in terms of pollution, then you're not paying taxes towards cleanup and instead paying the company for the more costly responsible business practices.
>>
No. 9902
>>9081
I saw this thread so late, but it made me laugh, because there is a larva of some wax moth which is capable of digesting PE.

We could engineer e.Coli (hell even I could that if you provide me a good vector) and should not release them, but we could build plastic-waste fermenters, so we decompose that without burning that shit. It would help a lot but it is primarily a technology which countries like India would need.

But because green politics is a circle jerk and actual green action would involve investment in poor countries, this is not going to happen and we jack off to the thought that we can lower our CO-production by 0,0000000000023% for a few million $ business. Nice.
>>
No. 9903
>>9902
Interesting source, because I could be wrong.
http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/2477_ENG_HTML.php
>>
No. 9910
Unfortunately, I think I might have reached my intellectual limits in my pursuit of philosophy.
Or the limits of my attention span.

I can't fully grasp dialectics, and also the works on the boundary between philosophy and neuroscience are lost on me. Namely the mind body problem is a rather tricky subject.
>>
No. 9937
>>9902
A smarter thing to do if you're actually going to bother with the designer organisms route (which I absolutely guarantee you is going to backfire horribly btw) is to find a way to manipulate the gut flora of some organism to digesting it and maybe having farms like you said
https://www.scidev.net/global/news/termites-may-hold-solution-to-polythene-waste.html

I also can't remember if you posted this or not
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-09-20-mosquitoes-insect-larvae-eating-plastic-ecosystems-environment
I'm honestly less worried about this than I probably should be. This is probably one of those things like oil spills that people can see (or think they can see, or mistake floating garbage bags with microplastic) and relate to thinking oh the poor turtle stuck in plastic or an oil covered seagull. I am far, far, far more concerned about chemical pollutants being constantly pumped into the environment and ourselves or the general ongoing anthropocene extinction event. Also, ironically enough, I am way more concerned about what horrors the genetic age will bring. Megacorporations with the patents on life itself. Said life getting out of the lab and wreaking havoc. It's a recipe for the worst sorts of disasters in the history of the world, changes which will be irrevocable.

I am staunchly opposed to any manipulation of the genetic codes of life, particularly if it is being done by corporations. If you sincerely advocate for it then it is tempting to curse you that you live through those times. You need to take a broader understanding of how all the things would work together and what will happen when you introduce this factorX into a dynamic system. Just imagining how patent law can fuck us, let alone something that will make cane toads look like a great success, is horrifying.
>>
No. 9940
>>9937
History is accelerating.

I guess the last hundred years were quite exciting, but I suspect that very soon, humanity's going to have to learn the value of slowing down.

Conscious denial of progress and communal techno tribalism soon. Will guided development, triumph of intent over expediency.

A society that is crafted, rather than grown.
>>
No. 9964
>>9940
I think what you say is what would be necessary but it won't happen. You can't re-train a few billion neural networks over night, most of them have to be de-commissioned and replaced for the lessen to get across, but in order to do that you'd need a big war where billions die and then a phase of enlightenment where new-borns are taught a different school of thought deliberately. A bit like in Germany after WW2.
>>
No. 9968
>>9964
>but in order to do that you'd need a big war where billions die and then a phase of enlightenment where new-borns are taught a different school of thought deliberately.
You know, there is that theory that a certain group is trying to do this deliberately, that the earlier wars were things like Capitalism versus Communism, and that the later wars will first be Islam vs. Christianity followed by the forces of atheism and nihilism against religious zealots and reactionaries before unveiling a global government under Luciferianism.

Regardless, I personally believe that all that's going to happen will be us moving violently in the opposite direction of freedom and enlightenment. The behavior of governments and major corporations are a testimony to this.
>>
No. 10004
>>9964
I see that coming since the 90s, I hoped to be lucky enough to grow old and die before the unavoidable eventually happens, but now I fear there might not be enough time left for me to die of natural causes before the great happenings...
>>
No. 13417
Here's an excerpt from the upcoming Nick Land book:
http://sumrevija.si/en/sum10-2-nick-land-crypto-current-an-introduction-to-bitcoin-and-philosophy/

It's rather cryptic and dense but probably one of the few cases of actually interesting/radical contemporary philosophy
>>
No. 13418
>>13417
Speaking of Nick Land, here is an interesting Nick Land talk/interview with a more typical leftist interviewer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDMVYNX9xPw
>>
No. 13426
>>13417
>probably one of the few cases of actually interesting/radical contemporary philosophy

Philosophy has taken some steps since Land 1990s period and Land has become somewhat an origin for strands of philosophy. Yet I hate his cryptic writings and never wanted to deal with them so far. It's part of his nimbus tho. The cryptizism as ornament.

check this publisher since you seem to be interested in land and contemporary philosophy

https://www.urbanomic.com/book/
>>
No. 13439
>>
No. 13441
300 kB, 2048 × 1280
>>13418
Funny, I actually watch this channel semi-regularly. Haven't finished that episode though because it's so long and I'm mostly acquainted with Land's ideas. Probably a decent primer though for people who want to learn about his ideas

He also did a vid on the Crypto-Current text recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Twn1x2Pw0

>>13426
I haven't read that much by him either, mostly just blog posts. At times he's actually pretty legible, what got me hooked though was Meltdown, it was rather fun trying to decipher it

I've actually been eyeing the CCRU collection and Fanged Noumena books from Urbanomic for a while, but I'd rather catch up a bit on Kant and other stuff before I delve into that
>>
No. 13446
1,6 MB, 342 pages
13,3 MB, 685 pages
3,3 MB, 313 pages
64 kB, 339 × 960
>>13441
You will also need Deleuze to trace Nick Lands thought I'd say. At least the Anti-Oedipus.

Before you waste money at something you can hardly read, I attached the pdf for you to have a taste beforehand. And a dissertation on Land that grapples with a central thought of Land I think.

And before you read many pages, just take a 2h listen to this: excellent discussion, that traces Land and enfolds important thoughts

https://soundcloud.com/ectpodcast/ect-3-nick-land

they also use Drexciya - Digital Tsunami in on of their music breaks which is a bonus for me
>>
No. 13447
Is it still antinatalism if you choose not to reproduce for eugenic reasons?

t. Mentally ill retard :-DDD
>>
No. 13452
>>13447
No, it's eugenics then.

Eugenics is generally the next step one goes through in their philosophical journey after antinatalism
>>
No. 13453
>>13446
I've read nothing by Deleuze yet so that'll be a piece of work as he also seems to be infamous for his illegibility

I'm aware of the PDFs, but they seem like books which I wouldn't necessarily read linearly in one sitting but rather browse around which is better afforded with actual paper. Otoh I just got an e-reader so maybe I'll try it out.

Thanks for the dissertation & the podcast, looks interesting

>Drexciya
Have you seen the Meltdown video? It's quite an audio-visual experience, also accompanied by some electronic music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiaWsgtJrNI
>>
No. 13464
40 kB, 476 × 500
>>13453
> I wouldn't necessarily read linearly in one sitting but rather browse around which is better afforded with actual paper.

I'd prefer a material book over ebooks any time but you could check first, if the texts are interesting to you somehow.

>I've read nothing by Deleuze yet so that'll be a piece of work as he also seems to be infamous for his illegibility

Yes. I would rather read him than Land tho. I already did but as you can guess my understandings were less than marginal I'd say.

>Meltdown

Yes. It's great art.

But Reza Negarestani who wrote a theory fiction book, Land also doing something that can be called theory fiction had some words about this, that I think need to be considered, when coming in contact with Landian texts

>This is because I have come to the realization, after learning the hard lesson, that not everything needs to be stylized or aesthetized. Style is something that is intrinsic to how one cognizes and re-cognizes the world. It is not, however, a way of peddling ideas or look cutting-edge or scholarly. Philosophy demands as its first priority semantic transparency and a theoretically uncompromising attitude: you should go wherever the impersonal concept takes you, in spite of your psychological convictions. Semantic constraints don’t eliminate the style, rather they positively constrain it so that there is no longer a way to mask the conservatism of content behind syntactic gimmicks, stylistic contrivances, and a libidinal prose. It is in the latter sense that style should be seen as a spurious elitism in opposition to egalitarian semantic transparency, and as such it should be handled with utmost suspicion. When approached systematically and as an unwavering task, thinking is a subversive activity in the broadest possible sense, not only against socio-cultural conventions but also against the most cherished dogmas of the human species. To become the vehicle of this cognitive subversion, one should, at least in the domain of theory, commit to semantic resoluteness or perspicuity in favour of syntactic or stylistic revolutions. This is because the latter, as I implied, is susceptible to safeguard the most conservative, conformist forms of thought in the name of radicality, polysemy, creative ambivalence and the so-called righteous fight against the tyranny of meaning and collective norms of thinking.

And after being asked that it seems he has some specific figures in mind he answers

>Well, take for instance François Laruelle and Nick Land, fundamentally different thinkers and writers. Without questioning or doubting the merits of Laruelle’s work, I think there is a cognitive lesson to be learned here. Once you almost flatten the distinction between content and form, once you unwittingly develop an increasingly esoteric style, then you inevitably open yourself to reappropriation by the most dubious sects. Save for some glaring exceptions, Laruelle’s thought has been hijacked by new age mysticism, politically-motivated negative theology, and colonial pessimism masqueraded as the voice of decolonial emancipation. Land on the other hand is a self-conscious stylist. His industriously crafted libidinal prose is less a product of a harbinger of semantic apocalypse who wages an all-out war against meaning (or inadvertent stylistic overexcitement) than it is a mundane yet effective mobilization of style to recruit the impressionable and those who are tired, rightly so, by stale and intellectually frustrating philosophy. But beneath the facade of this titillating, libidinally charged, and insinuating prose lies a philosophically and politically conservative writer, whose ideas of cybernetics and complexity hasn’t advanced since the 1970s, whose brand of social Darwinism as cosmological laws can be effectively debunked by an undergraduate in physics, and whose idea of the will-to-think is no more than mere a lacquer over petty psychological fixations.

>In a nutshell, Land is one of the greatest English-language writers alive, but being a great writer is not, by itself, a register of insight or profundity. It can very well be the symptom of someone who wants to think but is plagued with incessant poetic tics which are purely automatic and non-cognitive. In contrast to these examples, let’s mention Carnap (the writer of the Logical Syntax of Language), Wilfrid Sellars and—a more recent example—Lorenz Puntel, author of Structure and Being. These authors might strike the reader as boring, or even intolerably pedantic. But once you suspend your learned biases, you can see that they are much more exciting, subversive and rebellious than those who boast philosophical egalitarianism and the great outdoors of thought all the while under the shroud of fighting orthodoxy, indulging in conformism, conservatism and intellectual idleness.
>>
No. 13473
>>13452
What's the next step? Am I going to start worshipping AI and praying that strong general AI develops promptly and mercy kills the human race? :-DDDDD

That's what Nick Land is all about right? Sorry if I'm grossly misrepresenting his thoughts: that's just what I gathered from seeing people discuss his work on imageboards. In any case I would join an AI cult.
>>
No. 13833
26,6 MB, 531 pages
5,1 MB, 2527 × 3221
>>13464
I'm slowly reading Anti-Ödipus now, turns out reading on an e-reader works much better than I imagined.
I guess I'm starting to get a grasp on the iconic terms/concepts but yes the writing is somewhat elusive and, well, schizophreny inducing.

Also I read something by Artaud as supplement as they appropriated the "body-without-organs" term from him, and he creeps me out, or rather his life trajectory. Sick and addicted to drugs for most of his life, spending his last years in different asylums, producing some really vile and visceral writings. Nothing of this seems to show in his young face

>Reza
It might be fair criticism albeit a bit wordy. But in any case I'm aware and have somewhat already grappled with Land's reactionary & antihumanist tendencies (and their dangers)
>>
No. 13834
>>13833
I had a talk with a lecturer today who does not like postmodernists and we came to the conclusion that one often asks yourself: why this now? where does it come from? You get a vague idea from the machine, but what it is exactly is still a mystery to me to be fair I only read the first pages here and there, anything that the suhrkamp index listed with machine

>Artaud

Phew, did not knew that. I only heard his name getting mentioned when it comes to modernism. Well, not surprising that breaking down barriers and drug consumption go hand in hand. What did you read? Any short things?
>>
No. 13835
>>13834
>why this now? where does it come from? You get a vague idea from the machine, but what it is exactly is still a mystery to me
It might not be enough to talk about it in an academical context but I think a vague idea is plenty good enough for a general understanding. The source text is likely not lacking in contradictions either so there's not really a way to pinpoint it. I mean it's even the same with most abstract terms such as "capitalism" or w.e.

>Artaud
Just "To Have Done with the Judgement of God" It's quite short: http://surrealism-plays.com/Artaud.html
Bit I think it's really intense, and also finally gave me the in hindsight obvious epiphany of shit ~= consumer goods ~=needless production. I was just reading some random book on entrepreneurship and it freaks me out to a very similar extent when they talk about "growth" and "creating products" etc. and it seems like such trash to me. Then it clicked that trash ~= shit. No wonder people go mad when applying scatological frameworks.
>>
No. 14063 Kontra
>>13833
>Nothing of this seems to show in his young face
Either it is you or me who has a weird conception about faces showing. But to me his face and foremost his eyes, or better their stare into the hollow nothing, show a very conflicted mind, to put it nicely.
>>
No. 16643
42 kB, 800 × 729
>Yuk Hui
What Begins After the End of the Enlightenment?

https://www.e-flux.com/journal/96/245507/what-begins-after-the-end-of-the-enlightenment/

It's a reaction to an essay published in The Atlantic by Henry Kissinger. It argues against Kissingers, who thinks history Spengler-esque. Hui argues instead for a new frame in which to think technology outside the old Enlightenment paradigm that creates a global time axis.

>I don’t mean to suggest that modern science and technology are evil (not least because they were my first areas of study). Nor am I suggesting that non-European cultures and traditions have been destroyed by evil modern technologies imposed by the West, and that therefore we should give up modern science and technology. The question, rather, is how this historical process can be rethought, and what futures are still available for imagination and realization. If we identify Enlightenment thought with modern technology as an irreversible process guided by universality and rationality, then the only question that remains to be asked is: To be or not to be? But if we affirm that multiple cosmotechnics exist, and that these may allow us to transcend the limit of sheer rationality, then we can find a way out of never-ending modernity and the disasters that have accompanied it. It would be tragic to misunderstand rationality merely as strict and rigid reasoning—unfortunately, it has been often mistaken as such. The history of reason and its relation to nature and technology, from Leibniz to cybernetics and machine learning, has to be constructed and interrogated differently than it has been [...] Certain reflections on culture may provide a way to understand these different modes of technological thinking. To rediscover multiple cosmotechnics is not to refuse artificial intelligence or machine learning, but to reappropriate modern technology, to give other frames to the enframing (Gestell) at the core of modern technology. If we want to surpass modernity, there is no way to simply reset it as if it were a computer or a smartphone. We must instead escape its global time-axis, escape a (trans)humanism that subordinates other beings to the terms of its own destiny, and propose a new agenda and imagination of technology that open up new forms of social, political, and aesthetic life and new relations with nonhumans, the earth, and the cosmos
>>
No. 16691
>>16643
>[...] creating the need for a new guiding philosophy. What could this philosophy be? A transhumanist philosophy? An Eurasian conservative revolution? A Landian accelerationism, or maybe a leftist version of the same, both hoping to overcome capitalism by accelerating its contradictions until it self-destructs?
>An Eurasian conservative revolution
Semi-ironically count me in on some syncretic Eurasian Renaissance. Maybe this is the time to admit I've watched too many Dugin interviews (One, if the supercut of him claiming that shaving your beard is gay doesn't count).

>[...] Hegel approaching Deleuze from behind and giving him a monstrous child.
Good metaphor

>If we recall high school physics, where a = v1-v2/t, acceleration is equal to the change of velocity (from v1 to v2) divided by time. V is velocity, not speed. Velocity is a vector having both magnitude and direction, while speed is mere magnitude. Why not consider another form of acceleration that does not push speed to its extreme, but rather changes the direction of movement, giving technology a new frame and orientation with regard to time and technological development?
Damn, he had no qualms going there. Absolute madman.

It was a decent read, but I find he sounds too "smooth", generally very reasonable but extremely vague at the same time but I guess that's just how most philosophers are. Also a bit odd that he doesn't even mention Christianity which I'd consider pivotal when talking about the Western time axis. I guess it's a whole topic by itself, but still
>>
No. 16795
>>16691
>Also a bit odd that he doesn't even mention Christianity which I'd consider pivotal when talking about the Western time axis. I guess it's a whole topic by itself, but still

I think it's because he proposes a convergence of enlightenment/rationality and technology, as a european feature that turned into a time imperialism so to say. Christianity might be imperialistic but it's not based on rationality and the supposed use of technology that follows it and that shaped time like that, it does not respect any other grid besides it own. Capital as a great equalizer, one might add. It can be done by china, europe, africa these days. Ofc everybody looks at China.
>>
No. 17268
>>16795
Fair enough, but what is driving the development of technology and employment of rationality? I guess at this point you can say Capital. But I think the importance of Christianity, and particularly its teleology, and its continuity through Humanism towards a cultural shift such as the "Enlightenment" is nowadays somewhat underappreciated. Surely the more superstitious elements of religion were a hindrance as well.
Of course China is in everyone's sights now, and I think it's important that they offer at least some sort of alternative system that at least seems to work(hard to gauge as current information for and against seems to be highly propagandistic), and countering this notion of the "End of History". But upon closer inspection their current system also seems rather fragile to me, and I'd argue that this is due to their more or less lack of teleological direction.
In any case I realize I need to read up a bit more on these topics, since afaict I'm mostly talking in second-hand Spenglerian ideas.
>>
No. 17277
>>17268
I think what Hui proposes is a use of technology outside of the capitalistic and enlightenment logic. China is just continuing the (European) project of modernity Anna Greenspan, companion of Nick Land, wrote about it, Africa would/could do the same, and it's due to the use and understanding of technology that Hui identifies as a European idea of rationality/technology which came with a global imperialism of capital which originated in Europe. The Aim of modernity? Progress, Freedom??? Don't know.
What you say about Christianity reminds me of Georg Simmel. Around 1900 he proposed that Christianity planted a transcendent aim in us thru all the centuries. When Christianity went, people of the developing capitalism were searching for new aims/answers and it lead to a multiplication of these aims, respectively "answers" and none of them seems right really, since there are so many. The plural of modernity. Nothing feels right as you have many options. Insecurity.
>>
No. 17282
>>17277
I'd just like to point out the entire premise of this is stupid because it posits all religion as inherently irrational while propping up a godless scientific inquiry. The churches basically held out as reliquaries of knowledge after the fall of Rome and helped continue traditions of literacy and learning. A great deal of technical insight actually came about because of the premise "God, an intelligent being, created and ordered the universe, ergo the universe should be rational". Depending on perspective there is in fact no logical reason to presume that the universe follows rationality like that, whereas one could argue that the universe being created by an intelligent rational being does.

I would even go so far as to argue that the sometimes superstitious or magical thinking has contributed more to science than fedoraism, in that the idea that the universe is chaotic and random and contains no deeper patterns is antithetical to technical insight. "But this is a retarded strawman" you say, based on a caricature of retarded annoying American/Anglo internet atheists. Well, now you understand the level of trying to argue about theology on the level of strawman caricatures of American evangelical Protestants.
>>
No. 17314
>>17282

>But this is a retarded strawman

Well, I never denied that
>The churches basically held out as reliquaries of knowledge after the fall of Rome and helped continue traditions of literacy and learning

but I said that it created a teleology that modernism is missing.
Ofc the enlightenment didn't happen ex nihilo that would be proof of dog :DDD but has a lineage into the time of christian domination. Yet the enlightenment also does things different, it goes from a heteronomous principle (dog) to the autonomous human. The science got more systematic, dominating nature got systematic. The church also had a system, or even systems, but it was obviously different.
>>
No. 17510
I don't know when or where I read it but I have once read (I believe it was on the internet) that the best hunters would be the ones who let their victims believe that they would be the hunters themselves. I think the person whoever wrote this was writing it about the dynamics between men and women but it may also be the case that I just put it into that context immediately for some reason.
Can you somehow attribute this sentence? Are there any philosophers who have written about this? Are there any cases in nature where this is true? Is it a valid point at all?

Related to men and women it would be the thesis that it's not the men who choose their partner but the women who do but let men belief that they are the ones who choose. Or is this an obvious thing anyways and I was just too autistic to look through the outer layer of things?
>>
No. 17516
>>17510
The concept is basically the basis of trapping and fishing but it's also employed by other species, e.g. the camouflage used by venus traps or cuttlefish.
Though it really doesn't have that much to do with philosophy as I see it. I can't point to any names, except for maybe Nietzsche if it has to be someone considered a philosopher but that's just a very wild guess because of the metaphorical and aphoristical nature of the saying.

>is this an obvious thing anyways and I was just too autistic to look through the outer layer of things?
More or less, yes. You can probably read this sort of thing in any manosphere adjacent publication that's delved into some pop ethology/evolutionary biology/psychology.
>>
No. 17520
495 kB, 1600 × 1200
>>17516
Yeah I pretty much think he is overanalyzing and confusing things between the natural world and man's inventions and conventions. And yeah it's an actual thing, both in nature as an ambush predator and in human mating rituals by giving chase and thus controlling the pursuit of another. In sex itself it's called "topping from bottom" I think. And politically and culturally it is just all manner of subterfuge and chicanery, perhaps most infamously in the basics of running a con. For example the Nigerian oil scam, or any scam really, relies on enticing the greed of another and convincing them they'll get money for nothing or very little effort. Most predatory behaviors economically work out that way. Gambling in general thrives on this, by making your mark think he's going to make it big while you part him with his cash, all the way from scratch off lotto tickets to Las Vegas, and is the essential basis of pool sharking.

This is also a well known consumer behavior, whereby the adage "what's too good to be true usually is" makes people on one hand more willing to part with their cash for an expensive product, reasoning it is good, than an absurdly cheap one, reasoning that they're being ripped off and asking "well what's wrong with it?"

There are many areas in human activity where this applies, a great deal of it dishonest. But in nature it is surprisingly not as common, except for like angler fish and turtles. Most life seems adapted to make you think nothing is there than to blatantly give itself away, which is usually only done by highly toxic animals with warning colors. Why do this? Because even being attacked on accident is risking its life from being crippled/poisoned/killed/wound infections etc. and the waste of energy in a struggle, so it is more economic to simply try and warn something off with a threat display than actually having to bother with the attack, in fact many venomous animals deliberately give dry bites like spiders and snakes specifically because it is energy intensive to create that toxin and they need it to survive on getting a meal so would rather not waste it on some dumbass walking by them.

As such, giving away your position with some enticement is a rather hazardous hunting strategy in nature. It means your prey is actually going to be alert from the start and is more likely to put up a struggle so you have to waste more energy and put your health more at risk in subduing prey. Generally speaking you don't want to risk serious injury on a meal, nor losing your bait.
>>
No. 18224
2,5 MB, 176 pages
Finished reading Otaku: Japan's Database Animals by Hiroki Azuma. Mentioned it already in the lit thread but I guess it might be more fitting here.

The author builds on Lyotard's idea of modernity as the time of grand narratives (until ~1914) as source of meaning for humans and postmodernity as the gradual decline of grand narratives from then until now. His idea is that back then small narratives were used as elements that in total reinforced the grand narratives (e.g. something like Paradise Lost by Milton as element for Christianity).
Then he goes on to analyze Otaku* consumption behavior as a specific case of postmodern meaning-making. According to his theory anime (or other otaku products) are often not single-standing original works, but rather simulacra assembled of different tropes and characteristics from a shared database, which he considers a grand nonnarrative. The single narratives are meaningful for the otaku on the one hand by themselves (but only in an animalistic/abstracted way that triggers certain emotions/Moe) and on the other hand as part of the database of narrative tropes and character traits.

Then he briefly goes on to connect this structure to the way information can be accessed on many different layers in computers and also takes some pages to basically plug his favorite VN :DDDD (it's called Yu-No).

tl;dr: it was a very short and interesting read, also very legible compared to e.g. the French postmodern stuff. Would recommend to anyone who's into anime/VN culture (and this sort of critical analysis). He references a lot of other philosophers and their ideas which might be a bit much but for the most part he also explains them concisely.

* in a rather narrow sense, but other subcultes can be analyzed similarly
>>
No. 18226 Kontra
>>18224
I'm reading a blogpost about another Japanese book mentioned*, and I found this (somewhat unrelated) story that blew my mind:

>In the course of the Eighties, Baudrillard became a popular author in Japan, and his ideas were taken up in some unexpected circles. For example, the owner-manager of the Seibu department store, Tsutsumi Seiji, a versifier himself, adopted an explicitly Baudrillardean marketing strategy for his enterprise, renaming his (company) Saison, lecturing stock-holders on the role of simulacra in his business and cultivating parodic advertising styles.

So this guy is not only a poet and a big business exec but also cognizantly employs postmodern theory as a business strategy. I'm impressed.

* http://neojaponisme.com/2011/05/06/structure-and-power-1983/
>>
No. 18228
>>18224
To be fair, Yu-No is actually p. good for what it is. I never saw it recommended as much as it should have been outside of the more dedicated weeb watering holes I once inhabited.
>>
No. 18265 Kontra
77 kB, 322 × 215
>>18228
It does sound intriguing. There seems to be an official localization of the remake coming out this year but I'll probably rather check out the original.
Though actually I've yet to finish Muv-Luv Alternative. Now that I think about they also sound somewhat similar in regards to their tropes (time travel, parallel worlds etc.). Though what Azuma highlighted about Yu-No was the conscious visualization of the branching story structure.
>>
No. 18464
11,5 MB, 1280 × 720, 1:31
I as of currently being epistemologically relativist picked up reading TLP by Wittgenstein. My god I just barely got through the first chapter and it's so boring. I can't see myself picking the book up like I usually do with other books and it's because I don't understand it I think. I see no common thread and what's worse not only do I not identify the premises I don't even identify what Wittgenstein is arguing for. What other philo books do I need to read in order to understand it or is it just wittgensteins way of boring you to death?
>>
No. 18467
>>18464
afaik it's formal logic, you aint good at math either I suppose? Everything is deduced.

t. had sames with TLP
>>
No. 18468
>>18464
The TLP is supposed to be as brief as possible so he doesn't really give any explanations, just lays out the structure of "logical" propositions that build upon each other in a self-contained manner, so it's really not like other books. It'd probably help if you're acquainted with formal logic but I wouldn't bother with it unless you're really dedicated.
IMO there's not much of a point in trying to understand it by yourself, so it's probably best to just read some secondary source on it, e.g. the English wiki article would be a good start I think. And also Wittgenstein himself later criticized the ideas he puts forward in the TLP.
Disclaimer: I too only waded through half of it with some momentary epiphanies before I put it away.
>>
No. 18474
>>18467
>>18468

I've had a course on formal systems, perhaps I am bad at math, it is just I understand the deduction etc i just don't understand what the hell he is trying to tell. Like it's not something new deducing facts from premises he set up himself. I am just too bored to get through this.
>>
No. 19059
401 kB, 813 × 813
A short piece on whether artificial intelligence can be creative. The author argues that it cannot.
>Human creative achievement, because of the way it is socially embedded, will not succumb to advances in artificial intelligence.
>We may be able to see a machine’s product as great, but if we know that the output is merely the result of some arbitrary act or algorithmic formalism, we cannot accept it as the expression of a vision for human good. For this reason, it seems to me, nothing but another human being can properly be understood as a genuinely creative artist.
>the supercomputer is not doing anything creative by checking a huge number of cases. Instead, it is doing something boring a huge number of times. This seems like almost the opposite of creativity.
> A machine could not surpass us massively in creativity because either its achievement would be understandable, in which case it would not massively surpass us, or it would not be understandable, in which case we could not count it as making any creative advance at all.
I should note that the author limits his considerations to current AI development:
>Still other paradigms may come in the future, but if we speculate that some notional future AI whose features we cannot meaningfully describe will accomplish wondrous things, that is mythmaking, not reasoned argument about the possibilities of technology.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612913/a-philosopher-argues-that-an-ai-can-never-be-an-artist/

The argument revolves around one key point: that creativity is not simply a new arrangement of colors or sounds, or even a never before imagined mathematical proof or game strategy. That new thing is only deemed creative when we can interpret some intent behind it. A toddler hitting random piano keys may strike a novel sequence, but we would call that randomness, not creativity. There are a number of examples where computer programs were used as tools by artists, and even a case where a deep-learning algorithm took Bach chorales as input, and was able to produce new music which sounded similar. This is defined as mimcry, with the original creativity still ascribed to Bach. The author is not approaching the question of creativity as an art critic might-in an effort to determine what is creative, but rather as a philosopher whose goal is to define what creativity is.
>>
No. 19061
>>19059
Isn't the great variety of species and natural forms observed on the earth itself the product of stochastic processes and algorithmic formalisms? If creativity requires intent, does this mean biological evolution is not creative?
>>
No. 19062
>>19061
>If creativity requires intent, does this mean biological evolution is not creative?
Given the boundaries of  his definition, the answer would be no. The random mutations which drive evolution and create new solutions to overcome survival pressures would be judged no different than monkeys pounding on a typewriter. Their eventual version of Othello was not an act of creativity. Creativity, by his reasoning, is not the end result, but the process which produced that result. I though his argument-or at least this part of it- wasn't as much about the limits of AI, as it was about the merits of humanity.  If we begin to call algorithmically produced work creative genius, we would be diminishing what makes humans special. He has a point. The portrait in the above post was made by feeding images of thousands of old paintings into a computer. It's a unique creation, but can we call that creative without changing the meaning of the word? I don't think so. The portrait was ultimately sold at auction for 400k, so in a  way the argument is like a man reminding us of the merits of his vinyl records while the world inevitably turns to digital music. 
>>
No. 19063
>>19059
It strikes me that his primary defect is some underlying faith in human beings. A very good example for me has been this growing tech cult where people literally don't see a difference between themselves or their computers anymore, or who are dumb enough the whole cyberpunk critique thing went over their heads and just think hurrdurr oh cool neon everywhere derpdurr cybernetic limbs. Silicon Valley and these techno fetishists who practically worship tech billionaires is one such example and in many cases what's being discussed isn't even sophisticated.

The great bulk of people are retarded and can be convinced to blindly worship anything you tell them to if they think enough people are also doing it, and sometimes not even needing that. For some reason a lot of these types of dumbasses congregate around Star Trek too. It is something I keep noticing in things like discussion of SOMA. There is a large swath of the public that literally sees a copy, a mere facsimile, as being the same as the real actual thing. To them if your personality was just "downloaded" onto a flash drive it would be effectively the same thing as the real person to them. I suspect they're also weebs come to think of it

These people are like baboons trying to attack a mirror. Why on earth would I have faith in them making any distinction between the genuine and the fake? Or between man made with intent and some random output of machines? I would also like to point out this is a huge problem I have with these nu-atheists, who take their most facile understanding of chance and determinism and are ultimately too freaking stupid to comprehend a greater pattern and so they say everything is meaningless and random, without having any idea of randomness itself. They are basically your average reddit user and further proof that bydloness is incurable by ideology.
>>
No. 19119
53 kB, 566 × 528
What is human nature?
>>
No. 19124 Kontra
>>19119
Only a brainlet would ask that kind of question.
>>
No. 19133
>>19119
It does not exist. Material conditions, etc.
>>
No. 19137
>>19063
>The great bulk of people are retarded and can be convinced to blindly worship anything you tell them to if they think enough people are also doing it, and sometimes not even needing that. For some reason a lot of these types of dumbasses congregate around Star Trek too. It is something I keep noticing in things like discussion of SOMA. There is a large swath of the public that literally sees a copy, a mere facsimile, as being the same as the real actual thing. To them if your personality was just "downloaded" onto a flash drive it would be effectively the same thing as the real person to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg29TuWo0Yo
>>
No. 19138
>>19133
What then are we to call innate human behaviors, processes, and capacities, such as the ability to acquire a language when exposed to it during a critical period? Or sexual dimorphism in proclivity for violence and aggression across cultures and eras? Or the broadly shared developmental program that wires our brains before and after birth, in which genetic, environmental, and stochastic variation contribute to the observed range of human capacities? Are these something other than human nature?
>>
No. 19164
52 kB, 454 × 337
67 kB, 1280 × 720
>>19138
But Ernst, you are merely describing some characteristics of human nature. Now please tell me, what is human nature?

Sophistry aside, what you are talking about is a view of human nature as defined by evolutionary biology. That's a pretty useful definition but it is still limited and is most often invoked to make a certain point about what's natural for humans and what's not. All the while these "natural" capacities also merely evolved through time and didn't exist at other points of time throughout human, or rather pre-human (or pre-mammal, aside from language all the characteristics you mention roughly apply to mammals in general) evolution. So if neither humans nor these characteristics existed at other points in time how can they really be natural?
>>
No. 19187
>>19164
Thoughtful post. I'll confess, I'm probably out of my depth here. However, it seems to me that if the 'nature' of a thing must be specific to that thing, and not particular to a certain time and location, then it would be hard to pin down the nature of anything beyond physical constants and mechanical laws. For instance, I think it is in the nature of dogs to howl. But of course there are other creatures that howl, namely wolves (of which dogs are a subspecies). And a dog would not howl on the moon. And there is individual and breed variation in the tendency to howl.
>>
No. 19200
>>19187
>anything beyond physical constants and mechanical laws.
Theoretically, even these things don't have to be constant either. Recently I've been reading the sci-fi novel The Three Body Problem and there's this passage which elucidates the idea succinctly:

>When the members of the Frontiers of Science discussed physics, they often used the abbreviation “SF.” They didn’t mean “science fiction,” but the two words “shooter” and “farmer.” This was a reference to two hypotheses, both involving the fundamental nature of the laws of the universe.
>In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe.
>The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.

>For instance, I think it is in the nature of dogs to howl. But of course there are other creatures that howl, namely wolves (of which dogs are a subspecies). And a dog would not howl on the moon. And there is individual and breed variation in the tendency to howl.

Well, again I think it's a sensible explanation but again you are talking in terms of biological taxonomy and only giving a specific example. There really is just no one true answer to a question such as "What is human nature?", though you might be able to reach some consensus on it within certain discourses.
I'd recommend checking out Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition, or I guess whatever Wittgenstein wrote on language games.
>>
No. 19248
>>19200
>The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.

Ebin formulation of the problem of induction :-DDDD

I think I may try some Wittgenstein but I'm not sure where I should start.
>>
No. 19258
>>19248
>I think I may try some Wittgenstein but I'm not sure where I should start.
If you want to actually read his works, and there are only two major ones, you should go with Philosophical Investigations. I actually started reading it today as well, as before I've mostly known about his ideas from secondary sources. Which would be the other alternative, https://plato.stanford.edu/ is usually a decent choice.
I'd definitely not recommend starting with his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as discussed in >>18468
>>
No. 19797
563 kB, 1640 × 1150
>>
No. 19798
19,4 MB, 640 × 360, 4:59
>>
No. 19799
92 kB, 404 × 500
>>19797
>A priori Knowledge No
>A priori Knowledge Yes
>God Atheism
>Free will No free will
>>
No. 19800
>>19799
What did he mean by this?
>>
No. 19806 Kontra
>>19798
Is Nietzsche a thing in those circles which are parodied in this video? I guess so because he was so anti and also hated women. But then again the whole french postmodernism is kinda based on reading Nietzsche.
>>
No. 19809 Kontra
20 kB, 474 × 528
75 kB, 800 × 401
52 kB, 960 × 946
159 kB, 1631 × 1018
>>19806
Also he was like a total nihilist and also atheist ("God is dead")
I think his appeal to illiterate edgelords is quite unparalleled.
>>
No. 19811
>>19809
Where did this meme that Nietzsche was a Nihilist even come from?
Wille zur Macht coupled with Nothing is real, everything is permitted means that the world is your oyster and it's time to have some fun achieving things now that nothing is binding us.
>>
No. 19815 Kontra
>>19811
>Wille zur Macht

afaik it's an compilation released postmortem and not a book Nietzsche wrote himself and therefore problematic

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Wille_zur_Macht
>>
No. 19818
>>19815
Not the book, the doctrine.
>>
No. 19820
>>19811
Existentialism is just a response to nihilism. You can only create meaning for yourself if you acknowledge that no universal meaning exists.
>>
No. 19835
>>19820
You are oversimplifying things, please don't do that.

Talking about an entire school of philosophy as just this/that will bring no knowledge to anyone.
>>
No. 19899
>>9081
I don't think your thread is about philosophy; it's about environmentalism and science. This is because Philosophy translates as 'love of wisdom'. Also, calling it 'philo' is incorrect because this translates as 'love'.
>>
No. 19901
>>19899
Bioethics is philosophy. Environmentalism can also be philosophy although it doesn't have t be.
>>
No. 19905
>>19901
In that case it's not very profound
>>
No. 20558
36 kB, 60 × 56, 0:03
I have found one possible resolution of the problem, when you feel about the post on the anonymous imageboard that it could be yours, but it's not yours and vice versa.
You choose a community out of similarity of minds. And imageboard is a kind of community. Thus, similar thoughts float in the mind ether, which could be yours and not yours at the same time.
>>
No. 20591
>fungus modified to digest plastic
>we should release it
>oh no, need a new laptop, the mainboard in my old one grew moldy
brilliant idea.
>>
No. 22417
It's a shame Foucault will never earn an audience who truly understood him. Instead, we are treated to gross misinterpretations from people like Judith Butler who exploited his ideas out of context to fuel their own mediocre work. You have morons who unironically think Foucault was a Marxist when, in fact, he was critical of Marxism. He thought Marxism was an outdated teleological 19th century philosophy and consequently rejected the concept of class. He later advocated for economic liberalism in the seminary The Birth of Biopolitics. Every Marxist today classifies Foucault as a dangerous relativist, especially Chomsky who condemned him as amoral.

Foucault was a Nietzschean author that rejected humanism and denied western rationalism as a bringer of progress. He further argued most things could only be understood with the optic of the agents of their time which therefore denied that men deliberately constructed ideologies to fool people or that those people were susceptible to being fooled at all. He posited that the people simply acted as the conditions of their time allowed them, and ultimately, there were only actions of groups who can't act differently than that time and space they are lived.

Really, Foucault could find a good fandom among right libertarians given the proper presentation. There have been many people who also understood Foucault properly, mainly his friend Paul Veyne who set the record straight in a text called Foucault Revolutionizes History, and a book called Foucault, His Thought, His Character. Veyne argues that Foucaultian thought and approach is similar to other empiricists like Norbert Elias and Ludwig von Mises. He won't be liked by conservatives and more authoritarian right-wingers, but I think liberals and right libertarians could embrace Foucaultian thought for rebuttal of grand narratives that vulgar Marxists make about past events, by empirical analysis and contesting their conclusions.
>>
No. 22427
>>22417
>He later advocated for economic liberalism in the seminary The Birth of Biopolitics

lol, it's an analysis of it afaik. Want quotations on that thesis or in the trash it goes.

>He is not marxist therefore not left

lol²

>Foucault was a Nietzschean author

Like every french postmodernist tbh. They all read the Germans. Doesn't make him a person who did not care about other people.

>He posited that the people simply acted as the conditions of their time allowed them, and ultimately, there were only actions of groups who can't act differently than that time and space they are lived.

I highly doubt this. He tried to explain how discourse and pratices shaped society which is based on power relations. This implies that history is not going on tracks like Marx said but it also implies that how it is now it does not have to be like this. He showed a people are being subjected. Butler took that for her own project. It's also about subjectivation and discourse.

You can read Foucault in both ways since the analysis of power relations is open to any politics, no matter if left or right.
But it's an analysis of power, about the episteme of different periods made up by Foucault and not a manual on how to get rid of it. But I haven't read much from him.
>>
No. 22430
477 kB, 1920 × 1080
Man, I wish Alash philosophy was more accessible. It's really ebin but there's not much floating around, even less that's translated to make for easier discussion (is Qara Sózderi the only one?). Whether it is or not, you lot should read it. Except for the Brick. That man has probably read it more times than he cares to if I understand anything of the post-independence Kazakh education system :-DDDDD

It's also got current relevance in the unrest happening with the handover of presidential power. Suddenly a lot of the ideas presented by the Alash thinkers and influences have become relevant again. I'm thinking of reading Masa by Baıtursynuly since it's really influential but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I also want to read Yasawi's Book of Wisdom but shit man, I'm flat out reading Kazakh, let alone Chagatai. Yasawi is EC tier though tbh, dude dug himself a cave to hide from NTs in and vaguely disguised Turkic Shamanism as Sufism without getting caught :-DDD.
>>
No. 22446
>>22427
>lol²
>>22417 did not claim what you lol about and there is nothing to lol about that statement you quoted. foucault (as virtually all so called post-modernists) explicitly dismissed class conflict, but it is class conflict that defines leftism. marx delivered the most comprehensive work on class (conflict), leftists have no way around him as of yet, so every leftist must be indeed marxist of sorts.
now foucault, as well as most of his post-modernist friends, including frankfurt's proponents of the so called "critical theory" (that is critical of marx) was in terms of politics a bourgeois liberal who basically believed that liberalism is the end of history, or he wanted liberalism, in terms of politics and economics, to be the end of history. that is not leftist at all and, as >>22417 said, much closer to the likes of hayek and mises who were both situated pretty far-right (you certainly agree with that, no). i don't agree with >>22417 about foucault and post-modernists being "nietzschean" though. there is no such thing as "nietzschean". nietzsche wasn't liberal nor reactionary nor fascist nor leftist. nietzsche was just nietzsche, no one other than nietzsche himself can be "nietzschean", that is what's special about him.
>marx said history is going on tracks
marx neither said nor implied that.
>>
No. 22448
>>22446
Not able to sent my post as a whole so I will split it

>>22446
>marx neither said nor implied that.

The historic materialism is not the description of a certain pattern or movement in history that leads to revolution, no matter what?

>foucault (as virtually all so called post-modernists) explicitly dismissed class conflict, but it is class conflict that defines leftism. marx delivered the most comprehensive work on class (conflict), leftists have no way around him as of yet, so every leftist must be indeed marxist of sorts.
>now foucault, as well as most of his post-modernist friends, including frankfurt's proponents of the so called "critical theory" (that is critical of marx) was in terms of politics a bourgeois liberal who basically believed that liberalism is the end of history, or he wanted liberalism, in terms of politics and economics

Postmarxism still draws on Marx but is also critical of him. Since most poststructuralists draw on Marx or an implied power struggle within society, they are still marixst and following your definition, left. Derrida and the Spectre of Marx, Deleuze and Guattari and the Anti-Oedipus/ATP, even Lyotard who wrote his bad book came to write about the patchwork of minorities postmodernism by him as the end of meta narratives, the so called end of history is just a split into plural of narration and a critic of totalitarian narratives, look for francis fukuyama, not a postmodernist, if you want the liberal version of the end of history, Baudrillards theory of simulation is also on power just as Focault, who gave a genealogy of the modern society sort of nietzsches genealogy of morals, Nietzsche was a source for the whole 20ths century and especially french thought, Focault is not a double of him but draws from him just like Deleuze or Bataille or others did hence you could spot nietzschean thinking in them
>>
No. 22449
>>22448
>>22446

Adorno and the "crtitcal theory" are critical of marxism and communism, but that is not the enterprise of the critical theory alone but also the criticism of capitalism. The chapter on the Kulturindustrie is prove of that, it's written in the war engaged, fordist US of the 1940s. Capitalism is the bearer of fascism and the SU is a totalitarian system as well. Adorno and Horkheimer theory has an Existenzialurteil. But it need to change in the process, no ideal of a society but also not agreeing with contemporary society. Theory as praxis hence the Adorno dismissed the student revolts for their idealism. Indeed a very strange position, but definitely not the opting for economic liberalism, politically yes, but that's the postion of most leftists besides stalinists or other die hard revolutionists. Tho they all talk about freedom no matter which end of the political spectrum. Adorno btw has an end of history which he did not like the verwaltete Welt.

What a leftist really is can be broad. If you see leftism as a revolutionary action based on Lenin or Mao then indeed these theories are not very left, tho I was told french postmodernist are all disappointed Maoists.
>>
No. 22533
"Philosophy is the strangest of subjects: it aims at rigour and yet is unable to establish any results; it attempts to deal with the most profound questions and yet constantly finds itself preoccupied with the trivialities of language; and it claims to be of great relevance to rational enquiry and the conduct of our life and yet is almost completely ignored. But perhaps what is strangest of all is the passion and intensity with which it is pursued by those who have fallen in its grip." - Kit Fine

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." - Wittgenstein
>>
No. 22556
>>22533
"Scientists are explorers, Philosophers are tourists." R. Feynman
>>
No. 22565
662 kB, 876 × 1444
>>
No. 22593
>>22565
Except for the one with the cheese and bread, all of those are mock-ups, sadly.
>>
No. 22623
739 kB, 237 pages
1,9 MB, 300 × 225, 0:08
Started reading the first pages of The most radical gesture by Sadie Plant, former member of the CCRU. It's her dissertation from 1992 and written before she even went to Warwick. Yet I expect it to reveal connections between situationist thinking/practice and that of the CCRU.

A good subsumption of postmodernism is given in there right at the start:

Of course, the situationists’ attempt to transform everyday life has been defeated, although their involvement with the upheavals of 1968 made them believe they had succeeded in helping it on its way. Neither have there been any further projects of the scale of that perpetrated by the SI and, in the present fin de millénium atmosphere of postmodernity, such all-encompassing revolutionary theories are said to be no longer possible. They bear the illegitimate arrogance of political totalitarianism, depending on unsupportable beliefs and assuming the possibility of ascertaining the way the world really is, regardless of the vicissitudes of appearance or the ambiguities of meaning. On this reading, the situationists’ attempt to construct a unified theory of capitalism merely brought them within the totality they thought they were opposing. But in spite of the radical opposition of situationist and postmodern thought, all theoretisations of postmodernity are underwritten by situationist theory and the social and cultural agitations in which it is placed. The situationist spectacle prefigures contemporary notions of hyperreality, and the world of uncertainty and superficiality described and celebrated by the postmodernists is precisely that which the situationists first subjected to passionate criticism.

This continuity is not coincidental. The philosophers most closely associated with postmodern thought, Jean-François Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard, both emerged from the same political milieu as the situationists. Baudrillard’s work is informed by his contacts with the situationist Guy Debord, and Lyotard was involved with Socialisme ou Barbarie and the mouvement du 22 mars, probably the groups whose political ideas and activities were closest to those of the SI. Allusions to the situationists are to be found in the work of both authors, and although postmodernism turns situationist theory against itself, the traces, even the tyre-tracks of the style, vocabulary, and scope of the situationist project run across postmodernism. Poetry, pleasures, cities, and subversions are themes common to both frameworks, and in their hostility to the Left, their attacks on the complacency and complicity of established forms of radicalism, their desire to collapse distinctions between the aesthetic and the everyday, and their search for the loci of social power in relations of language, knowledge, and everyday experience, the situationists provided postmodernism with much of the ammunition for its attacks on established genres of thought and s o c i a l o rganisation. Moreover, the tactics with which postmodernism makes these attacks were already present in the situationist armoury: pastiche and deconstruction, subversive violence from within systems of social organisation or thought, playful irreverence towards respected theories, and the exposure of every hidden allusion and resonance.
Postmodernism uses all this to convey our departure from the modern period in which we experienced ourselves as autonomous subjects capable of making judgements, expressing desires, and acting upon the world. In Jean Baudrillard’s work, it suggests that modern society has become hyperreal, a world in which the spectacle defines, circumscribes, and becomes more real than reality itself. Baudrillard describes the seductive power of images which fool us into believing a reality persists beyond this hyperreality, and suggests that subjectivity is produced by a host of networks of social relations and discursive constructions so complex that it cannot be unravelled to reveal causes, directions, or meanings. There is no such thing as a social whole or a theoretical unity: the notion of society is a myth belying the essential discontinuity of social relations, and the development of theory is the totalitarian exercise of power on the world’s dynamic fragments. The individual and the world are decentred: there is no core, no soul, no God, and no economic imperative. Alienation is not a problem peculiar to capitalism, but an inevitable feature of life to which we might as well develop a positive attitude, and the search for authenticity betrays a hopeless nostalgia for a unity which never existed in the first place. We live in the midst of codes, messages, and images which produce and reproduce our lives. These may have had their origins in commodity production, but have since won their independence and usurped its role in the maintenance of social relations. All that remains is the pleasure of playing in the fragments, the disruption and resistance of the codes in which we live, the jouissance of realising that the search for meaning is endlessly deferred and has no point of arrival and, in the absence of new movements, styles, or genres, the continual reiteration of those of the past In the postmodern imagination, alienation is everywhere and is therefore nowhere; power is dispersed and so impossible to seize. We will only ever feel at home, liberated, and content if we give up looking for a world more real, a social organisation more free, and a happiness more profound than those provided for us. There is no subject of history digging capitalism’s grave, and no Elysian field on the other side of the barricade.

Considered in these terms, postmodernism is a manual for survival, and a very good one, in a capitalist world which seems immune to transformation. Building on the failure of the social revolution which has been just around every twentieth-century corner, it cultivates an attitude which enables one to cope with the continual refurbishment of buildings, opinions, cities, and fashions, and its reassurance that it is quite natural to feel lost, confused, and uncertain of the solidity of the ground beneath one’s feet is welcome news to the shaky survivor of the late twentieth century. But, full of advice about surviving in the here and now, it tells us little about the possibilities of transforming it: of metaphorically and literally leaving the twentieth century behind. And this was the intention of the situationist analysis, which was not a treatise on survival, but an indication of the possibilities of living in a world for which the imperatives of survival have long since disappeared. It was not an account of how to have as much fun as possible in this social environment— although in this respect it rivals postmodernism—but the theoretical transcription of attempts to have as much fun as possible changing it.
>>
No. 22759
Anyone here read René Guénon?
>>
No. 22797
251 kB, 640 × 952
The Aneristic Principle is that of apparent order; the Eristic Principle is that of apparent disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of pure chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.
With our concept-making apparatus called "the brain" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently.
It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. That is the Aneristic Principle.
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be true. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
Disorder is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.
The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion. The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.
Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all that.
>>
No. 23733
William James, A Pluralistic Universe

Reduced to their most pregnant difference, empiricism means the habit of explaining wholes by parts, and rationalism means the habit of explaining parts by wholes. Rationalism thus preserves affinities with monism, since wholeness goes with union, while empiricism inclines to pluralistic views. No philosophy can ever be anything but a summary sketch, a picture of the world in abridgment, a foreshortened bird's-eye view of the perspective of events. And the first thing to notice is this, that the only material we have at our disposal for making a picture of the whole world is supplied by the various portions of that world of which we have already had experience. We can invent no new forms of conception, applicable to the whole exclusively, and not suggested originally by the parts. All philosophers, accordingly, have conceived of the whole world after the analogy of some particular feature of it which has particularly captivated their attention. Thus, the theists take their cue from manufacture, the pantheists from growth. For one man, the world is like a thought or a grammatical sentence in which a thought is expressed. For such a philosopher, the whole must logically be prior to the parts; for letters would never have been invented without syllables to spell, or syllables without words to utter.
Another man, struck by the disconnectedness and mutual accidentality of so many of the world's details, takes the universe as a whole to have been such a disconnectedness originally, and supposes order to have been superinduced upon it in the second instance, possibly by attrition and the gradual wearing away by internal friction of portions that originally interfered.
Another will conceive the order as only a statistical appearance, and the universe will be for him like a vast grab-bag with black and white balls in it, of which we guess the quantities only probably, by the frequency with which we experience their egress.
For another, again, there is no really inherent order, but it is we who project order into the world by selecting objects and tracing relations so as to gratify our intellectual interests. We carve out order by leaving the disorderly parts out; and the world is conceived thus after the analogy of a forest or a block of marble from which parks or statues may be produced by eliminating irrelevant trees or chips of stone.
Some thinkers follow suggestions from human life, and treat the universe as if it were essentially a place in which ideals are realized. Others are more struck by its lower features, and for them, brute necessities express its character better.
All follow one analogy or another; and all the analogies are with some one or other of the universe's subdivisions. Every one is nevertheless prone to claim that his conclusions are the only logical ones, that they are necessities of universal reason, they being all the while, at bottom, accidents more or less of personal vision which had far better be avowed as such; for one man's vision may be much more valuable than another's, and our visions are usually not only our most interesting but our most respectable contributions to the world in which we play our part. What was reason given to men for, said some eighteenth century writer, except to enable them to find reasons for what they want to think and do?—and I think the history of philosophy largely bears him out, "The aim of knowledge," says Hegel, "is to divest the objective world of its strangeness, and to make us more at home in it." Different men find their minds more at home in very different fragments of the world.
>>
No. 26954
Neat podcast about Kierkegaard's essay The Present Age and its modern relevance

https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2019/08/26/ep224-1-kierkegaard/
>>
No. 27299
487 kB, 2362 × 1535
Why do Anarchists and Marxists hate each other so much? Both of them share so many ideas and even borrow from each other when analyzing economics and culture. Both are fundamentally anti-capitalist and arguably anti-liberal. Both believe in social and economic equality, yet they spend more time bickering over minutiae than fighting right-wingers and Fascists.

Is their rivalry the greatest example of narcissism of small differences?
>>
No. 27327
>>27299
Anarchist thought is much more broad than anarcho-socialist ideas. It's no longer the late 19th-early 20th century. I wouldn't say it's inherently anti-capitalist without you further defining capitalism because anarchist political philosophies like Mutualism and Agorism tend to use the word to describe different phenomenon and can be neutral on or even for the institution of free market. Also an anarchist has as much to hate on the left as the right. Both can be tyrants stopping you from having a laugh. Stomp em in the gutter side by side. Familiarity also breeds contempt. When someone shares a lot of ideas and moves in the same circles, then you tend to have a lot of contact and a lot more points of difference.

t. black flag anarchist who says good night both sides
>>
No. 27349
>>27299
>narcissism of small differences

Why should small differences be insignificant? Pathologizing these is more a rhetoric than an argument, you kow.
Sure people can all gather under one bannner, but it makes the differences actually existing more obvious as >>27327 pointed out. Overcoming the supposed small differences reminds me of glorious ideologies that augured the new mankind.
>>
No. 27355
>>27299
>Is their rivalry the greatest example of narcissism of small differences?
Nah it's not that, although you'll notice this hence the joke behind Judean People's Front versus the Peoples Front of Judea. The left in general has always been very fractious, and one thing which I don't think right wingers understand is that despite leftists supposedly being all collectivist and shit are ultimately both bigger individualists and bigger proponents of principles. It's just something I've notice that seems to confuse the left. Right wingers can always seem to fall in line and march lockstep like a bunch of sheep whenever presented with leadership and given someone they're told is the authority. Trump is possibly the biggest example of this. The guy is a lying adulterer for one thing. That's not political, that's just fact. You would think that Evangelicals of all people would hate him the most on the right, but instead they're his biggest boosters. The reason for this is not just Israeli money paying off a bunch of key figures within Evangelicalism, but a sincere idea of conformity and authority that's totally alien to the left.

The problem with this, of course, is leftists never seem able to truly form a coherent whole because they can't agree on anything and unlike the right which is willing to blatantly ignore contradictions of their own values for what they see as a higher cause or greater good, the left seems to generally be really stubborn and autistic about not contradicting values.

Warhammer 40K ironically is a really good example. This is something right wingers will take at face value. They sincerely see the world as that kind of desperate struggle full of threats to such a degree they find the solution in banding together under one strong daddy figure and willing to burn whole worlds full of their people particularly if those worlds insist on disagreeing with anything. The joke is leftists seem to always want to form a subcommittee even as their capital city is being invaded because they can't agree on which tactic is most likely to work. It's not narcissism so much as it is autism, I think. It's also a result of the left in general tolerating way more variety in their beliefs, views, etc and being more of a big tent than the pure fearful tribal survivalist mode of the right.

That being stated it's pretty ignorant to use anarchists and Communists. I mean fucks sake man you're talking about a disagreement towards opposite ends of the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum. Of course they're going to vehemently disagree with each other. It's like asking why Rand and Ron Paul refuse to just get along with Hitler and Mussolini. The things they disagree on are not minor points but irreconcilable differences.
>>
No. 27356 Kontra
>>27355
I hope that didn't come off as sounding rude maybe I should have phrased it better. Meaning, Marxists-Leninists are perfectly willing to use a massive state apparatus to achieve their aims; anarchists by definition are not. This is not a minor detail that can be smoother over oh hey a spider on my bed
>>
No. 27358
>>27355
>>27356
>Libertarian vs. Authoritarian

Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism is a false dichotomy that needs to end. You can't just pick and choose this kind of shit or that kind of shit; this isn't a grand strategy game or D&D. An Anarchist movement that fails does not allow for "more freedom" than a Stalinist one that succeeds. Likewise, a Black Bloc riot in Greece that burns down a police station and beats up Fascists is more authoritarian than the Cuban government allowing certain bureaucrats to own more land and have access to luxuries most of the population doesn't. Right-Libertarians aren't really wrong that AnComs are "closeted" authoritarians, for the same reasons we shouldn't be surprised when these self-proclaimed guardians of individual liberty (the Right-Libertarians and AnCaps) embrace Fascism at the drop of a hat.

This freedom/authority dichotomy is derived almost entirely from bourgeois Liberal political philosophy and European enlightenment deontology about the transcendental rights of the individual as opposed to the government. In reality, neither the government nor the individual really exist in this idealized sense; only networks of material relations and the immaterial relations produced by them. These relations are mediated by social infrastructure. This infrastructure is everything from a highway to a parliament to an arrangement of the family.

Liberalism is also why the left can never win. The reason SocDems fail to change anything is because they get elected entirely within the social infrastructure of a bourgeois democracy and the relations it allows for do not include worker ownership. Their intentions, whether honest or dishonest, make no difference unless they include a specific and still risky strategy to somehow modify/sabotage that infrastructure in tandem with other organized efforts. The USSR and Maoist China had some heavily repressive elements because they captured the social infrastructure of repressive empires. We should understand that these projects didn't fail to bring about lasting socialism because their leaders were mean or identified as authoritarians, but because material conditions create our social realities – without a conscious, concerted effort to reassemble social infrastructure, how could the captured machinery of the repressive state the Bolsheviks rebelled against do anything but reproduce the repressive social relations it was designed for? Lenin was aware of this, as indicated in his later letters where he regretted the Civil War necessitating many half-measures and compromises with the old form of the state.

As for Anarchists, the problem is that they take enlightenment ideology to its logical conclusion (full individual freedom, human association being entirely voluntary and non-hierarchical) without realizing that Liberal individualist ideology was produced by certain material and social conditions that came about through severely authoritarian apparati. The western individual, understood in opposition to society, was produced by the onset of capitalism and its colonial phase, the defining of the nation-state, the contractual demarcation of all elements of human life, and the simultaneous fracturing of traditional modes of organization and support. All these constitute the social infrastructure allowing for individual autonomy in the way we understand it. Anarchism in the way AnSocs / AnComs understand it isn't necessarily impossible or even improbable (but highly impractical, if you ask me), but ideological purity is not going to take anybody there – that is going to require the ruthless carving out of new channels, new ways of organizing, the building of new infrastructure. If you want to call that process authoritarian, so be it.
>>
No. 27370 Kontra
>>27355
>It's like asking why Rand and Ron Paul refuse to just get along with Hitler and Mussolini.

There's a much vaster difference (I say an ocean's worth) between American Constitutionalist Libertarians and Fascists than there is between Communists and Anarchists because those philosophies were founded on entirely different principles. Germany and Italy were never Liberal societies historically and are only "Liberal" now because American Liberalism drives much of the discourse post-globalization.

Today's crop of White Nationalists feel differently about Hitler, but in the initial post-war period, even the staunchest Segregationaists and Klansmen would get intensely leery if you started promoting Nazism in their presence. They ultimately saw themselves as Americans, not Germans.

On another completely different note, here's an interesting essay speculating on a figurative dialogue between Kropotkin and Marx:
https://libcom.org/library/what-marx-should-have-said-kropotkin-adam-buick
>>
No. 27375
>>27370
The Enlightenment, which literally is the basis of all liberalism, literally started in Italy. More recently, Germany was literally one of the most liberal countries and Berlin was the most gay friendly city in all of Europe before the Nazis came to power, and even before that it's entirely valid to argue that both the Nietzcheans and the Protestant Reformation are derived from strictly anti-Conservative and anti-traditionalist sentiments.

>>27358
Why do I feel like this is copypasta. I swore I read it somewhere else unless I somehow read it right before falling asleep and dont remember