/edu/ - Education

I've finally read the big ones (Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrilland, Foucault, Derrida) and I'm just not seeing it. The only argument I usually see when they bother explaining why is that these authors """reject""" class struggle.

after a few days of reading i got past the first part and I have some thoughts i wanted to share about the almost 750 page piece.

>the good parts
coming in i didnt have high expectations for what the book would turn out as as it continued but i found it to be quite interesting, simon presented alot of ideas on the sentiments of males in pre second wave feminist societies but the idea i found most interesting were her views on what actually made women "the other" in the eyes of males at that time. the answer was subjective to the person, much like in her section that detailed the varying roles and levels of freedom women have had throughout history in several parts of the planet what femininity was percieved as was also subjective and the idea that women must be subjegated to their husbands and treated as objects was a christian one that stemmed from the book of genesis, hold on this is going for too long.

Can someone please dumb this down for me?
>The concept of “objective” in metaphysical materialism appears to mean an objectivity which exists even outside of man, but to assert that reality would exist even if man did not exist is either to state a metaphor or to fall into a form of mysticism. We know reality only in its relations with man, and just as man is an historical process of becoming, so also knowledge and reality are a becoming, and objectivity is a becoming, etc.
>Engels’ expression that “the materiality of the world is demonstrated by the long and laborious development of philosophy and the natural sciences” needs to be analyzed and made precise. By science does he mean the theoretical or the practical-experimental activity of the scientists or the synthesis of the two activities? In this we could be said to have the typical unitary process of reality, in the experimental activity of the scientist which is the first model of the dialectical mediation between man and nature, the elementary historical cell by which man, putting himself into relation with nature through technology, knows it and controls it. Undoubtedly, the promulgation of the experimental method separates two worlds of history, two epochs, and begins the process of the dissolution of theology and metaphysics and the development of modern thought, whose crowning is Marxism. Scientific method is the first cell of the new method of production, of the new form of active union between man and nature. The scientist-experimenter is also a worker, not a pure thinker, and his thought is continually controlled by practice and vice versa, up to the point where a perfect unity of theory and practice is formed.
>The neo-scholastic Mario Casotti (Teacher and Scholar) writes: “The researches of the naturalists and the biologists presuppose an already existing life and real organism,” an expression which comes near to that of Engels in Anti-Dühring.
>The agreement between Catholicism and Aristotelianism on the question of the objectivity of reality.
>In order to understand exactly the possible significance of the problem of the reality of the external world, it may be useful to develop the example of the notions of “East” and “West” which do not stop being “objectively real” even if on analysis they prove to be nothing but conventionsPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

I have struggled with this question a lot, particularly because many of the things that get called fascist are quite clearly, in my eyes, not unique to fascism from both sides of the political aisle (e.g. free market advocacy, socialism etc.) So, leftypol, is fascism truly everything I don't like?

I have been reading the works of the architect and self proclaimed "anarcho capitalist" and "former revolutionary communist" Patrik Schumacher, who says that the works of German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (not translated much into English) are a better frame to analyze the world and also prove Anarcho-capitalism is correct.

>MK: In a recent lecture – aptly named ‘In Defense of Capitalism’ – you talk about your personal shift from a self-proclaimed ‘revolutionary communist’ to an advocate of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Could you elaborate on this ideological turn? How has it affected your thinking on architecture and the city (or perhaps the other way around)?

<PS: How society works or should work is the most momentous question that I feel confronted by, but it’s also the most complex, non-trivial, perplexing question. Yet, I was not willing to resign myself to agnosticism on this matter. I started early on to invest a large chunk of my learning and life energy in the attempt to penetrate the matter and reach a position I can argue and commit to. This effort in political self-education evolved out of my overarching effort to gain a comprehensive intellectual orientation which drew me first into ‘pure’ philosophy. For my youthful prior self it was a matter of self-respect to break into the circle of those who address and claim to answer the deepest questions. What is the world? What is thinking? How is knowledge possible? These questions led via language and life forms (Wittgenstein) to society (Habermas) and political economy (Marx). Thus I arrived at Marxism first via theoretical philosophy rather than via any prior political bias. Wittgenstein, Habermas and Marx showed that pure philosophy was vain. Habermas and Marx showed that the theory of society must become the fulcrum of all philosophy. Marx showed that theory must fuse with practice. He delivered a system of political economy as crucial theoretical component of a radical, transformative political project. Marx’s philosophy is of totalising scope and able to theorize its own historico-sociological conditions of emergence and development. Marx’s system was the first ‘super-theory’ in Luhmann’s sense, i.e. a theory that is able to fully and consistently theorize itself. Nothing less should satisfy us.

>Marxism seemed most profound and ambitious to me. It seemed nothing else caPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

"I decided to write this letter after lengthy deliberation. I am a chemist, and I lecture at Leningrad's Lensovet Technology Institute. Like many others, I also look after a student group. Students nowadays, following the period of social apathy and intellectual dependence, are gradually becoming charged with the energy of revolutionary changes. Naturally, discussions develop about the ways of restructuring and its economic and ideological aspects. Glasnost, openness, the disappearance of zones where criticism is taboo, and the emotion heat of mass consciousness (especially among young people) often result in the raising of problems that are, to a greater or lesser extent, "prompted" either by Western radio voices or by those of our compatriots who are shaky in their conceptions of the essence of socialism. And what a variety of topics that are being discussed! A multiparty system, freedom of religious propaganda, emigration to live abroad, the right to broad discussion of sexual problems in the press, the need to decentralize the leadership of culture, abolition of compulsory military service. There are particularly numerous arguments among students about the country's past.

Of course, we lecturers must answer the most controversial questions, and this demands, in addition to honesty, knowledge, conviction, broad cultural horizons, serious reflection, and considered opinions. Moreover, these qualities are needed by all educators of young people and not only by members of social science department staffs.

Petergof Park is a favorite spot for the walks I take with my students. We stroll along the snow-covered paths, enjoy looking at the famous palaces and statues, and we argue. We do argue! The young souls are eager to investigate all complexities and to map out their path in to the future. I look at my ardent young interlocutors, and I think to myself how important it is to help them to discover the truth and shape a correct perception of the problems of the society in which they live and which they will have to restructure, and how to give them a correct perception of our history, both distant and recent.

What are the misgivings? Here is a simple example: You would think that plenty has been written and said about the Great Patriotic War against the Nazi invasion and the heroism of those who fought in it. Recently, however, a student hostel in our Technology Institute organized a meeting with Hero of the Soviet Union and ColonelPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

What is the role of the police under capitalism? They do protect property and the interests of the upper class, but I don't think it's as clear cut as they merely protect a capitalist's factory and resources alone. They do try to carry out whatever dicta of law is brought in through legislation within their own funding.
But how are laws made?
Laws themselves are created through the superstructure, which I imagine are first formulated through the interests of the upper social strata inside the organs of the capitalist state, such as universities, political parties, courts, police departments, and legislative councils, as well as by appeasing public sentiment.
The economic and political classes of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeois also seem to be entrenched in the roles of law: prosecutors, defence lawyers, and judges. These are created through the superstructure's education systems and law associations. The role of police as enforcers, or soldiers of the state, against the proletariat and peasantry upholds the sacred principles of capitalism: property, order, and class. Oddly enough, though, the police work against the black market which is merely capitalism intensified. What is the Marxist or Anarchist perspective on the role of police against the worst aspects of capitalism (human trafficking, drug trade, organised crime, gang violence)?

>Parametricism is an architectural style based on computer technology and algorithms. The concept emerged from the digital animation techniques of the mid-1990s, but has risen in prominence in the early-21st century with the development of advanced parametric design.

Stop larping Brutalism, the real redpill of the Future is just to let Zaha Hadid style architects design everything. Functionalism is the doctrine that the design of an object should be determined solely by its function, rather than by aesthetic considerations, and that anything practically designed will be inherently beautiful. Parametricism IMO is just functionalism updated to use computer technology.

I believe that parametricism is the best synthesis of functionalism, with islamic architecture influences but based on algorithmic fractal art, sacralizing cyber-pragmatic. Thanks to computer technology we are no longer limited to platonic forms like cubes that may not be the best use of space, material, or even the most aesthetically appealing.

How is prison abolitionism supposed to work? Am I supposed to sit here and earnestly believe there isn’t a certain amount of people who simply need to be segregated from society due to extremely anti social tendencies?

According to Charles Fourier, sex is a human right. Was he right?

https://incels.wiki/w/Charles_Fourier
>Charles Fourier was the founder of utopian socialism, a feminist who coined the word feminism, "satirical" rape apologist, and someone who sincerely wanted to organize society into mass communal buildings ("Phalansteries", or "Phalanx"s) which would provide a "sexual minimum" for everyone, including incels

>He wanted his utopias to have various organizations devoted to sexually helping the rejected without being paid

>Fourier was never known to have a love affair with a woman, which is thought to have created frustration which drove his sexual fantasies, and likely contributed to his utopian vision of eliminating sexual frustration

>Fourier was fairly unique among socialists as he articulated sexual inequality as a large causative factor of various social ills, instead of solely focusing his critiques on alienation and economic exploitation, thus preceding Marcy, Clouscard, Houellebecq, Reich, Nagle and Undersky in his analysis of sexual deprivation from a leftist perspective. Like Undersky, and unlike the much less libertarian Michel Houellebecq, Fourier portrays sexual liberalism as inherently good for incels. Although, only without markets in general and under certain other circumstances. His sex specific writings were not widely known during his lifetime, and were rediscovered in the 1960s