Christbane
Member
+51|6525
you just normally make sense to me and that one threw me for a loop. did not mean to troll if it was taken as such.  that line is just one of my fav comebacks when something makes no sense to me or I want to be a smartass
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6760
the paragraph makes perfect sense and i find it a wonderful description of the postmodern dialectic of 'late capitalism'.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6251|Places 'n such

Uzique wrote:

the paragraph makes perfect sense and i find it a wonderful description of the postmodern dialectic of 'late capitalism'.
Cant say ive read anything by him but i'm instantly suspicious when a marxist writes something on capitalism...
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
Uzique you drastically overestimate the human ability to find purpose in any context and underestimate the human ability to function anyways. The challenges are different from the old only in that the new are unknown and the old are old by product of repeated trial and error.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6760

presidentsheep wrote:

Uzique wrote:

the paragraph makes perfect sense and i find it a wonderful description of the postmodern dialectic of 'late capitalism'.
Cant say ive read anything by him but i'm instantly suspicious when a marxist writes something on capitalism...
what else are they meant to write about? utopianism? idealism? hel-lo, we're living in a capitalist society so it's perfect that marxism offers the best dialectic. it has been said that marxism is the hermeneutical base underneath all modern theories and interpretations- and it's probably true. the intellectual and political intelligentsia of the 20th century seemed to think so, anyway.

flaming, your purposefully contrived answer had abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with the OP. try again.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
If you think my reply had nothing to do with the OP then the OP is copy/paste.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6760
ofc the OP is copy/paste, that's the whole point. "discuss".

and yours was way off it, and you dont know what the fuck you're talking about. it's marxist critique of postmodernism, not existentialism or Lukacs/Sartrean theory.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-05-08 13:14:05)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
If it's not you then source it.

The author makes a false distinction between the natural and the artificial. It's stupid to make such a distinction between what you know and what you don't know only because you don't know it. The artificial will be as clear in 1000 years as the natural was unclear 1000 years ago.
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6982

Shem wrote:

I agree, entirely and completely. I think.
I've written on this topic before. I get what is being said in the op, and I can dig it, but I must admit that it treads in some deep bull shit.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2010-05-08 13:53:59)

Laika
Member
+75|6234

Uzique wrote:

we have indeed secreted a human age out of ourselves as spiders secrete their webs: an immense, all-encompassing ceiling… which shuts down visibility on all sides even as it absorbs all the formerly natural elements in its habitat, transmuting them into its own manmade substance. yet within this horizon of immanence we wander as alien as tribal people, or as visitors from outer space, admiring its unimaginably complex and fragile filigree and recoiling from its bottomless potholes, lounging against a rainwall of exotic and artificial plants or else agonising among poisonous colours and lethal stems we were not taught to avoid. the world of the human age is an aesthetic pretext for grinding terror or pathological ecstasy, and in its cosmos, all of it drawn from the very fibres of our own being and at one with every post-natural cell more alien to us than nature itself, we continue murmuring Kant’s old questions- what can i know? what should i do? what may i hope? - under a starry heaven no more responsive than a mirror or a spaceship, not understanding that they require the adjunct of an ugly and bureaucratic representational qualification: what can i know in this system? what should i do in this world completely invented by me? what can i hope for, alone, in an altogether human age?

fin.
This is the kind of stuff I was trying to say I wanted to read. I guess I didn't realize the extent of what is considered postmodern.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6790|so randum
i think ill understand this after my next glass
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6760
lol flaming.

last week who was it... bourdieu that you felt at liberty to criticize? now fredric jameson? okay dude. you're better than your countries' top marxist academic. 'weak' theory and 'bullshit writing'. he 'fails to make distinctions'. so when are you getting your tenancy at duke? oh wait...

just to take the great pleasure in explaining it to your dumb, misinterpretive ass: he is discussing the dialectic at the CORE of marxist thinking. you apparently do not understand marxism on the most basic of levels; one of the main tenets of Marx's own writings was that the capitalistic, industrialized era in his model of historical materialism will have a characteristic alienation of the labour-force/proletariat. what he is describing, by extension and through a rather brilliant metaphor, is the advanced stage of that period that we have now reached- which marxist scholars term 'late capitalism'. the hallmark of this era is the complete alienation of the human individual because of the absolute, geo-capitalist nature of the world: all histories have ended and effectively merged into one 'grand' meta-narrative- the meta-narrative of global capitalism. the grand alienation.

it's not about arbitrary distinctions or matters of phenomenology or metaphysics or ontology. shut up and stop writing wordy, pretentious posts that only try to conceal your fundamental lack of understanding.

besides it was a random quote that i was writing part of an essay on that really had very little point. go read the book flaming if you want to really understand it and move beyond your usual state of posturing. edit again, oh my god i just realized that your 'criticism' is based wholly on taking his RHETORIC in a LITERAL sense. come on flaming for a guy that tries to pass with an even minimum amount of respectable intellect, how can you be such a dumbass? it's a metaphor and the rhetorical questions are there for EFFECT. you did pass AP Lang... right?

Last edited by Uzique (2010-05-08 14:36:12)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Marlo Stanfield
online poker tax cheating
+122|5453
I once read Kant's Idea For a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective.

yup
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6760
kant is the man, definitely way up there on my list.

critique of practical reason is amazing.
as are the short essays 'the need to know and the meaning of life' and 'what is enlightenment?'

short reads that i would recommend to anybody with 10 minutes of spare time and a willingness to change the way they look at their day
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
Yeah and the ideas at the CORE of Marxist thinking are seriously flawed. To say think that we are in any sort of an "advanced" stage, to say that the complexity of today's society is more complex relative to society 1000 years ago than society 1000 years from now compared to society now is hopelessly naive. It denotes a serious ego on the part of the author with absolutely no faith in humanity as a whole. It represents the portion of people that would laze about and write about their innermost thoughts and "problems" rather than to go and improve something.

But of course, those are the same ideologies that draw the line between capitalists and communists. One group is proactive, pragmatic, productive, the other...well the other certainly churns out a lot of rhetoric to rile the poor people into a pissed off mob. They try to make it okay for everyone to sit around having a pity party.

shut up and stop writing wordy, pretentious posts that only try to conceal your fundamental lack of understanding.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6760
you dont understand marxism. it's not about 'advancement' marx's historical materialism isn't an hegelian progress model. it's a model of capitalistic repression that leads to the only (in their opinion) plausible result: revolution. nobody is saying that "society is more complex". serious ego on the authors part? are you sure your own isn't preventing you from understanding a very simple bloody point? you're muddling up different philosophies and theories and generally spitting out a confounding mess. the guy is talking about the dialectic of postmodernism, based on the marxist belief that the proletariat are alienated by their own industry/product (i.e. workers in a factory are forced to create 'x' product for the profit of 'y' industrialist bourgeoisie owner, whilst only furthering the gap in wealth and all forms of capital).

pity parties? pro-active? pragmatic? what the fuck are you talking about? the guy is a marxist theorist specializing in literature, theory and cultural production. how can you be 'pro-active' about any of those? VIVA LA BOOK REVOLUCION?!? EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF ESSAYS TO ALL UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS WORLDWIDE? step back from your massive ego-driven dumbassery for one second and acknowledge that 'hey, i guess i just dont understand marxism very well and need to brush up on my theory before i try to counter any arguments'. you're waffling and spouting absolute shite that has about as much to do with the guy's theory and his point as nihilism, narcissism or lesbianism. give it a rest FM, anybody with an iota of credible intelligence can see you're out of your depth at the moment.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
lrishpride
Member
+68|5438
had a glance. really wanted to read it but too much big words for me mate. I'm sure it owns and all but i'm too tired to stop after every word and google it's meaning, thanks.

/retard
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
"it's a model of capitalistic repression that leads to the only (in their opinion) plausible result: revolution."
Which assumes growing complexity/transformation/whatever you want to call it. The point is they believe past conditions are different than the present conditions are different from the future conditions, which is a naive notion in the context of human "progression". At the most fundamental level Marxism talks about class warfare under the assumption that the environment that produced this type of social hierarchy is radically different than the environment that produced that kind of social hierarchy - in reality the only thing that changes is the size of each class and by extension the power they hold relative to the other classes. Sure the ways in that power can be used against the other classes change significantly across the years, depending on the political climate and technology available, but the human state of mind at the heart of the matter is stagnant. The flaw (that was the first thing that hit me when I read the OP and what I was addressing in my first post) is in this:

"...not understanding that they require the adjunct of an ugly and bureaucratic representational qualification: what can i know in this system? what should i do in this world completely invented by me? what can i hope for, alone, in an altogether human age?"

That qualification is meaningless. It has always persisted and will always persist. There is nothing about the "late capitalism" crap that justifies the qualification. It is implicit because of the nature of our individuality - there is nothing dramatically different about the person that goes to the factory for 10 hours a day and the hunter/gatherer. The system may be different but because of the fundamental uniformity the questions are the same, and every person has the exact same nil chance of gathering a concrete answer to the questions. To liken the ignorance of the answers to the most important questions to a confusing and limiting web of modern day is to sign a death warrant to a life of purpose. You have to embrace your ignorance to have any hope of minimizing it and live a life of anything but fear. Or induce a state of stupor through some physical means.

Uzique wrote:

pity parties? pro-active? pragmatic? what the fuck are you talking about? the guy is a marxist theorist specializing in literature, theory and cultural production. how can you be 'pro-active' about any of those?
That's kind of the point isn't it? He can't be proactive or pragmatic because he is not that kind of person. My point was precisely that Marxists are not that type of people by nature, because if they were, they wouldn't be Marxists.
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7064|Noizyland

Dammit Uzique, could you be any more of a pretentious know-it-all?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6763|Kakanien

Uzique wrote:

oh yeah, sorry.

unless it's in french or hungaro-austrian, it isn't intellectually niche enough for you

wanna jump with me?
hungaro-austrian is not a language

hegel, kant, goethe, nietzsche, heidegger, schiller etc. must be read in german
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6760
it doesn't claim that the past conditions and context of human progression are "different" at all. it states that they're always the same, just in different phases. marxism holds that the axiomatic relationship between ruler and ruled has always existed, since at least the feudal era. go read the communist manifesto, it's only short and it'll stop you wasting your breath puffing a load of air over nonsense.

the part you quoted just states the paradigmatic shift since the onset of capitalism (Kant's questions would have been posed during an era when industrialisation was a small spark in England, and not known on the continent) to the present, late-capitalistic stage. the rhetorical questions stand to do nothing more than to illicit how the nature of our world and our experience within it has changed to form a new 'present', without any precendence in history, in which now all meta-narratives are subsumed under one, geo-capitalistic branch. im going to sleep now but if you still haven't even read the wikipedia page on marxism by then (come on FM you're getting lazy) then i'll just copy my essay analysis of it straight-up so you can understand it in full-prose, with all the effort included.

fuck off c245151cuntrag251zxyz with your arbitrary snobbery. im sure classical translators and people that spend their entire careers translating works from one language to another will appreciate your little know-it-all dictum. if the top university departments in the world (read: the ones you didnt study at) can teach the philosophy through the INEPT medium of the english language- then im sure the translations are good enough. i suppose you also know ancient greek and latin for your appreciation of homer and ovid? ah, of course! or, rather, if you really were such a sagacious philosophical wonder-kid, you'd realize that the ENTIRE CONCEPT of language in philosophy has now been phenomologically outmoded! didnt you read your wittgenstein?!? how did you cope with it being only in lowly prosaic english?!? a little elementary?

Last edited by Uzique (2010-05-08 17:00:44)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
lrishpride
Member
+68|5438
uziqiqiqiqiqiiqiqiqize
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6790|so randum

Ty wrote:

Dammit Uzique, could you be any more of a pretentious know-it-all?
yes but he's prettier than FM so i don't mind. when i read these posts i imagine uzique sat in some wood-paneled library, with a smoking jacket on and a nice pipe, half moon glasses and a thick leather-bound book

shit gets me hard yo
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Uzique wrote:

it doesn't claim that the past conditions and context of human progression are "different" at all. it states that they're always the same, just in different phases. marxism holds that the axiomatic relationship between ruler and ruled has always existed, since at least the feudal era.
hurr durr that's why I said this

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

At the most fundamental level Marxism talks about class warfare under the assumption that the environment that produced this type of social hierarchy is radically different than the environment that produced that kind of social hierarchy
That they even differentiate between the phases is the point. Nothing changes about the people that make up the classes, only the relative power of the classes. If the people stay the same, then to say that the fundamental questions of the people have changed makes no sense.

It is not as if the questions didn't exist before Kant, the questions existed even before man knew how to put it into words. To assume individual "aloneness" is a product of an evolving capitalist machine of progress and not a basic human condition is a joke. A cruel joke that binds these "intellectuals" to a very dramatic life of worthlessness and is only humorous to capitalists.
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7064|Noizyland

FatherTed wrote:

Ty wrote:

Dammit Uzique, could you be any more of a pretentious know-it-all?
yes but he's prettier than FM so i don't mind. when i read these posts i imagine uzique sat in some wood-paneled library, with a smoking jacket on and a nice pipe, half moon glasses and a thick leather-bound book

shit gets me hard yo
He'd better be that guy Ted, he'd better be. Because if he isn't I'll be so disillusioned I won't know what to do with myself.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard