can we have a laymans tl;dr for this? i understand the :words: but there's an awful lot of them and im pissed.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
uzique thinks we should all sit around in wood-paneled libraries with smoking jackets and half-moon spectacles on, thinking about how much living a modern life under the thumb of a capitalist machine sucks.
actually i just liked the description of THE POSTMODERN DIALECTIC (been speaking about that since post #1)
you're the one that made it some huge anti-marxist rant just because you hooked onto the fact that jameson is referring to the base-level hermeneutic marxist model. the essay isn't about marxism. the essay is not pro-marxism. it just uses the hermeneutical structure in order to explore what it means to be living in the post-modern era. and i thought the metaphor captured it quite brilliantly. if you want to make it a little bitch-fest against karl marx's writing, go ahead and do so. but the fact is you completely misunderstood his use of the theory and went off on some huge pseudo-philosophy rant about the weaknesses in historical materialism and blah blah. i only referred to that because you were clearly not getting the intent of the OP upon first reading. your point that people do not change and there are no periods/relative comparisons is exactly the essence of his essay; as i keep repeating, the main conclusion of his work is that modern life is now a huge, all-encompassing meta-narrative, and the only thing that exists is the present. he even wrote a 600-page book on why the marxist school's reflections upon the past are meaningless in an era where we either trivialize or blur the distinction between past and present.
i really wish you'd do a little bit of research before trying to sound smart in a response. i prefer "Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me" to having to reply to your collective, self-satisfying, smug /facepalms. you could respond to the OP with something on-topic that displays an actual understanding of the 'point', or you could step down off your soapbox and just admit that you've got as much of worth to contribute as a 'lololol' or 'GO KILL YOURSELF' reply.
you're the one that made it some huge anti-marxist rant just because you hooked onto the fact that jameson is referring to the base-level hermeneutic marxist model. the essay isn't about marxism. the essay is not pro-marxism. it just uses the hermeneutical structure in order to explore what it means to be living in the post-modern era. and i thought the metaphor captured it quite brilliantly. if you want to make it a little bitch-fest against karl marx's writing, go ahead and do so. but the fact is you completely misunderstood his use of the theory and went off on some huge pseudo-philosophy rant about the weaknesses in historical materialism and blah blah. i only referred to that because you were clearly not getting the intent of the OP upon first reading. your point that people do not change and there are no periods/relative comparisons is exactly the essence of his essay; as i keep repeating, the main conclusion of his work is that modern life is now a huge, all-encompassing meta-narrative, and the only thing that exists is the present. he even wrote a 600-page book on why the marxist school's reflections upon the past are meaningless in an era where we either trivialize or blur the distinction between past and present.
i really wish you'd do a little bit of research before trying to sound smart in a response. i prefer "Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me" to having to reply to your collective, self-satisfying, smug /facepalms. you could respond to the OP with something on-topic that displays an actual understanding of the 'point', or you could step down off your soapbox and just admit that you've got as much of worth to contribute as a 'lololol' or 'GO KILL YOURSELF' reply.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
horkheimer, weber and wittgenstein are b-celebrities compared to hegel etc. not saying they are not important, though
russell and wittgenstein are the 20th century hegel. you can't possibly make that denunciation, canonization takes centuries.
completely different schools of analytical philosophy as well; a completely different approach, even, to Continental philosophy.
you should know this if you're anything more than a wiki-warrior. the notion of 'a-list' and 'b-list' is absurd.
how did you find wittgenstein in english? or did you go by the hebrew translation, for kicks?
completely different schools of analytical philosophy as well; a completely different approach, even, to Continental philosophy.
you should know this if you're anything more than a wiki-warrior. the notion of 'a-list' and 'b-list' is absurd.
how did you find wittgenstein in english? or did you go by the hebrew translation, for kicks?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
sounds like a good life. is there whiskey involved? or french maids?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
uzique thinks we should all sit around in wood-paneled libraries with smoking jackets and half-moon spectacles on, thinking about how much living a modern life under the thumb of a capitalist machine sucks.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Teds, dude, ofc a fine glass of SCOTCH and a french maid or two would be involved.
Btw I like the passage, sources pls so I can go get sum edumakations.
Btw I like the passage, sources pls so I can go get sum edumakations.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/185984877X
careful it doesnt turn you into a communist that hates the machine!
careful it doesnt turn you into a communist that hates the machine!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
My history/eng-lit teacher was a die-hard Leninist.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
If a philosophy is consistent it is pervasive. The reasons the OP is silly is for the same reasons that Marxism in general is flawed. Amusing that I generally disliked it for the same reasons that now make more sense to me in the context of it being Marxist writing, for all I knew it was your writing when I first responded. I understand what he is trying to say, at least at the same level as you are trying to explain it to me, because you are repeating the themes that I have been directly responding to.Uzique wrote:
actually i just liked the description of THE POSTMODERN DIALECTIC (been speaking about that since post #1)
you're the one that made it some huge anti-marxist rant just because you hooked onto the fact that jameson is referring to the base-level hermeneutic marxist model. the essay isn't about marxism. the essay is not pro-marxism. it just uses the hermeneutical structure in order to explore what it means to be living in the post-modern era. and i thought the metaphor captured it quite brilliantly. if you want to make it a little bitch-fest against karl marx's writing, go ahead and do so. but the fact is you completely misunderstood his use of the theory and went off on some huge pseudo-philosophy rant about the weaknesses in historical materialism and blah blah. i only referred to that because you were clearly not getting the intent of the OP upon first reading. your point that people do not change and there are no periods/relative comparisons is exactly the essence of his essay; as i keep repeating, the main conclusion of his work is that modern life is now a huge, all-encompassing meta-narrative, and the only thing that exists is the present. he even wrote a 600-page book on why the marxist school's reflections upon the past are meaningless in an era where we either trivialize or blur the distinction between past and present.
i really wish you'd do a little bit of research before trying to sound smart in a response. i prefer "Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me" to having to reply to your collective, self-satisfying, smug /facepalms. you could respond to the OP with something on-topic that displays an actual understanding of the 'point', or you could step down off your soapbox and just admit that you've got as much of worth to contribute as a 'lololol' or 'GO KILL YOURSELF' reply.
"as i keep repeating, the main conclusion of his work is that modern life is now a huge, all-encompassing meta-narrative, and the only thing that exists is the present."
This, right here, is shit. The idea that modern life is significantly different from the human condition at any other point in time up to now is very ego-centric. The present that exists now is the same as the the "present" at various times, with the only difference that this present is the only one anyone gives a shit about because this is the one we are living in. An obvious concept, but to not be able to empathize with the trials and tribulations of people in other time periods is to quite literally have the intelligence of a toddler. Making modern life seem somehow more scary and difficult than other periods is the quintessential fundamental attribution error, gaining popularity by feeding off of rebel-without-a-cause teenagers with a driving need to be an individual sticking it to the man. Generally laughable.
fm you need to get out more
Fm.
It Is Not A Marxist Text
What The Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
this fucking guy. doesnt even know what philosophical dialectics are, clearly. writing paragraphs to himself with pro-american anti-marxist jingoism for the sole purpose of keeping his own dick hard. the book is not about fucking marxism! marxism is merely a hermeneutical expression of his main theme! post-modern life has generally been accepted to be 'different', with a 'different' condition- right across the sociohistorical, psychological and philosophical world. after world war 2, shit changed. after capitalism triumphed over the communist utopias, shit changed. the three-world model was subsumed into a global, capitalistic market. it's not ego-centrism you fucking moron, it's a valid area of study undertaken by thousands of top scholars across the whole range of disciplines.
in case you didnt read my last five messages: IT IS NOT A MARXIST TEXT.
edit: hahahaha. "quintessential fundamental attribution error" not even Nuk could come up with that. fuck me. that would make a grown man laugh . what the fuck even is that? it's like a tautological mess; something you'd find on a 13 year old's english test as he strings together lots of long words and hopes it sounds vaguely technical. keep trying!
It Is Not A Marxist Text
What The Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
this fucking guy. doesnt even know what philosophical dialectics are, clearly. writing paragraphs to himself with pro-american anti-marxist jingoism for the sole purpose of keeping his own dick hard. the book is not about fucking marxism! marxism is merely a hermeneutical expression of his main theme! post-modern life has generally been accepted to be 'different', with a 'different' condition- right across the sociohistorical, psychological and philosophical world. after world war 2, shit changed. after capitalism triumphed over the communist utopias, shit changed. the three-world model was subsumed into a global, capitalistic market. it's not ego-centrism you fucking moron, it's a valid area of study undertaken by thousands of top scholars across the whole range of disciplines.
in case you didnt read my last five messages: IT IS NOT A MARXIST TEXT.
edit: hahahaha. "quintessential fundamental attribution error" not even Nuk could come up with that. fuck me. that would make a grown man laugh . what the fuck even is that? it's like a tautological mess; something you'd find on a 13 year old's english test as he strings together lots of long words and hopes it sounds vaguely technical. keep trying!
Last edited by Uzique (2010-05-08 19:16:42)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
And we've lost the ability to create sentences, paragraphs, even punctuation.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.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-09 01:35:42)
Fuck Israel
I KNOW IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARXISM but it is written by a MARXIST. The same reasoning that makes him believe in Marxism in general makes him spout stupidity such as in the OP. Like I already said, if a philosophy is consistent it is pervasive. Ideas are so interrelated that one opinion, particularly such a broad political outlook, shapes every other opinion that person has.Uzique wrote:
Fm.
It Is Not A Marxist Text
What The Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
this fucking guy. doesnt even know what philosophical dialectics are, clearly. writing paragraphs to himself with pro-american anti-marxist jingoism for the sole purpose of keeping his own dick hard. the book is not about fucking marxism! marxism is merely a hermeneutical expression of his main theme! post-modern life has generally been accepted to be 'different', with a 'different' condition- right across the sociohistorical, psychological and philosophical world. after world war 2, shit changed. after capitalism triumphed over the communist utopias, shit changed. the three-world model was subsumed into a global, capitalistic market. it's not ego-centrism you fucking moron, it's a valid area of study undertaken by thousands of top scholars across the whole range of disciplines.
in case you didnt read my last five messages: IT IS NOT A MARXIST TEXT.
It's a common psych term dumbass.Uzique wrote:
edit: hahahaha. "quintessential fundamental attribution error" not even Nuk could come up with that. fuck me. that would make a grown man laugh . what the fuck even is that? it's like a tautological mess; something you'd find on a 13 year old's english test as he strings together lots of long words and hopes it sounds vaguely technical. keep trying!
You namedrop like a kiss-ass trying to get tenure and when someone else uses terms you don't know you assume it's gibberish.
Why are you trying to assert intellectual superiority in a meaningless gaming forum? Shouldn't someone with your talents be spending their time making a mark in the world of academia?
According to Uzique, yale and ivies are shit compared to his all mighty royal holloway.nukchebi0 wrote:
Why are you trying to assert intellectual superiority in a meaningless gaming forum? Shouldn't someone with your talents be spending their time making a mark in the world of academia?
I thought Uzi went to oxford.Cybargs wrote:
According to Uzique, yale and ivies are shit compared to his all mighty royal holloway.nukchebi0 wrote:
Why are you trying to assert intellectual superiority in a meaningless gaming forum? Shouldn't someone with your talents be spending their time making a mark in the world of academia?
According to him his school is as good as oxford too.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I thought Uzi went to oxford.Cybargs wrote:
According to Uzique, yale and ivies are shit compared to his all mighty royal holloway.nukchebi0 wrote:
Why are you trying to assert intellectual superiority in a meaningless gaming forum? Shouldn't someone with your talents be spending their time making a mark in the world of academia?
Uh but seriously wasn't he bragging about going to Oxford a few months back?Cybargs wrote:
According to him his school is as good as oxford too.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I thought Uzi went to oxford.Cybargs wrote:
According to Uzique, yale and ivies are shit compared to his all mighty royal holloway.
lied
Or he worded it really really well. "I go to a university where Oxford professors also teach."Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lied
Not the same shit as going to oxford tbh.
no he lied and he has said he lied
I mean replace "lied" with "trolled"
I mean replace "lied" with "trolled"
Ergo I feel like Neo watching two Architects talking mumbo jumbo to eachother.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I KNOW IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARXISM but it is written by a MARXIST. The same reasoning that makes him believe in Marxism in general makes him spout stupidity such as in the OP. Like I already said, if a philosophy is consistent it is pervasive. Ideas are so interrelated that one opinion, particularly such a broad political outlook, shapes every other opinion that person has.Uzique wrote:
Fm.
It Is Not A Marxist Text
What The Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
this fucking guy. doesnt even know what philosophical dialectics are, clearly. writing paragraphs to himself with pro-american anti-marxist jingoism for the sole purpose of keeping his own dick hard. the book is not about fucking marxism! marxism is merely a hermeneutical expression of his main theme! post-modern life has generally been accepted to be 'different', with a 'different' condition- right across the sociohistorical, psychological and philosophical world. after world war 2, shit changed. after capitalism triumphed over the communist utopias, shit changed. the three-world model was subsumed into a global, capitalistic market. it's not ego-centrism you fucking moron, it's a valid area of study undertaken by thousands of top scholars across the whole range of disciplines.
in case you didnt read my last five messages: IT IS NOT A MARXIST TEXT.It's a common psych term dumbass.Uzique wrote:
edit: hahahaha. "quintessential fundamental attribution error" not even Nuk could come up with that. fuck me. that would make a grown man laugh . what the fuck even is that? it's like a tautological mess; something you'd find on a 13 year old's english test as he strings together lots of long words and hopes it sounds vaguely technical. keep trying!
You namedrop like a kiss-ass trying to get tenure and when someone else uses terms you don't know you assume it's gibberish.
These brainiacs are Bogarting too much of the resident BF2s IQ pool, and I don't think there's enough left for the rest of us to properly pontificate the provacative philosophical points previously proposed herein.
Great, I've gone and alliterated myself right out of my fucking mind.
Great, I've gone and alliterated myself right out of my fucking mind.
So guys i have confession to make i really go to southern oregon university but its like yale because we have yale locks.