Jump to content

Hoarmurath

Diplomunion Member
  • Content Count

    1,070
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Hoarmurath last won the day on April 21

Hoarmurath had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About Hoarmurath

  • Birthday 01/01/1900

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/30/venezuelas-guiado-says-final-phase-of-plan-to-oust-maduro-has-begun https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/americas/venezuela-juan-guaido-leopoldo-lopez-intl/index.html https://www.apnews.com/0153cace08c84c8fbf34f9c6a7bdd4dd https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2019/apr/30/venezuela-opposition-leader-juan-guaido-claims-coup-underway-live-news
  2. Good day then. You know, it isn't very rational to thumb your nose at peer-review processes. Also here's another fairy tale: So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. "But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said. "Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on." "But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last. The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.
  3. @M3rkabo I edited my response at the moment you posted your reply. It was not malicious and I didn't even read your response until after I had made it.
  4. True, I am epically pwned. Thank you for showing me the error of my thinking I will subscribe to JBP's twitter page immediately. /s
  5. So... linear = constructive? I'd like to know what kind of stuff you read that leads you to this kind of thinking. It's like a parody of the inverse of what the alt-right thinks post-modernism is. Here's a different article reviewing JBP's work, from the blog of the American Psychological Association: https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many-young-men-drawn-to-jordan-petersons-intellectual-misogyny/ "Peterson’s work is complex, and addressing it comprehensively would be far beyond the scope of this piece, but what is clear is that he consistently misuses profound ideas, especially those of C.G. Jung, to justify his misogyny. The primary problem with Peterson’s interpretation of Jung is that he conceives the archetypes too literally, especially as they relate to gender. He’s not alone in this misinterpretation, and if this was the extent of the trouble, it would be merely an issue for scholarly debate and correction. But the larger problem is that he uses this misreading of Jung as essentializing gender roles to rationalize a pernicious sexism masquerading as a defense of free speech and common sense. This message, framed as psychological theory and supported by questionable data, is resonating with many young men, providing an easy answer to a crisis of historical proportions. His response is to reject feminism and postmodernism (or at least his caricature of these movements), and essentially return to traditional gender roles, which Peterson argues are more biologically intrinsic than socially conditioned."
  6. Nothing I said had anything to do with that situation though. I was responding to the part of what you said that I quoted:
  7. I'm not trying to impress anyone, I just wanted to provide VERY BASIC information about the the theory that surrounds the topic of rationalism. I don't know how it isn't directly related to the topic of rationalism as it relates to Zizek, as is your claim, considering Zizek has edited and translated many other of Adorno's works, and works within the framework of what academia has termed the post-Frankfurt environment. No offense, since you don't seem intent in engaging this conversation on a real level and instead seem to just want to epically pwn your debate opponent, I have nothing further to add here. Enjoy this video of Zizek talking about happiness:
  8. @M3rkabo The great project of the rationalists in the Enlightenment failed. The brutal reign of Napoleon led to further failures (of the Romantics, primarily) in the revolutions of 1848, and by the time of Marx's death the Paris Commune had come and gone, yielding the Bonapartist restoration. There has been much written on this topic, but the foundational text remains T. Adorno's Dialectic of the Enlightenment, which I quote here, "Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity. Enlightenment’s program was the disenchantment of the world.* It wanted to dispel myths, to overthrow fantasy with knowledge. Bacon, “the father of experimental philosophy,”1 brought these motifs together. He despised the exponents of tradition, who substituted belief for knowledge and were as unwilling to doubt as they were reckless in supplying answers. All this, he said, stood in the way of “the happy match between the mind of man and the nature of things,” with the result that humanity was unable to use its knowledge for the betterment of its condition. Such inventions as had been made—Bacon cites printing, artillery, and the compass—had been arrived at more by chance than by systematic enquiry into nature. Knowledge obtained through such enquiry would not only be exempt from the influence of wealth and power but would establish man as the master of nature: Therefore, no doubt, the sovereignty of man lieth hid in knowledge; wherein many things are reserved, which kings with their treasure cannot buy, nor with their force command; their spials and intelligencers can give no news of them, their seamen and discoverers cannot sail where they grow: now we govern nature in opinions, but we are thrall unto her in necessity: but if we would be led by her in invention, we should command her by action. Although not a mathematician, Bacon well understood the scientific temper which was to come after him. The “happy match” between human understanding and the nature of things that he envisaged is a patriarchal one: the mind, conquering superstition, is to rule over disenchanted nature. Knowledge, which is power, knows no limits, either in its enslavement* of creation or in its deference to worldly masters. Just as it serves all the purposes of the bourgeois economy both in factories and on the battlefield, it is at the disposal of entrepreneurs regardless of their origins. Kings control technology no more directly than do merchants: it is as democratic as the economic system* with which it evolved. Technology is the essence of this knowledge. It aims to produce neither concepts nor images, nor the joy of understanding, but method, exploitation of the labor of others,* capital. The “many things” which, according to Bacon, knowledge still held in store are themselves mere instruments: the radio as a sublimated printing press, the dive bomber as a more effective form of artillery, remote control as a more reliable compass. What human beings seek to learn from nature is how to use it to dominate wholly both it and human beings. Nothing else counts. Ruthless toward itself, the Enlightenment has eradicated the last remnant of its own self-awareness. Only thought which does violence to itself is hard enough to shatter myths. Faced by the present triumph of the factual mentality, Bacon’s nominalist credo would have smacked of metaphysics and would have been convicted of the same vanity for which he criticized scholasticism. Power and knowledge are synonymous.3 For Bacon as for Luther, “knowledge that tendeth but to satisfaction, is but as a courtesan, which is for pleasure, and not for fruit or generation.” Its concern is not “satisfaction, which men call truth,” but “operation,” the effective procedure. The “true end, scope or office of knowledge” does not consist in “any plausible, delectable, reverend or admired discourse, or any satisfactory arguments, but in effecting and working, and in discovery of particulars not revealed before, for the better endowment and help of man’s life.”4 There shall be neither mystery nor any desire to reveal mystery. The disenchantment of the world means the extirpation of animism. Xenophanes mocked the multiplicity of gods because they resembled their creators, men, in all their idiosyncrasies and faults, and the latest logic denounces the words of language, which bear the stamp of impressions, as counterfeit coin that would be better replaced by neutral counters. For enlightenment, anything which does not conform to the standard of calculability and utility must be viewed with suspicion. Once the movement is able to develop unhampered by external oppression, there is no holding it back. Its own ideas of human rights then fare no better than the older universals. Any intellectual resistance it encounters merely increases its strength.5 The reason is that enlightenment also recognizes itself in the old myths. No matter which myths are invoked against it, by being used as arguments they are made to acknowledge the very principle of corrosive rationality of which enlightenment stands accused. Enlightenment is totalitarian." Or as the late romantic and great author of fairy tales and folklore, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote in one of his most popular stories (The Snow Queen) "Little Kay was quite blue with cold, indeed almost black, but he did not feel it; for the Snow Queen had kissed away the icy shiverings, and his heart was already a lump of ice. He dragged some sharp, flat pieces of ice to and fro, and placed them together in all kinds of positions, as if he wished to make something out of them; just as we try to form various figures with little tablets of wood which we call “a Chinese puzzle.” Kay’s fingers were very artistic; it was the icy game of reason at which he played, and in his eyes the figures were very remarkable, and of the highest importance; this opinion was owing to the piece of glass still sticking in his eye. He composed many complete figures, forming different words, but there was one word he never could manage to form, although he wished it very much. It was the word “Eternity.” The Snow Queen had said to him, “When you can find out this, you shall be your own master, and I will give you the whole world and a new pair of skates.” But he could not accomplish it." I sent you this on discord as well, but just in case you don't see it, I have attached an excellent roundtable on analyzing fairy tales and folklore, which incorporates many Jungian elements (specifically with respect to archetypes and the shadow).
  9. @War4life I really expected both of these things to be the case but not as dramatically as they were. If it's possible, Zizek rambled more than usual, and Peterson, whose career has focused so intently on 'debunking' marxists, proved he has not even the most basic understanding of Marx or his legacy. It seems to me like those who support Peterson will continue to do so regardless, though, because they aren't in it for the academic rigor of Peterson's arguments, they just like the justification for reactionary ideologies. The same can be said of Zizek's most ardent supporters on the "authoritarian left" (Marxist-Leninists), who really need to pick up one of his academic works and realize the man who speaks about "idpol" and so on is not the same man who edited Adorno's In Search of Wagner. Written Zizek is almost an entirely different personality from the man who gets up on the debate stage. Suddenly he's not a kooky foreigner with almost unintelligible English syntax, he becomes who he really is: probably the most erudite scholar of continental philosophy and marxist theory in the last 30 years.
  10. Yeah, I'm accustomed to having an audience that is very familiar with this situation, but it's worth explaining the differences in the basic schools. Marxism-Leninism is synonymous with Stalinism, which is in many ways the "state socialism" (a contradiction if ever there was one) you describe as "soviet". Zizek loves to parody people not understanding the differences in the different styles of socialist thought, hence his portrait of Stalin hanging like a saintly protector over his bed:
  11. In no world is reading the Communist Manifesto to be advocated as a method of understanding Marxism or the ideology of Karl Marx in his lifetime. It is akin to the mistakes of many mid-20th century socialist organizations, who found in the works of Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg the 'secret blueprint' to achieving revolution in one's own lifetime. Rather than understanding the principles on which the theory was based, and on which the great revolutionaries of the early 20th century based their praxis, instead these individuals promulgated published texts as unshakable dogmas for creating a vanguardistic party structure, therein creating the legacy by which communism is still judged (and very harshly) by the very same "postmodern" academics who JBP and his ilk so disdain. For a basic survey of Marxian economics, all three volumes of Das Kapital must be addressed before moving on to more advanced texts like the incomplete Grundrisse or The Eighteenth Brumaire. For Marxian economics after Marx, Hobsbawm and David Harvey remain mainstays in their respective fields (history and macro-economics). I run a socialist reading group on discord (we also have a website and forum, but it's not much used). If there's anyone here that'd like to join that isn't gonna be reactionary troll type, feel free to shoot me a DM here or on discord.
  12. If you aren't going to address any ideas of substance and only want to troll/muckrake, please stop replying to this thread.
  13. Yes, ignorant fucks do quite 'touch a nerve' when they claim that resources are infinite as justification for policies of total ecological ruin. Also calling out your ideas and sources as stupid and wrong is not ad hominem. That isn't how logical fallacies work. Secondly, I never said anything about you being religious. I made a joke about the IDEA you put forward, not you yourself. And finally, no, being a graduate student in medieval history means most of my professors are not left commies like JBP would like you to believe.
  14. So what you're saying is that GOD ALMIGHTY gave mankind the earth to despoil, and ecology is FAKE NEWS? You're entitled to your very wrong opinion, but you aren't allowed to tell other people they're wrong at an ad hominem level when they're not. Resources are not infinite and your garbage (quite literally) mentality is rooted in what I can only assume are deep-seeded problems you have with "the Left" writ large. Go back to your basement and read some more Breitbart about how Elon Musk and Ron Paul will save us from ecological collapse. Or you could read the only non-shit libertarian that exists, Noam Chomsky, and realize that Earth Strikers around the world disagree with your bullshit. >"I'm not a Philosopher" That is CLEAR. Read a fucking book, jesus christ. No I'm not? Have you ever read anything by a psychologist that wasn't Jordan Peterson? Because reviews of this book are hilarious, from PsychologyToday: "Scrutiny shows that Peterson’s Maps of Meaning is defective as a work of anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and politics." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning If you're interested in this topic, I highly suggest Jack Zipes, *The Brothers Grimm: From Enchanted Forests to the Modern World* for a brief survey of continental philosophy that doesn't fuck everything up and go with Joseph Campbell's understanding of the monomyth for every situation.
  15. Are you high? Peterson doesn't have even a tenuous grasp on Freud, and certainly has no actionable understanding of Jung. Zizek referenced 'the Shadow' at one point in the debate, and Peterson just shook his head and nodded before launching back into his convoluted naturalist diatribe. Peterson is at *best* a pop-psychologist with no grasp on scholarship. I have seen graduate students teaching theory classes applying psychological methods with a firmer and much better understanding of basic concepts than Peterson possesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
×
×
  • Create New...