/edu/ - Education

Some anon asked for a snippet of what I'm writing, so I post here a translation (translated with google translate) of a small fraction my treatise. Much probably I will call this treatise "Introduction to biblical femminism", in which I try to prove that in the Genesis Eve is pure Good, immortal, and anarchic (i.e. without any rule), while Adam is pure evil, mortal and "limited" (sorry, it's more "order-ous", i will eventually translate it in english once i publish it in italian, also this book is very complex). In other words I try to pose the basis for what i call "biblical femminism", which is a femminism which holds the bible as its premise.
If some italian anon is interested, here is the wattpad. I'm translating a Savonarola essay in english, but i wont translate it until exam session is finished. https://www.wattpad.com/user/AlexanderOfCremona
The snippet start right after they ate the forbidden fruit.

PART II
Divine punishment
God, for his part, in the meantime of this event (which we remember, ends up with the two who begin to recover and correct their mistakes by covering themselves with a belt of fig leaves: Genesis 3,7), walks a short distance away (Genesis 3, 8).
God therefore discovers the crime (which we have ascertained to be Adam's) as he hides because he is naked (Genesis 3,11; I do not say "because he was prude" as it is not written what triggered the fear in Adam upon hearing the footsteps of the Lord) asking him if he had "eaten from the tree I forbade _you_ to eat" (Genesis 3,11), reminding that the command referred only to Adam and not also to Eve.
The man's response remains noteworthy, even if superfluous: "The woman you placed next to me gave me from the tree and I ate it." Eve's freedom of choice in giving and being able to eat from the tree is recognizable, while Adam's choice to contravene God's dictate is evident. One of the two, in fact, did not cause the ruin of the other.
The intrinsic truth of this statement leaves at the same time some elements that God, if he was finite and not infinite as he is in modern biblical exegesis (the concept of infinity is not yet present in Genesis, and this interpretation derives from the fact that God is Creator, creator of everything and therefore wise of everything: see, however superficial https://youtu.be/lhlF3Bl0iho), he should know in order not to define Adam as a "false witness" (Exodus 20,16; it could be said that silence on the incident is not "false testimony", as it must presuppose an affirmation that can be defined as false or true; on the other hand, Article 372 of the Italian Criminal Code configures the crime of false testimony even in the case of a witness who "is silent, in whole or in part, what he knows about the facts about which he is questioned "): first of all, that the woman ate the fruit and nothing happened. Secondly, did God really put Eve next to Adam for her to tempt him? As the question was directed at how Adam ate the fruit, and not a general representation of the bond between him and Eve. If Eve was actually placed next to Adam, then God had created a test of faithfulness for Adam, which Adam did not pass, voluntarily or involuntarily. Finally, the serpent was under the dominion of Adam, who knew that the "reptile crawling on the earth" was telling falsehoods about the good name of the Eve, foreshadowing an apocalyptic scenario (in the sense of: apokálypsis, revelation in Greek) of which Eve would also have been an advocate. The fact that Adam does not silence him, does not stop Eve and even after seeing that the Epiphany prophesied by the serpent had not come true (and therefore finding confirmation that the divine law was applicable only and exclusively to him as a man), he perseveres in his decision to eat the fruit.

>>11392
Interesting. Would appreciate to see some more of that

Bump. Come on guys, surely there must be more people here who write their own intellectual work.

>>12392
I can barely get myself to read outside of work, let alone write about it. Writing in an academic or journaling way always seems aimless to me. Anything I write longer than an idiotic regurgitation is always in response to something. Spontaneity, for me, seems to come into play on the rare chance I write fiction. I don’t actually know what me writing long form nonfiction would be like. I had friends in school joke as to whether my manifesto was done yet, and I suppose that’s always stopped me a bit. But I think it also comes to the point of audience. If I write for myself, I don’t really see the point. If I write for an audience, it poisons the point and purpose. Like a business that produces x yet the individual still needs to market and sell x which turns into his entire job and he never gets around to actually doing x in the first place. I’m just another voice in the void. This post being a great example. Who would want to read this rambling bullshit when there’s so many better and more interesting writers out there? Maybe I just hate myself and the writing is a material manifestation of my thoughts, which is the culmination of myself, and thus I despise it. Is that a bad thing? Am I moralizing self hatred and turning it into a value judgement I am perpetually failing at, continuing the viscous cycle of never being good enough? Yes. Probably.

When I was younger I used to try my hand at writing what I considered genuinely intellectual analyses of the world I saw around me, and phenomena I considered emerging and that no one was talking about.

Growing up just a little and I realize that literally everything there is to talk about has been talked about, everything we are living has been theorized and in many ways predicted. The issue for me isn't so much that there is an under-development of writing and theorizing in the population, but an under-development of finding, reading, and understanding what has already been written. It's really fucking depressing too because it feels like there is no possibility of genuine ideological or theoretical contribution to any sort of movement simply because we're all fucking retarded to some degree. What possibility is there for widespread consciousness when it appears that all of the necessary answers we need are right there in front of us?

There is an argument to be made that one sorely under-written about aspect is praxis and new forms of it, but I don't think I'm smart enough to engage with that.

So I just rot and read, and have given up writing except fiction, occasionally.

I would love if somebody could critique the fuck out of this thought process because it has really depressed me for a long time.

>>12503
I remember a long time ago seeing a chart that described knowledge acquisition in education. That k-12 and undergrad made up a small middle circle. That graduate school expanded the circle very little except made a mound on one portion of the circle. A doctorate then pushed up right against the edge of all human knowledge in regard to the specific field and your thesis is a teeny tiny pimple on the edge.

When one participates in a law journal they have to do hours of research into whether a given topic idea was already written.

When one briefs an appeal, they have to research what the law is, and whether there are any cases similar enough in fact and law to apply to the given situation. If there isn't anything on point, the lawyer must then concoct a unique argument against the given fact scenario. This is much like the little pimple on the circle, the appellate court decision is unique, but only in a very small and particular way.

If you think your research has lead you to find that there is lacking information regarding modern praxis, then it looks like you have a rabbit hole to go down. To find the historical make up of praxis, to see what is already out there about modern praxis, and to synthesize a modern approach if one hasn't yet been fully articulated. Or perhaps even a guide to the modern landscape. Who knows!

>>12515
I was planning on doing the same, I came home with a bunch of interesting ideas I was going to read about, make some notes on and think of a plan to truly get into.

Then I got drunk and now I'm just wallowing in my own rot.

Can always try again tomorrow. Good luck to you friend.

>>12516
>>12516
Write drunk manifesto. Edit in the morning.

>>12503
i 100% agree but somehow i'm not depressed by it…
I think it's kind of exhilarating. Marx said that the scientific process was in concretizing abstractions, and that's exactly what our job is now. There is a huge overgrowth of literature and information out there, and it takes a huge amount of labor to go through it all. Just keep your own personal notes, quotes, lists of shit you've read, summaries, etc. and hopefully someday there will be something to do with it all, to share with others. To me this is a great prospect, because all of the reading I do anyways, now has a somewhere to "go", outside of me, I guess waiting for a future place to be categorized and put out into the world, to help others discover what is already known, theorized, etc. and also to help separate the bullshit from the quality finds, so that the labor doesn't need to be repeated so many times. We can rapidly accelerate our collective theoretical knowledge if we coordinate it by all putting in and sharing notes. Build the collective mind anon

>>12392
>intellectual work.
me no think