File: images-3.jpg (20 KB, 447x447)

20 KB JPG

I’ve been reading a lot of Kierkegaard alongside Kant and thinking through the tensions between their approaches, this helping me better appreciate what Kant actually accomplished, and pointing toward a new (to most people) mode of thinking that can go beyond Marx, as developed by Fichte, though all the principles are already there in Kant. I don’t know that much about Deleuze yet but I think most Deleuzians would be on board with this sort of thing in general, from what I can pick up about Deleuze from the Deleuzeanons here. I’ll try to explain the connection of thought but apologies if it rambles somewhat. Kierkegaard puts Christian ideas in a philosophical context (idealism) where they fit rather well, which you can’t say for classical Greek philosophy, but the effect to me is to lay them bare in a way they never are laid bare in antiquity of the middle ages, when someone like Augustine can truly claim to have something ‘more’ than the Platonists for example. Christianity is a religion of paradox – it affirms tensions that other religions and some philosophies try to “solve” and that’s its fundamental draw. It has nothing to do with choosing to believe in some set of facts, the belief in the mythological facts follows from its reflecting the human condition. But these paradoxes are just the ones that secular, idealist philosophy takes up. Sin vs. forgiveness, the sensible vs. the supersensible, being vs. the ‘ought’, law vs. grace, individuality vs. universality, flesh vs. spirit – these all amount to the same thing. What annoys me about Kierkegaard is that he sees the problem and answers it but his answer is bogus, not his Christianity per se but his narcissistic, sneering individualism. He goes “past” the universal, “past” the law, into a mystifying existentialism. But how does this escape Hegel’s “conscience” – how would “what I know in my heart is right” not collapse into evil, or really be evil from the outset, since it’s essential to duty that it’s opposed to our contingent individuality? Also how would this not simply restore the universal, like Feuerbach said about Hegel's double negation? Kierkegaard's political conservatism follows directly from his Christian philosophy. He knows Hegel's skeptical arguments of course but he just browbeats the reader with rhetoric and when things get too hot he will declare that he’s beyond thinking or comprehensibility. Also, does the absolute individual in relation to the absolute even need God? His logic is basically Hegelian (schematizing Hegel to beat him at his own game, just like Marx) but the ‘speculative moment’ in Hegelian dialectic is simply the individual (albeit in Hegel this is no “person” or espèce). (1/3)

>>25360713
The abolition of representation.

>>25360791 (2/3)
Even readers innocent of Hegel I think can see God and Christ in Kierkegaard are like di ex machinis and it’s not surprising at all that so many atheists have no trouble going in for him. So to go back to these fundamental paradoxes – Hegel’s solution is nihilistic, it’s reducible to capitalism, even if Hegel couldn’t quite see this (though he was very close to it). The problems of individual human life are meant to recede as we become more socialized by the economy – exactly what we’re living through right now. Wunderbar! Kierkegaard offers this nonsensical, irreducible individualism. Christianity has a beautiful myth. Kant confronts the paradox head on in the bravest way possible by discovering a fresh paradox of his own in the nature of Reason – we have knowledge of the supersensible but not such a knowledge as allows us to say that it even IS. It’s not a matter of belief, it's rational, he argues for it from reason’s transcendence, the same argument Aristotle uses for freedom in fact just in a different context, but it doesn’t make sense and it can’t because it has no intuition corresponding to it. Should you do right and try to make the world better? Is life meaningful? Yes and yes. Will you ever have factual knowledge that anyone ever does right, i.e. does right for its own sake, is truly free, or that life is meaningful? Absolutely not. And you can see how this lets a Kantian like Fichte take a position that transcends both atheism and theism – there really “is” “something” transcendent that motivates human action and is the first principle of all reality but it doesn’t exist and you’d never worship or pray to ‘it’, but not because it’s less than being but because it’s beyond being. This Kantian framework is future-oriented – because God is a vanishing point, not something you can “reach” once and for all by being baptized or ginning yourself up into some emotional state. This is why it’s revolutionary, what “is not” is absolutely metaphysically prior to what “is”. Kierkegaard rejects this perspective, which he subsumes under the category of the ethical, just *because* he is seduced by Hegel’s nihilistic arguments in the Phenomenology. But Hegel’s arguments rely on a ruthless rationalism – everything is intelligible through and through, there is no noumenon, no thing in itself, the future is not a genuine beyond, anyone who talks about the ‘ought’ is a mad fanatic. It’s a metaphysics of capitalism.

>>25360797
Kierkegaard ends up affirming a paradox but within this rationalist Hegelian paradigm it becomes a positive surd; Kantian Freedom is so negative that it negates Hegelian negativity (like Marx said in the 1844 manuscripts Hegel say “only the positive, not the negative side of labor”, labor being the Phenomenology’s proper negativity and, for Marx, the key of the whole system), it’s neither positive nor negative but as Fichte says an absolute ciper. So Kant and Fichte offer a third way, neither nihilism nor mysticism, and it points toward radical societal change, and even in Kant’s Perpetual Peace you see him arguing that this arises by antagonisms. And it’s impossible for it to ossify into any sort of dogmatism just because of its noumenal character. Well this was rambling but eh you see what I’m thinking about anyway. I want to do another maybe more focused post about Lukacs’ What Is Orthodox Marxism? and (as you might expect) argue that he overvalues Hegel and doesn’t give Kant his due. There are great ideas in Hegel here and there, especially in the Phenomenology, but for a metaphysics that actually works I think we should return to Kant (and Fichte), and I would not be surprised to learn that someone like Deleuze can get along with them very well, since the key to working out a retroactive refutation of Hegel in Kant is the denial of absolute negativity, which afaik is part of what Deleuze was doing. Kant denies this on the very first page of the Critique of Pure Reason when he posits sensibility and asserts that experience is only intelligible as a synthesis.

>>25360713
More sociological but attempting to merge Adlerian civilizational birth order theory with things like male only economic welfare, and this:
https://adolfstalin.substack.com/p/the-paradox-of-the-1000-acre-colony

File: 203338.jpg (15 KB, 306x499)

15 KB JPG

>>25360791
>>25360797
>>25360802
Read picrel.

>>25360820
Will it be intelligible to a pseud who hasn't read any philosophy/psychology past the 19th century?

In short: Ecology is the main driver of human history

>>25360713
Im not trying to develop it as just being a kantian-Popperian-pragmatist.

Namedropping philosophers in ideas really is the poor man's gucci glasses and ralph lauren purse.

>>25360855
>reading philosophers is bad
>talking about philosophers is bad
>if I haven't read who you're talking about it's probably just some stupid shit
>why don't you guys just think for yourself like I do??
Retard.

>>25360857
Didn't mean to diss your Louis Vuitton, Anon, it suits you.

>>25360713
a bunch.
Post-Philosophy is one.
The Metaphysics of Space-Time is another.
Theo-philosophical concepts like adopting Holy Phenomenology (Living like Christ) as a therapeutic means to cure ontological nature (i.e. being a fallen human); also an alternative means to true epistemology (Revelation). Lot of good stuff to look forward to.
I think Theosis is gonna be a pretty important concept moving forward in the 21st century as a cure for nihilism.
and I think people will flock to become metaphysicians in this healing

>>25360864
So you think the future will involve people going backwards into the past and becoming cybertrads? I think you're going to be disappointed anon. Also why? It's like you're stringing words together.
>Post-Philosophy
OK what is that? And how do you get out of the old 'you can't go past thinking/philosophy without thinking/philosophizing' argument?
>The Metaphysics of Space-Time is another.
What do you even mean by that? Use your words.

>>25360875
>Holy Phenomenology (Living like Christ)
Sad that Husserl and Edith Stein were jews and ironically couldn't bracket their jewishness to see that "the Phenomenology of Jesus Christ" is the bases for Christian Philosophy: we're imitating the Godman so that we as men can know and be more godlike. Palamism existed long before Phenomenology (and so did Christian Existentialism with St. Gregory of Nyssia and his concept of Epektasis and infinite personal growth with God rather than Sartrean nihilism or Camus's Absurdism)
A lot of jews did bracket this and became followers in His Time. Seems like a leap of faith issue when it comes to trying to "Theorize the Mind of God" by following His Son's path a little and getting illuminated on the way.
>>25360875
>cybertrads
not really. that's aesthetic maxing; mostly due to Western Christianity not understanding the difference between energies (e.g. aesthetics) and essences (the thing making the aesthetics). the tradcath stuff is aesthetic phenomology without bracketing; it's just "looking like Christ" without the attempt at "being like Christ". Honestly, it's more humbling to get rid of the Christ looksmaxxing and just focus on the being (using proper theological guidance i.e. following what the saints successfully did).
>Post-Philosophy
you're looking at it: it's the rejection of anthropocentric Philosophy as a means to wisdom: it's incomplete and doesn't can't explain the universe with just human entities. You need theocentrism to prepositionally precede Philosophy to make sense otherwise you have the epistemic antinomy of: Humanity didn't create themselves or this place.
Theo-philosophy is humbling to man, but is the correct ontological, epistemic, and ethical choice: it's actually beautiful, true, and good (unlike secular philosophy which ultimately can't make those claims itself i.e. you should follow logic because logic is logical is a poor tautological imperative in comparison as people like Wittgenstein pointed out).
>What do you even mean by that? Use your words.
Well modern man thinks about space-time in material physical concepts: Outer Space and distances between celestial bodies and temporal frames of relativity etc.
But for starters, space-time aren't physical... you can't empirically show someone "nothing" or "a handful of time"; these are not objects (though Quantum Physics into points/loops but that's another story for the back of a napkin).
However, matter has a real effect on space-time; so there's an observable distinction between the real and whatever substance space-time is/operates under (metaphysics: the thing beyond physics that physics rests on... for example, planetary matter being suspended in a nothinglike void we call... space-time).
Once you draw this distinction, you can start looking at temporal-spacial phenomena differently than you would just physically; for example you now you can start looking for casualties beyond physics (hence the name).

>>25360875
>>25360900
>What do you even mean by that? Use your words.
What happens AFTER the entropic heat death of a system (or universe) when it's achieve thermodynamic stasis/equilibrium and everything is "frozen" because there's no physical energy left for change.
I don't think "I" stop. I think information still gets observed/processed/sorted/judged.
Another possible way to look at it is that there are more than 1 temporal dimension (and there kinda has to be since we are aware of relative perturbances in time and know that it's not entirely linear (both physically and phenomenologically in experience (like when you go to sleep and wake up 8 hours in the future)); clearly we're not all in the same timeline raft together and we know it so maybe there's different streams to explain the distinctions?

File: fish phenomenology.png (385 KB, 939x821)

385 KB PNG

>>25360910
>Another possible way to look at it is that there are more than 1 temporal dimension (and there kinda has to be since we are aware of relative perturbances in time and know that it's not entirely linear (both physically and phenomenologically in experience (like when you go to sleep and wake up 8 hours in the future)); clearly we're not all in the same timeline raft together and we know it so maybe there's different streams to explain the distinctions?
And after reading Flatland years ago, I'm pretty sure you can't tell spacial dimensionality below 2D (1D beings would need another plane of reference to grasp the ontological comparison (hence the "shadows" analogy in the book to conceptualize higher dimensions)).
So in order for us to even know that we are in a temporal dimension, we must be living in at least one another temporal dimension where we can experience these "shadows"/ perturbances of time (we have different distinctions of linear times). Much like a fish wouldn't know he's in an ocean until they got pulled outside of that ocean (or in this case outside of time).

>>25360828
Bookchin... I thought you was dead

>>25360900
>my philosophy is that we should be like Christ
<yawning intensifies>
>mostly due to Western Christianity not understanding the difference between energies (e.g. aesthetics) and essences (the thing making the aesthetics)
That's not what the essence/energies distinction is about and you've been reading too many Orthodox blogs if you think the Catholics rejecting this causes them to have some neatly distorted worldview. It's just like Aquinas claiming in Contra Graecos that the Greeks' rejection of the filioque caused Caesaropapism.
>t's the rejection of anthropocentric Philosophy as a means to wisdom
That's funny considering you're endorsing the most anthropocentric religion of all time, one that openly identifies a historical man with God and says believers can be one with him by faith.
>Theo-philosophy is humbling to man, but is the correct ontological, epistemic, and ethical choice: it's actually beautiful, true, and good
Here we go again: his philosophy amounts to "WWJD?"
>But for starters, space-time aren't physical... you can't empirically show someone "nothing" or "a handful of time"
I'm pretty sure physics actually does understand that time is not something you can grab a fistfull of.
>quantum physics blablabla
Anyone who brings up quantum physics in a philosophy thread is a guaranteed pseud but we all know that by now, the case was closed when he started talking about Eastern Orthodoxy really.

>>25360910
No offence, but it sounds like you have a very poor understanding of simple physics. You should properly learn the basics (quantum and statistical mechanics, then special and general relativity, then catch up on the current literature surrounding cosmological inflation) before you even begin to think seriously about their metaphysics.

File: wargames.png (89 KB, 499x323)

89 KB PNG

>>25361027
>>25361010
Ok. You win anon.
You always do :)
o7

File: shrug.gif (481 KB, 499x315)

481 KB GIF

>>25361010
What do you got to lose?
(can't lose your soul)

>>25361029
I'm not trying to win anything, I am giving you sincere advice. Lawrence Krauss* has an interesting lecture on the relativistic consequences of cosmic inflation on the "heat death" hypothesis. I don't even think you need to really become familiar with the mathematics needed for any of those theories, the qualitative nature of their parts is enough (eg what is a wave? What is a particle? What is relativity? What is entropy? What is energy? and so on). It is a basic fact of quantum mechanics that nothing ever stops moving. The consequences of this on the rest of thermodynamics are interesting in and of themselves, let alone extrapolating them far into the distant future. Just don't think you are entering unexplored territory. You'd have fun and be inspired by the hard work for the basics and the work already done toward answering these questions.
* I know Krauss is a cringe Reddit atheist but he is also a bonafide cosmologist so he is trustworthy in that respect

File: Dostoyevsky - Christian S(...).jpg (68 KB, 850x400)

68 KB JPG

>>25361042
well you're looking for eristics when I came for dialectics. I'm not here to debate you; I came to state and explain the thead topic
>"what philosophical idea are you trying to develop?"
I don't think you didn't come here in good faith; you can be deconstruct and hold incredulity. Fine. It's your free will. I've heard it all the critiques before and ad hominins (usually some kinda unfalsifiable eisegesis appeal of "bad interpretation" and I'm not really in the mood to voir dire my credibility each time this happens).
So that's the impasse and we're done hanging out.
You think I'm a foolish retard, good. I'll continue existing as such.
Sounds like you got things all figured out fine yourself...

>>25361075
Bro it's not an ad hominem it's just pointing out that what you're saying is extremely shallow. "Imitate Christ, chose the true, the beautiful, the good", that's no better than a Trump campaign advertisement. Why did people even abandon religion, do you think? Is it because they all just up and decided to be le bad? Or how come even when Christianity was the only religion around most people were just as psychopathic as they are today, with saints regularly complaining about how sinful everyone around them was? You're just throwing around a lot of pretentious buzzwords to cover up what is a really childish, naive position, which you can't even describe as philosophical. Fuck you.

>>25361075
>Dostoyevsky.jpg
Dostoyevsky is not a philosopher. If you want to understand how philosophers think about these issues you should read some philosophers, not EO larp theologians, blogposts, and your Complete Platonic Dialogues covered with cheeto stains. If you want to defend Christianity philosophically you need to justify that there is something that is neither feeling nor thought, because if faith is a feeling it fails (feelings are transient etc.), and if faith is a thought it fails as well because it doesn't make much sense if you think about it a bit. Dostoyevsky is incredibly dishonest about all of this because he assumes it's religion (and fucking retarded Orthodoxy at that) OR nihilism. But this is a false choice, if you read philosophy you would understand that. Kant's enemy Jacobi made the same stupid fucking argument and Kant calls him a "humbug" in one of his letters.

>>25360713
Maybe consult this guy:
https://scribd.com/document/429828112/Lit-Schizo-Ramblings

>>25360791
>>25360797
>>25360802
You don't seem to be going past Marx in any meaningful way you're just trying to graft your favorite philosophers onto him. Marxism rejects metaphysics in general and Deleuze thought of Kant as an enemy.

>>25361141
>If you want to defend Christianity philosophically you need to justify that there is something that is neither feeling nor thought
>what is Critique of Judgment
Retard.

Morality is not necessarily tied to human well-being.

>>25361075
Think you got me confused with a different poster

>>25361178
There is no point in going past Marx.

>>25360791
>>25360797
>>25360802
I get what you're trying to get at, if we remove all the Philosophers and terminology dabbling, We get that Kierkegaard's argument for faith is absurd in all simplicity, and that God may exist because humans or even just consciousness itself has "something" that keeps it morally grounded, and it does not need worship or some blind faith as he suggests, It's like staring at the wall so intensely and focusing all your strength into making it move, That's the analogy for faith. The wall may move but we do not know whether we can see it or not, But in defense of Kierkegaard, He is limited by Christianity, It does not allow him to go out of its standards or else it will be heresy, But again it's very fucking stupid and nonsensical because all of this shit does not matter at all, There is a reason why Schopenhauer is better than Hegel and why you're self conscious about it being rambling with all due respect.

>>25360713
What is the middle between boredom and pain, What exactly exists in those boundaries that could make humans no longer feel pain nor boredom.

>>25361223
It all ends at Schopenhauer, Marx and Hegel are pseuds.

File: IMG_0081.jpg (86 KB, 720x1024)

86 KB JPG

>>25361305
Yeah I should have edited that more but oh well. Tl;dr - Kierkegaard argues for an absurd position but the way he uses idealist logic just makes it more absurd because the idealists have so much to say about it as it is which directly challenges him; Kant is underrated, Kant’s concept of noumenal freedom is radical because it makes the is not prior to the is. Change my view here but I don’t like Schopenhauer because he is a dogmatist, ie he denies freedom by not following Kant’s critique of reason, and so his position ends up basically selfish and opposed to reality, while Kant and Fichte affirm reality and drive us to change it. Kant is an optimist in his weird noumenal way, not a pessimist who tells us to simply negate the will.

kantians are the biggest lolcows on this board

File: IMG_0150.png (721 KB, 1000x1500)

721 KB PNG

Another way to express what I mean about Kierkegaard, Hegel and Kant would be to look at Kierkegaard’s concept of recollection. “Pagan” philosophies, from Socrates to Hegel, supposedly don’t grasp the rupture of sin, this being expressed in the Socratic formula that sin is ignorance, and in his theory of learning (overcoming ignorance) as recollection. Kierkegaard says this is ultimately pantheism, God is not truly transcendent in “pagan” philosophies, and yet only a revelation, only Christianity could break this rationalism. But Kant’s philosophy really does have this transcendence despite being secular. The first point of entry to the transcendent in Kant is facticity, the contingency of reality, this leads us to the noumenal thing in itself. Then this very transcendence of reason coils back on itself in freedom. I’ve been reading “post-Kantians” and now “post-Hegelians” for a couple of years now and they’ve only made me appreciate Kant more; none of them has really surpassed him. It’s a goddamn travesty that most people think of him as an agnostic who thought our brains create reality, he’s the most profound philosopher since Aristotle.

>>25361305
He was arguing against Hegel.

alright. nikki with me... i'm trying to find the underlying language of narrative media or in other words i'm trying to assign imperative meaning to discrete narrative parts. i just haven't really found any other thinking that can get me started by giving me material to ape

>>25361328
>his position ends up basically selfish and opposed to reality
Isn't that life ? What obliges us to follow rules, We have to be morally correct by standard but we're completely free to deny freedom or deny anything at all because we exist as ourselves.
We should negate the will, Optimism is just a spectrum of life's negativity, It's just a fluke, A decoy to life's harsh reality in which Kant himself couldn't find meaning to, Why should you affirm reality ? All concepts from Sumeria to now do not matter at all, They don't have any value, The only value matters in what you exactly value and what matters to you most.

Schopenhauer pussied out in the fourth volume by preaching about ascetism, but he is solid in his argument about negating the will, which ironically the Will that negates Kant's categorical imperative, So Schopenhauer is more of a realist than hypocrite "optimism".

As I said Marxism and Hegel are not valuable, They are only an extension of a very much retarded thought that was completely shut down by Schopenhauer and his only extension was Mainlander, Nietzsche was also in the same route but he fell down to his retardation.

As I told you anything after Hegel is just Academic writing to affirm life and suck the dick of each other with the exception of Carl Jung.

>>25360713
>be deleuze
>tries to offer an alternative to representational thinking
>explains all his ideas in representational terms
Was this ever brought up?

>>25361480
How should he have explained his ideas?

>>25361480
I think he uses 'image of thought' as an idea that exists neutrally outside of representation/sel-certainity

>>25361499
I have no clue and I'd go as far as to say that it's impossible, but as a Lacanian I have no issue with representation and arboreal thinking. They are the basis of the symbolic register. It's Deleuze the one who should have come up with a working alternative to it, since it was his project.

>>25361477
I respect your position because it’s human, I can’t refute it because dogmatism is not refutable. Fichte speaks in terms of a choice, to be determined by nature/desire or to believe in freedom; Kant’s position is more paradoxical because he denies knowable existence to freedom. But nothing forces us to follow rules, rather the core of Kant is that our lives as rational beings don’t make sense if everything we do is determined by desire. We see absolutely no evidence that we ever do a single thing except by desire, but on a ‘gut’ level we believe that we do, and philosophy confirms this belief, though not its reality.
> Optimism is just a spectrum of life's negativity, It's just a fluke
Kant’s position really isn’t optimism though. It’s not “things will be fine” it’s “I have to believe in the Good or I’m a monkey, even though I know it makes no sense.”
> All concepts from Sumeria to now do not matter at all, They don't have any value, The only value matters in what you exactly value and what matters to you most.
I don’t understand, you were just telling us to negate the will, now you say we must have individual values. I’m not trolling you but this is more Kant than Schopenhauer. I know Kant thought you had determinate duties I just think that aspect of Kant is not essential. Beyond that I simply disagree that Marx is not valuable, he dissects our entire socioeconomic structure. “No! It doesn’t matter!” Lol.

>>25361507
I'm not an expert on Deleuze, but I think he saw the image of thought as all the prior assumptions we have before we even start thinking and he saw them as representational and was against them.

>>25361480
There are countless philosophers who posit some idea as foundational to previous philosophy (representation, power, being, etc), and claim they are going beyond it, and they always run into this problem. It is likely intrinsic to thought and language. Usually, like with Deleuze, they claim that they are using thought and language in a fundamentally different way, but there is no way to confirm that.

>>25361538
i think it's something like the presentation of a presuppositionless starting point or otherwise some kind of foundationalism that proceeds from the most basic indisputable element, or otherwise is the view that thought is synonymous with truth in both the presupposition and post-suppositional modes

>>25360795
mm yes this giant book is just a cigar actually

File: IMG_0088.jpg (449 KB, 968x1200)

449 KB JPG

>>25361543
You just have to realize the primacy of freedom on existential, moral grounds.

Here's the concept. It's all about how we're like kickass at thinking, top of our game, now we control the cultural narrative. And then these jealous youtubers, they bust into the board we post on and they basically contradict all our views. Then all of our best thinkers basically reexamine the arguments with the help of the more youthful posters and make us into a popular (and this is where your expertise come in) philosophical movement.

>>25361523
Obviously I agree with you on the premise of Rationality separating us from Instinct, I mean Schopenhauer takes a lot from Kant and even compliments him at times so there is no surprise.
But again it's not about individual values or negating the will, Kant says that we must adhere and act according to that maxim in which is morality, I support Kant on this one, After all what are we ? Animals, But rational animals and being immoral is far worse than an animal because we have the choice to be moral.
But Kant is radical in this concept, It's so rigid and he requires a person to be very moral, A human is flawed, You can have Individual values yet at the same time negate the will to live by not partaking at all and not adhering to moral duty by not even existing at all, Not participating in society, Here comes Mainlander.

It's all about the person, Marx and Hegel deny the individual and adhere to society, That's why I want philosophy to be more humanitarian

>>25361647
most people ignore Hegel and Marx is largely relegated to politics instead of philosophy so I don't know why you need to belabor the points about them so much? i kind of get the sense you've got /lit/blinders on...

>>25361480
Deleuze must be the most reactionary thinker I've ever come across. His ideas are always a reaction to disliking the implications of other philosophers' ideas, so he comes up with alternatives that are more to his liking, without bothering to argue why those other ideas are wrong in themselves. It's never about coming up with something he thinks it's a more faithful interpretation to how the world works. His ideas are preferable, to him, simply in virtue that they lead to more desirable outcomes. He's the philosopher of wishful thinking.

He doesn't like dialectics because they hierarchize history, which leads to "fascism", so he proposes the rhizome as an alternative. He doesn't like ontology focusing on being because the disclosure of being implies a true essence of things, thus "fascism", so he proposes becoming as an alternative. He doesn't like being-in-the-world because throwness and historicity mean we're determined by our bodies and the history of our people, which is obviously a door to "fascism", so he proposes the body without organs and deterritorialization as an alternative. He doesn't like psychoanalysis because the neurotic subject thinks in well structured parameters, which makes it easier for society to accommodate them and make then functional members of it, which is of course "fascism", so he proposes schizoanalysis and the schizophrenic subject as an alternative.

He was a smart man and his insane levels of wishful thinking often made him come up with fairly original thoughts, so he does have some ideas worth examining, even if to ultimately disagree with them, but his mental process is baffling. To me he's THE leftist thinker. There's no one else like him.

>>25361661
Do you get that this is exactly why we like Gilles, right? His books are a manual to punch fascists and build a better future. Basedez réalistes, demandez l'impossible!

>>25361508
>but as a Lacanian
are you new or something?

>>25361508
Deleuze made Lacan obsolete because Lacan is inherently a dialectical thinker and Deleuze demonstrated that dialectics are equivocal.

If everything is difference then there's no place for inner contradictions as something cannot contain in itself its own refutation because that would imply it shares an equal nature to something outside of itself and a clash between two forces doesn't result in synthesis as that would flatten the difference between the forces and instead it results in the further distinction of both forces. Even when things may seem to become similar, it's only a process of symbiosis between two things of completely different natures, such as the wasp and the orchid. I hope this helps.

Any philosophy that doesn't imply a strong defense of nature will disappear in the coming centuries.

File: lacanluze2.png (120 KB, 835x870)

120 KB PNG

>>25362207
You're full of bullshit. James Martell, a french lit prof who knows about this shit, says they are compatible and only disagree on their prescriptions.

File: 1024px-Double_spout_and_b(...).jpg (154 KB, 1024x1058)

154 KB JPG

thinking about:
~ minima moralia #150
~ harmonyzone memory essay
~ nick land on the datacombs
~ the bridge from building dwelling thinking
~ bloch's pitcher from spirit of utopia
~ deleuze's zone of proximity and heidegger's nearness (as in bdt)
~ addiction by design, natasha schull
~ the bwo

if you have any useful leads, please let me know.

>>25362217
surely the philosophies that will flourish will be those that let people rationalise and feel good about their destruction of nature?

>>25360900
Sounds like Plotinus and living simply. Eh i agree with the sentiment. I disagree it has to be Jesus specifically, but he was a very loving and wise Teacher.
But its better to emulate the man, than merely believe in him.
I've met kind atheists and horrible christians. Ive met kind christians and horrible atheists.
Eh, kindness is its own reward.

File: IMG_0155.jpg (42 KB, 620x400)

42 KB JPG

>this entire thread

>>25361647
>But Kant is radical in this concept, It's so rigid and he requires a person to be very moral
This is a common misunderstanding desu, Kant’s point is that practical reason is so transcendent that it can simply never be known to be present. He isn’t saying “you should be so good you’re like forcing yourself to be good”, even in the most extreme cases (like the suicide choosing to live) we never know if it’s really duty, and in most cases it’s even less clear. And Marx is definitely concerned with the alienation of the individual. >>25361655
Not me.

I'm trying to become more like the ubermensch. I'm doing this by saying yes to life, like in the Jim Carrey movie. In practice this involves going out and talking to girls which is quite scary and cruel and brutal but still life-affirming nonetheless.

File: Edith Stein.png (669 KB, 631x800)

669 KB PNG

>>25360900
>Sad that Husserl and Edith Stein were jews and ironically couldn't bracket their jewishness to see that "the Phenomenology of Jesus Christ" is the bases for Christian Philosophy
I was mistaken. Edith Stein did convert and adopt the Phenomenology of Jesus Christ.

File: 4oyjoytzzln61.jpg (90 KB, 640x950)

90 KB JPG

ya im trying to do the opposite of most of u losers

rest of this millennium is gonna b all about radicalizing lacano-hegelian ultrafatalism

capitalism ends not when everything becomes free but when we learn to love to pay the price

when will that happen?

it was always already happening

>>25360713
Am i the only anti-Deleuzian here?

>>25360791
>>25360797
>>25360802
Impressive. You know your stuff. I have been watching Robert Wolff's lecures on Kant and starting on the Prolegomena. I also read through the preface of the Phenomenology and up til B. Self-Consciousness, iv. The truth of self-certainty, taking notes and everything.

I have a few questions:
- How is Hegel's metaphysics in the PoS the metaphysics of capitalism? I recall something similar to this in Kojeve's Introduction, but it felt more of a marxist interpretation.

- What did you read by Kierkegaard? What are the essential readings?