Foucault and Derrida would argue that identity is constructed through language, power relations, social contexts, etc., and that the quest for an authentic self is questionable at best because it overlooks the inherently fragmented and constructed nature of identity.It's a similar story with Saussure and Lévi-Strauss.Even Heidegger would argue that constantly trying to be authentic can paradoxically lead to inauthenticity because it becomes just another form of conforming to external ideals about what it means to be authentic.Exactly why should individual self-expression be regarded as anything short of a distraction from either productive social conformity or productive revolutionary nonconformity? As Žižek might say, you can't "be creative" your way out of late-stage capitalism. Is self-expressive social fragmentation not the entire reason the movement(s) on left have failed to enact real social change over the past 60 years?
don't care fuck off
>>23804843Bump
>>23804843most people can't do shit all to create change. so much of structuralism and post-structuralism is rooted in the ideal social being. that's not you. that's not most of us.
>>23804843Lots of meaningless babble, both from you and from the authors you mentioned.
>>23804843l think you have to explain what you mean by saying "authentic". If its something like being true to yourself, then you have to explain what do you think the self is. Most of the authors you mentioned hold that the self is a social construct, hence, you can not be true to yourself. But that is only because they assume that social influence is stronger that that of the individual. If you, on the other hand, think of the self as a construct of drives and instincts (as Nietzsche did for example), then being authentic would mean living according to your dominant instincts - which is imaginable and possible.
>>23804843leftist movements fail because they're primarily about killing white people since the 60s
>>23804843This thread ruined my day.
>>23806273not OP but Nietzsche hasn't been relevant in years. The post-structuralists won. There is no true self in a societal setting.
>>23806309>There is no true self in a societal setting.maybe for opportunistic npc normies like you
>>23804843here's a quote by foucault himself on that topic>If identity becomes the problem of sexual existence, and if people think they have to ‘uncover’ their ‘own identity’ and that their own identity has to become the law, the principle, the code of their existence; if the perennial question they ask is ‘Does this thing conform to my identity?’ then, I think, they will turn back to a kind of ethics very close to the old heterosexual virility. If we are asked to relate to the question of identity, it has to be an identity to our unique selves. But the relationships we have to have with ourselves are not ones of identity, rather they must be relationships of differentiation, of creation, of innovation. To be the same is really boring.
Frenchmen and Jews reading Heidegger has been a disaster
>>23806323Interesting.>relationships of differentiation, of creation, of innovationDoes he expand on this?
>>23806399Frenchmen were a disaster, period.The Jews I'm mixed on. They're hard workers, if nothing else.
>>23806401If you want a perfect example just look at the Renaissance.
>>23806777What about it?
>>23804843> Exactly why should individual self-expression be regarded as anything short of a distraction from either productive social conformity or productive revolutionary nonconformity? You’re too socially-oriented in your thoughts about things like creativity and self-expression, thinking it only has to have some benefit in terms of either changing society or fitting into and contributing to it, instead of the benefits it can have for oneself, besides for those around oneself who can be uplifted by it, and one’s possible receptive audience.
>>23807828I would include upliftment of others to be within the category of social contributions within the socially-oriented framework you suggest. It's not just about being a measurably productive cog in a measurably productive machine — there are extraneous and indirect factors that lead to a productive society.I think you're hitting on something here. However, I contend that conscious individual self-expression is neither beneficial to the individual, nor can it create bona fide upliftment in others. Individual self-expression is purely individual — it's not a group activity. Any upliftment it provides to others is merely a fantasy fulfilment of their own desires / ideals / self-identities, and is manifested only in terms of their own conscious individual self-expression. Because self-expression is purely individual, it's inherently hedonistic, and therefore can't benefit the individual's self-actualization.Both of these points can be seen blatantly in the LGBTQ+ movement(s).
>>23806319what?
>>23804843>Exactly why should individual self-expression be regarded as anything short of a distraction from either productive social conformity or productive revolutionary nonconformity? Because some people believe life, specifically their lives, are for them to live, and not for you to use. Another way to say it: NYPA. >Is self-expressive social fragmentation not the entire reason the movement(s) on left have failed to enact real social change over the past 60 years?No, it's because utopia is impossible and every social issue is downstream from plutocratic mismanagement/malmanagement of the global system, insurmountable by "social movements" since it is enforced at nuclear gunpoint. Get real homie.
>>23809760> I'm not the problem, (((they))) are!> society? I'm an individual!!
>>23810000>why don't people do what I want them to do? Why are they doing what they want to do?>they're distracted! That's the problem! They're the problem!I will never follow you
>>23810015Yet you'll be supported by me.
>>23810023How do you support me
>>23810032Public goods and services funded through taxation.
>>23810068I pay taxes equivalent to what my income is. >it's (((their))) fault>society? I'm a free individual!
>>23810086Proportionate to, not equivalent
>>23810090>>23810086>Because some people believe life, specifically their lives, are for them to live, and not for you to use. Another way to say it: NYPA.Than what's this shit about? Are you already a contributing member of society?
>>23810095Oh, it was about the desire to control other people lurking beneath what you said.
>>23810100How are you getting that? Walk me through your logic.
>>23810175>Exactly why should individual self-expression be regarded as anything short of a distraction from either productive social conformity or productive revolutionary nonconformity?Idk. Why?
>>23810181Okay, how are you getting> Oh, it was about the desire to control other people lurking beneath what you said.from that?
>>23810181Give me your answer. Why should people's individual self-expression be considered anything but a distraction from what you think they ought to be doing instead?
>>23810189Whoops. Meant for you. >>23810192
>>23810192>>23810195> Why should people's individual self-expression be considered anything but a distraction from what you think they ought to be doing instead?I think you're misunderstanding my opinion. The answer is that it shouldn't. It is a distraction. The key element I think you're missing is that I don't care what they do so long as they're being socially-minded and contributing to their ideal society — whether that ideal necessities productive social conformity or productive revolutionary nonconformity.Note this isn't me saying "everyone should follow X path in life which I've identified as the most sensible." It's saying that people ought to be generally productive with their time and work toward some larger goal, even if that goal is the eventual downfall of society (the revolutionary nonconformity I mention). What I think should not be considered acceptable is for a person to style themselves as oppressed and, in response to that perceived oppression, retreat from becoming productive.
>>23810240I dont think I'm misunderstanding it. I think you might be though. The rest of what you wrote, i didnt read, since it was said to yourself in your own interest. Best wishes to you
>>23808405What if the self-expression, when shared can actually teach or guide others in attempting new ways or feeling validated about their own attempts?
>>23809760>Get real homie.Nice wannabe nigger speak. Millenials like you are such stupid, pseud cancer.
>>23810258How is that substantially different from the fantasy fulfilment I described?> and is manifested only in terms of their own conscious individual self-expressionWhat you describe is just subcultural reinforcement. If I feel validated in my individual self-expression because I see someone else play out the same self-expression, am I still practicing self-expression or am I simply reinforcing a standard for what people of X identity do? Individual self-expression should not be/need to be informed by what others are doing.>>23810245> ask question> get answer> don't read answerWhy are you here?
>>23810277Nobody exists in a vacuum. People will express using the phenomena around them as reference content. They're still expressing themselves. What would this look like if they didn't reference external content?
wow this board is incredibly stupidanyways>>23806401here's another quote, this time from deleuze>We sometimes go on as though people can’t express themselves. In fact they’re always expressing themselves. The sorriest couples are those where the woman can’t be preoccupied or tired without the man saying “What’s wrong? Say something…,” or the man, without the woman saying … and so on. Radio and television have spread this spirit everywhere, and we’re riddled with pointless talk, insane quantities of words and images. Stupidity’s never blind or mute. So it’s not a problem of getting people to express themselves but of providing little gaps of solitude and silence in which they might eventually find something to say. Repressive forces don’t stop people expressing themselves but rather force them to express themselves; What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, and ever rarer, thing that might be worth saying. What we’re plagued by these days isn’t any blocking of communication, but pointless statements. But what we call the meaning of a statement is its point. That’s the only definition of meaning, and it comes to the same thing as a statement’s novelty. You can listen to people for hours, but what’s the point? . . . That’s why arguments are such a strain, why there’s never any point arguing. You can’t just tell someone what they’re saying is pointless. So you tell them it’s wrong. But what someone says is never wrong, the problem isn’t that some things are wrong, but that they’re stupid or irrelevant. That they’ve already been said a thousand times. The notions of relevance, necessity, the point of something, are a thousand times more significant than the notion of truth. Not as substitutes for truth, but as the measure of the truth of what I’m saying. It’s the same in mathematics: Poincaré used to say that many mathematical theories are completely irrelevant, pointless; He didn’t say they were wrong – that wouldn’t have been so bad.(idle talk = stupidity = thought in its undifferentiated/uncreative form)
>>23807226I'm not going to tell you.
>>23810284>What would this look like if they didn't reference external content?It would look like true and authentic identity formation as opposed to conscious and intentional self-expression.
>>23810692> stupid, uninteresting people talk about stupid, uninteresting thingsThis is nothing new, Deleuze.
>>23810240Productivity itself is a wierd concept. Have you read the accursed share?TMT8T
>>23813059>Productivity itself is a wierd conceptWhy?
>>23804843As troubled as the idea of self-expression is, subjugating it to some political goal sounds more paradoxical. All metanarratives have dissolved and information has exploded. If you do have some political will in postmodernity, then surely the only use it has to anyone is as self-expression, if it isn't the manifestation of some signal you received in a closed loop with no possibility for change. Your social configuration offers a few paths on which to be, but there's very little left to do.
>>23813350To make it short: after a society satisfies its basic needs it can develop in any way possible. Organisms on earth receive an abundant amount of energy to an extent where growth is not only possible but prevalent. Georges Bataille wrote an entire book on this but just because a society has an abundant amount of energy available doesn’t mean it has to industrialise or build anything grand. It very well could end itself in a war of catastrophic proportions just to have its now empty ecological niche filled by something else. In this sense productivity doesn’t make any sense as you’re not progressing anywhere. You’re just inventing new ways to get rid of produced energy. One popular way to do so is art and architecture. Imagine a world where America instead of investing in the automotive industry instead became obsessed with building superstructures. From space elevators to kilometers long bridges and walls. Hence productivity as such doesn’t really exist because you are not producing anything meaningful-you’re just expending extra energy.
>>23814509>>23814509>because you are not producing anything meaningful-you’re just expending extra energy.This presupposes that there's anything meaningful we can create under Bastille's philosophy that creation is as meritorious as destruction.
>>23815177I am sure Batailles has some idea of what a society should be focused on but that’s not the point. I was critiquing productivity in relation to self-expression and I gave you the source of my argument. I very much agree that self-expression can look like conformity because of the nature of identity. However identity is simply how other people see you. Saying someone is optimistic is simply a description of his behaviour. You have no access to his mind, hence the problem of other minds. The reason I think self-expression is not always a distraction is because it can be a way of fulfilling a real need that an individual has. Even if from your perspective someone’s artistic expression is simply a reflection of the society he inhabits that person might have fullfilled a real need by expressing himself.
>>23815177And yes that’s exactly the argument. There’s no difference between destruction and creation. Perhaps a better word would be impact but that has its own connotations so I won’t use it.
>>23815177You’re saying that self-expression is a form of hedonism and I am arguing that that’s okay.
This is too intelligent a question for this forum.
>>23804843Always thought it was weird how some philosophers connected language to power dynamics, now it all makes sense about all the conflicts and riff raff filling up college campuses with their nonsense in the west.
>>23810261NTA but we don’t sign our posts here
>>23817044Ah, I understand now. That makes sense. Pardon me.
>>23811271cope and doesn't exist
>>23820017You really can't conceive of someone engaging in identity formation passively rather than with conscious intentionality?
>>23820017pseud
>>23818282This has been evident for years, although it's not entirely what the philosophers had in mind when they talked about language and power.
