[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

 [Last 50 Posts]

The history of philosophy is the history of the will-to-power coming to know itself and affirm its own validity against the lies of sophistry; a therapeutic endeavour of spirit against idealistic bullshit which produce narratives that serve the powers that be. In this regard, the task of philosophy has been fulfilled, completed by Nietzsche & Marx, and the domination of nature by man has found its final vessel in cybernetics. As Wittgenstein writes, "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." Philosophy itself has been embroiled in an endless struggle against itself over the same questions for centuries, but never coming any closer to real answers to those questions, with each generation it recedes into more meta-argumentation than before.Given that philosophy has been completed, what remains of the initial questions which plagued the pre-socratics? What is it to be? Why is there something rather than nothing? These are questions philosophy has actually left outstanding, problems that it just isn't equipped to deal with, as the pursuit of 'wisdom' (which reveals itself to merely be a facet of the will-to-power).

Let us ask the question another way. What is the will-to-power? The will-to-power is the actualising force of the ego onto the surroundings. In modern life, the world accelerates faster and faster as humans seek more and more to actualize their will onto the world. The lie we tell ourselves is that the faster we go, the more we can experience and enjoy. The active element of human life becomes frantic, restless, directionless, a mere reflection of the passionless bourgeois consumerism of the times. Though we experience 'leisure' it is nothing more than the brief respite from work, in fact many are compelled to work through this leisure time (productivity culture). We see that the vita activa without the contemplative element leads to a dead, unreflective life, and those who live under it become mere sheep. The man-as-labour metaphysics is not merely descriptive but prescriptive. You WILL work. You WILL be your labour.

As Byung-Chul Han writes
>"History – which, according to Hegel, is a history of freedom – will not be completed as long as we remain the slaves of work. The domination of work makes us unfree. The opposition between master and slave cannot be sublated by everyone becoming a slave of work. It will only be removed if the slave actually transforms himself into a free man. The vita activa remains a term of compulsion as long as it does not incorporate the vita contemplativa within itself. "

Why do we call it an 'acceleration'? Is time truly accelerating? What is really being accelerated? Acceleration is caused by the inability to find conclusions. Time runs off because it finds no conclusion. Right and good time disappears. 'Whoever cannot die at the right time must perish in non-time'. Growing discontinuity, the atomization of time, destroys the experience of continuity. The world becomes *non-timely.* Dasein's cyclical time fades into directionless meaningless moments- atomized. Proust's 'In Search of Lost Time' is a reaction against the progressive de-temporalization of existence. The self disintegrates into a ‘succession of moments’ (succession de moments). Thus, it loses all stability, all permanence. The ‘man that I was’, Proust writes, ‘no longer exists, I am another person’ (je suis un autre). Proust’s novel about time, In Search of Lost Time, is an attempt to stabilize the identity of the self, which threatens to disintegrate. The temporal crisis is experienced as an identity crisis.' Proust’s narrative temporal technique opposes temporal dissociation by framing events, uniting them into a coherent whole, or structuring them into certain periods. They are reassociated. A net of relations between events lets life appear liberated from sheer contingency and bestows significance on it.

In the acceleration of Dasein's time, collective memory becomes fragmented. Surges in poltical traditionalism are a reaction to ongoing foreclosures in our social imagination of our fragmented understanding of history. abstracted traditions disappear from the public conscious to make room for new ones. acceleration of capital gives collective dementia. Proustian recollections of traditions are perceived as spiritual enlightenments. This gives rise to reformulated traditions but under capitalist dementia society is forced to hold onto the memory, chasing after the enjoyment of recollection inorganically through a paranoid repression of difference- fascism arises. In this way not only the accelerationists but also the neo-reactionaries too are idiotic. The future cannot be the mere re-appropriation of past tradition but the transvaluation of values is where the work is done. The re-imagination and re-institution of the magmatic ontologies of society.

So what we see is that what is really being accelerated– is the disintegration of the self by the unchecked will-to-power, and all semiotic difference. Indeed, dialectics itself, the chosen poison of philosophy, is predicated upon the obliteration of the significance of motion, time. How ironic it is that they call themselves accelerationists- given that they do not believe in motion at all!!!! Thought cannot be accelerated, thought must be slow, deliberate. Only through the ending of this age of philosophy and the opening up of a new of age of thinking (which yes, also requires the end of capitalism) can we be free.

Vita Contemplativa!


File: 1684359036887.png (369.35 KB, 343x1052, ClipboardImage.png)



Why the meduka?


File: 1684359136169.jpg (191.41 KB, 961x660, IMG_0465.jpg)


I don't care for madoka, and I much prefer urobuchi's other works.
But magia is a banger


a weeb friend made me play saya no uta. it was good. fate/zero is also not bad. but i like the philosophical undertones of madoka the most. thinking about it just reminds me of my task in life


the history of philosophy is, as with all history, a history defined by class struggle. but it is a history which is colored by the idealist naivety of taking each historical epoch at their own word filtered through the ruling ideas of the contemporary epoch. this is how you get ideas like philosophical history being that of "the actualizing force of the ego onto the surroundings" "coming to know itself and affirm its own validity". it's a conception that can realistically only be applied to the (largely irrelevant) modern western philosophical tradition as well as a narrow and peculiarly modernist reading of the western philosophical classics. it would be quite strange to make such a statement about, for example, the medieval scholastics, or eastern traditions like buddhism, hinduism, or confucianism, none of which would seem to fit cleanly into a history of philosophy as the self-justification of an abstract and individualized "will-to-power".

cybernetics, contra your neo-vitalist romanticism, is the bridge which dissolves the previously insoluble contradiction between nature and spirit. rather than coming to dominate nature, spirit returns to nature by objectifying itself, and subjectifying nature simultaneously. the danger in this is precisely the opposite of the bleak and ironically anti-humanist hiedeggarian picture you paint. rather than the enslavement of the object to the subject, cybernetics threatens the final and irreversible triumph of the object over the subject. failure to reckon with this fact signals a failure to reckon with the real stakes of human development within our generation. the question is not whether subject will reconcile itself with object, as this is inevitable because the subject is object, but whether subject can reconcile itself with subject.

the final irony of this post comes in the last sentence:
>Only through the ending of this age of philosophy and the opening up of a new of age of thinking (which yes, also requires the end of capitalism) can we be free.
of course, we all know that philosophy is dead, and has been for quite some time now. you have been wont in the past to rail against this very board's predilection for "anti-intellectualism" and general distaste for abstract philosophy of your eclectic continental flavor. you are yourself an agent of this zombie enterprise, the nature of which you misapprehend, and the destruction of which you proudly clamor for.


1. what is the material source of class struggle other than the aggregate of individual's will-to-power? the will-to-power is not idealist. the will-to-life is, but the will-to-power is first *power* not *will*. it's a statement of what IS not a vector. This is like saying 'class is an idealist idea not a material thing'.

2. What you say about cybernetics is 100% true, and the will-to-power is part of nature. man naturalises himself- and in the will-to-power dominates even himself.

I think your reply is talking past all my points rather than engaging with them as they are.


File: 1684365031301.jpg (39.67 KB, 469x434, 1449081996638.jpg)

stopped reading there!


it's contra acceleration not pro acceleration. its post-acceleration, or anti-acceleration.


Nietzsche's anti-foundationalist and anti-metaphysical realist
commitments, the will to power as a way of knowing must be prioritized.
In this way, we have seen, the ontology of the will to power derives from
the 1epistemic doctrine of the will to power as a reflection 011
philosophical method and knowledge. It is precisely in this way that
Nietzsche avoids making foundationalist claims about what the world is
like in itself, that is, independently of our perspectival takings. Thus the
doctrine of the will to power is an absolute truth to the extent that it is
justified as a cross-perspectival truth and not through recourse to extra
perspectival claims to knowledge. My argument, then, has been that
Nietzsche prioritizes epistemology over ontology. In so doing, he
maintains, contrary to the criteriological realist, that justification is
properly understood as a theory-internal or perspectival matter.
Furthermore, we have witnessed Nietzsche's view that although
justification does not involve confrontations with the world it is still
possible to put forth perspectival absolute truths. From this we have seen
that justification, for Nietzsche, remains a perspectival issue without
succumbing to the sceptical idealist's problem of confinement.
In further conclusion, Nietzsche emphasizes the notion of realist
constraint by claiming that absolute truths remain open to the possibility
of revision and further refinement. With regard to the doctrine of the will
to power he states:
Granted this too is only interpretation - and you will be eager
enough to raise the objection? - well, so much the better. _ 6



File: 1684365487308.jpg (414.42 KB, 4096x2734, debord-time.jpg)


Debord right about this fr


I'm the type of person who says "late stage capitalism".


the spectacle is way cooler conceptually tbh

anyway, i find it strange how people equate the denotation of concepts as idealism. y'all are obsessed iwth substance and metaphysics. metaphysics cant pose the question of being, and the understanding of being dictates the locus for the answer to the question of the substance of beings lol


>what is the material source of class struggle other than the aggregate of individual's will-to-power?
the question is malformed because you reverse the causality. class struggle is the source of the individual will-to-power as we understand it. there is no other context under which one would conceive of their status as an ethically affective subject in terms of a totalizing imperative to impose upon everything external to you other than the context of a class society. it is the presence of definite material conditions - climatic, geographical, biological, technological, etc. - proper to the creation and maintenance of subject peoples which creates the imperative to impose, and thereby creates the will-to-power as such.
>I think your reply is talking past all my points rather than engaging with them as they are.
i talk past you because i don't take the vast majority of what you say seriously. i reply to the few gems of salience you bury beneath jargon and circumlocution, and hope the insight will be useful to others who don't take you very seriously but read the thread out of morbid curiosity.


>Why do we call it an 'acceleration'? Is time truly accelerating? What is really being accelerated?
its the frequency of technological innovation coming up against the contradictions of private ownership of the means of production. duration is measured by change and technology like the internet make it so the rate of change in the collective consciousness occurs and more frequent intervals while difference from one point to the next becomes greater. this means people see behind the curtain more often and capitalism also has to spend energy recuperating more often. to think of it from the opposite end time slows down when there are no novel events happening and then in retrospect it all looks like one big blur, people need points of interest to anchor their perspective when making sense of the world.


>class struggle is the source of the individual will-to-power as we understand it.
you cannot be serious. the desire to dominate nature exists regardless of class. what do u think caused class to exist in the first place lol… this is absurd from you

yes! time slows down as it speeds up. there's no anchoring! it's a de-coring, a de-anchoring, de-gravitising



'Granted this too is only interpretation - and you will be eager
enough to raise the objection? - well, so much the better. '

dont mistake denotation/interpretation for a statement of metaphysical truth


yes its a spook, no it doesnt affect anything i said


oh of the OP?

prescriptive acceleration is bad, work-abolition is good


What is sophistry and why is it inherently bad to you?
Every pseud I’ve ever seen treats them as the great Satan.


a sophist is someone who engages in philosophy as rhetorical sport, has no qualms about using arguments they know to be false for some personal ends.


>the desire to dominate nature exists regardless of class.
that's an assertion for you to defend.
>what do u think caused class to exist in the first place
<the presence of definite material conditions - climatic, geographical, biological, technological, etc. - proper to the creation and maintenance of subject peoples
people were once not only content to live in egalitarian social organs, they had no choice but to because there was no material basis for class society. that material base was formed as a result of factors which cannot be reduced to any individual or group of individuals' "desire to dominate nature".


>that's an assertion for you to defend.
lol. no im good thanks i touch grass.


So the common parlance definition.
Got it. Who exactly is spreading the “ lies of sophistry” in this case?


technically, everyone, given everyone has secondary motives other than reaching truth. people project their will into arbitrary positive categories which to negate and to show their true colour as a power construct is the task of real philosophy. but obviously, given that not everyone in society has equal power…. you see where I'm going with this. class warfare through sophistry.


you spend hours of your time composing this pseudo-intellectual drivel and trolling the replies to it, but the moment you are challenged to substantiate a one of your ludicrously philosophy brained presuppositions you conveniently lose interest. this is why no one should take you seriously.


ah yes the ludicrous proposition of thinking people have desires and goals


you are equivocating.
>people have desires and goals
is not the same proposition as
>the desire to dominate nature exists regardless of class.
desire is not equivalent to desire for domination.

and if your intention through this equivocation is to reveal that by "will-to-power" you really just mean "desire as such" then when you ask:
>what is the material source of class struggle other than the aggregate of individual's will-to-power?
what you really mean to say is:
>the material source of class struggle is the aggregate of individual desire
which should make it very clear why i consider everything you are saying here to be idealist bullshit.


read OP next time, since you admitted that you didnt, dont see why i should engage you at all. the will-to-power is the rule that individuals actualize will onto the world. sorry that you cant read nietzsche


>since you admitted that you didnt
no i didn't. i said i don't take it seriously, because it's inane idealist nonsense.
>dont see why i should engage you at all.
you shouldn't because i am demonstrating in real time how what you are saying is meaningless.


desire is a material force. hope this helps.


amazing how every petite-bourgeoise individual who thinks they've surpassed Marx ends up retreating to vulgar idealism.


it's useful to inoculate one's self against the vapid witterings of the accelerationists and to see that the real revolutionary action lies within the abolition of work itself.



<In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
hope this helps.


nothing in this quote disagrees with anything ive written in this thread. stop being a contrarian and start thinking for yourself.


the independent of their will bit would seemto be particularly pertinent here. he is saying, exactly as i was, that our social reality is formed by factors which are independent of our will, and indeed this will in and of itself is a social reality which is subject to the very same material factors.


and my OP is a criticism of accelerationism as praxis because in the acceleration the conditions for moving beyond work are lost. the proper praxis is thinking.


>You seem to thin accelerationism is some philosophy. It's actually praxis.


>existence is formed by social reality
yes, the existence is formed by social reality, including namely, desire. desire which then reproduces itself onto social existence through action. stop arguing with spectres. i never said anything ideal determines our social reality. desire is a *material force*. the 'will' is a mere interpretation. hence the quote by nietzsche

'Granted this too is only interpretation - and you will be eager
enough to raise the objection? - well, so much the better. '


Try reading Lacan who's point is the exact opposite.


i don't understand how you can read
>It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
and take from it that actually it means that their social reality is determined by their desire.


this is not about suffering. this is about the fact that you cannot even be an active class in history without class consciousness. where does class consciousness come from? it requires the ability to think. the franticness of acceleration leaves the worker unable to relate to their own being and re-evaluate the conditions they find themselves in. which means no writing communist manifestos (everything is too fragmented), no authentic suffering even. Turning workers into sheep is the surefire way to prevent any kind of class consciousness.

I don't care what Marx said about this, Marx was wrong. My whole point is we need to move beyond philosophy, beyond the will-to-power, and towards thinking.

I have read Lacan and I think he's wrong. I was pretty big on lacan for a long time, still am. Guattari better.


File: 1684375813099.png (996.27 KB, 778x572, big think.png)

>the proper praxis is thinking
I'm not pedal-to-the-metal accelerationist, but something tells me isn't really it either.


>I don't care what Marx said about this, Marx was wrong. My whole point is we need to move beyond philosophy, beyond the will-to-power, and towards thinking.
see >>15263
>Turning workers into sheep is the surefire way to prevent any kind of class consciousness
Stop everything you're doing and read Marx's Capital or any of his political works.


social reality determines desire. desire is the force through which the labouring class is compelled to shape the world materially. media is a machine which imprints and perverts the desire of the working class. the media itself is the product of desire. just try to think with more than a hammer.


so why do I say thinking is the proper praxis? thinking is slowness. thinking is the finding of time. thinking is the quiet sorting-out of affairs. the hurry of a purely active life is the result of acceleration's de-temporalisation of human life. thinking is its re-temporalisation. thought vs. action.


P sure
>The slaves only develop consciousness when they suffer beyond reason.
comes from an offhand text in one of Marx's later works actually. Not in Capital.


i am *pretty* sure. marx never advocates acceleration in capital. could have accidentally skimmed over such a passage. its a long text you know?


>social reality determines desire.
this directly contradicts
>existence is formed by social reality, including namely, desire.
where you attempted to equivocate once again, this time desire with the social reality which you've just admitted actually determines desire and therefore cannot be identical to it. i will take this a concession that you are making it up as you go along.


This still reads like gobbledy goop to me. I'm pretty sure everyone is thinking even if they haven't come to the same conclusions as the rest of us on the left.


there's a reciprocal relationship here. it's not a contradiction. desire *is* material reality. class *is* also material reality, though a denotation for the aggregate libidinal force of desire.


This isnt about acceleration or whatever. You have a fundamentally wrong conception of class consciousness. The proletariat develops class consciousness every time they go head and head with Capital since the entire system is ridden with crisis that will reproduce even more exploitation of the proletariat. Marxism-Leninism is the full explication of the proletariat ideology: how they come to understand the conditions of their existence and the science to overthrow them.


most people are going through their lives sucked into a spectacle. there's no time for thinking because they've been convinced that everything is produce and consume. in short, that everything must have a telos. there is no time to simply think.


ill let the proletariat who arent class conscious know they just arent butting heads with capital enough. if only they had the proper class consciousness of the petite-bourgeois, who clearly achieved such stellar class consciousness through hard labour.


i mean seriouslky, do you even read what you're writing? 'the workers just arent suffering enough to think about revolution?' not being encouraged to think is why they dont think about revolution actually. whereas the non-labouring rich kids are all commies. why do you think that is? its not because the rich kids are suffering more I'll tell you that for nothing.


>they've been convinced that everything is produce and consume
But that's a thought. If the thought is prompted by the spectacle it doesn't negate the fact that they are thinking. They may even think the spectacle is an accurate representation of the present state of affairs. It comes across as a weird bigotry of low expectations to me. idk


The workers want revolution. Very few communist parties have been able to correctly articulate the interests of the masses without falling into revisionism or abandonment of Marxism.
My point is that the masses are already radical, you need to talk to them.


im using thinking in two different ways here, and my bad for mixing them up. I'll use the German 'denken' for the Thinking im talking about. when i said 'thought' in that post, what I mean is desire. rather than thought. it's not denken because there is no contemplative element, no proper re-evaluation of values going on. there's a de-territorialisation, but they are re-territorialized by the media.


The masses are fed up but they all want different things, and overall have no understanding of how to change society.


sure old man. the workers just absolutely love your little china flags. and the more they hear you tell them about how they need to suffer more to be class conscious, the more they love you. right.


its precisely because i truly respect workers as Dasein and that my positive mode of concern for them is a relation of freedom and 'leaping ahead' to the possibility of their being that I say this. Workers, if they were given the space to think, would come to the same fundamental conclusions as Marx. autism score is not a factor here. It's the constant bombardment of false information, psy-ops, de-territorialisation of desire.


>desire *is* material reality.
>class *is* also material reality, though a denotation for the aggregate libidinal force of desire.
the reason i say this is idealism is not because i believe desire is immaterial. i am a materialist. i don't even have a concept of what it would mean for desire to be immaterial. my contention is that you have the order of operations reversed here. class is a material condition which arises regardless of desire, and conditions the material reality of desire. desire in turn influences circumstance, but it can only do so within a space of possibility deliminated by the circumstance it already finds itself in.


champagne socialists telling workers that they need to suffer more to be more class conscious like them will never stop being funny.


class arises because of desire, people need food, so they have to organise labour relations to get it. i feel that its not that complex.


Thats why you build a revolutionary communist party. So that the class-in-itself can be the class-for-itself. The communist party is the agent the masses can use to establish communism.
Proleteriat is already class consciousness. They just need to expand it to the overthrow of world system of imperialism which is the job of communists. Talk to people who are oppressed.


You're describing the reproduction of social relations, not desire.


Great man, thanks, I'll just build a revolutionary party, why didn't anybody think of this before.

Most people dislike what they think communism is even more than the current system


thats a very roundabout way of framing class dynamics


class consciousness is not 'when ur upset and dont know why' class consciousness requires the proper object.

people needing food is not a desire?

it's just deleuze & guattari. materialist treatment of the will-to-power


I feel you'd be less alienating if you dumbed down your writing.


why were people able to organize non-class based labor relations for the vast majority of anthropological history? was this because they didn't desire it? why did they suddenly start desiring it all around the world c.10,000-15,000 years ago give or take?


any feedback specifically on the writing style? Idk what you are talking about in relation to cyberparts.


gave urself away there buddy

ok. I'll try to translate the OP into smoother language. philosophy is a sort of therapy for the endless bickering that tries to mask the fact that everyone is just kind of projecting their own desires onto reality. capitalists are the winners of that fight to project their desires onto people. philosophy can get you to the point of seeing that it's your desire (or class's desire) that is the driving force of action. acceleration makes everything action. what's being accelerated is consumption and production, active life. there's no time for the re-evaluation of values because there's no time spent not having specific goals and desires to go and fulfil (that are given to you by capitalists and the media). time isnt accelerating, its just a perception due to how frantic the spectacle is.

in the process of acceleration, memory sort of becomes fragmented. people recollect experiences, and try to hold on dearly to them, romanticising memory- tradition, which leads the repression of new ways to do culture, and new values, and that's the origin of fascism.

so the direct remedy for this is to sit back and engage in 'denken', contemplation, and a recognition and refusal to engage in spectacle. rejection of a purely goal-oriented life and giving one's self space to discover and uncover what's hidden.


too busy having to labour to live.


actually i plugged it into chatgpt lets see what it says

The core points of the message are as follows:

The history of philosophy is a struggle against deceptive narratives and the will-to-power.
Nietzsche and Marx are seen as having completed the philosophical task, while cybernetics represents the ultimate control over nature.
Philosophy has failed to answer fundamental questions about existence and the nature of reality.
The will-to-power is the materialistic drive to assert dominance over one's surroundings.
Modern life is characterized by the acceleration of human experience, driven by the belief that faster pace leads to greater enjoyment.
The emphasis on work compels individuals to define themselves through their labor.
True freedom requires integrating contemplation into the active life.
The perception of time accelerating is caused by the lack of resolutions and a loss of meaningful timing.
Proust's novel "In Search of Lost Time" seeks to stabilize the fragmented self in response to the temporal crisis.
Acceleration of time leads to fragmented collective memory and a rise in political traditionalism.
Capitalism contributes to collective amnesia and a repression of differences.
The future requires a revaluation of values and the reimagination of societal foundations.
The unchecked will-to-power and the erosion of meaningful distinctions are accelerating the disintegration of the self.
Dialectics overlooks the significance of motion and time.
Genuine freedom can only be achieved by transcending the current age of philosophy and embracing a new age of thinking.


what are you trying to say here? do you mean:
>*people before class society didn't institute class society because they were* too busy having to labour to live.
because if you do, that is just wrong. average labor time increases under class society. pre-class people wer less busy on average than their classed counterparts.


That's a pretty contentious point anthropologically. I'd rather have a discussion that we can come to a resolution on. Kaczynski makes pretty big critiques of that point.

But, assuming you're right, that doesn't change the fact that 'people' (actually, people with material advantage) came up with class society because they desired more from nature, and could benefit from engaging in behaviour that results in the institution of class. I'd go make a reference to Engels here but I'm lazy and It's like 4am but trust me the point is there.


False, it's not like people intentionally set out to create class society


that's actually what I was I was trying to say when I say
>could benefit from engaging in behaviour that results in the institution of class
I did say 'came up with' before that granted, but I did intend to say it wasn't intentional.


As long as you study diligently, integrate with the masses, combat revision, and consistently maintain the revolutionary line, the masses will be there for you.


That is not what i said about class consciousness. class consciousness is built at the site of production, a place where the proleteriat is at constantly.



when I say 'class is caused by desire' what I mean to say is that at some point people were moved to goals that result in the institution of class.
>so why even say it!
because my point is that action is teleological.

I appreciate the critique of the OP's language and it helps me re-write it to avoid comprehension pitfalls or hang-ups on what 'will to power' is intended to mean in a materialistic sense, but I really wish someone would engage with its contents.


>I did intend to say it wasn't intentional.
that's the crux of this though. no one here is denying that human desire has some role to play in a complete account of class society. the problem is that you place primacy on it, to the point of multiple times reducing the concept of class as a whole to the status of merely denoting aggregated human desire.

to what degree are desire and intention seperable? how can one intend what one does not desire? if one desires what they do not intend, then they do not act on that desire. if they are the same, and class society is not formed of intention alone, then it also cannot be formed of desire alone.


desire is what produces class. desiring-production, and desiring-consumption. that's all I'm saying. you're getting a lot of hang ups on terminology here. and this is actually very far from the core of my point at this point. Desire is a material force. Will-to-power is Nietzsche's idealistic interpretation of desire. If you want to just say action is the making-actual of idk, some specific chemical forces, that's fine too, doesn't affect my point at all. My point is that action is all about the attainment of goals. All action is directed.


Holy shit. I completely agree with this. I am entirely in the dark on the specific concepts often thrown around, but if anything, this is a sign that anybody with half a brain can agree with leftism if it's argued correctly.
You lose me with your arguments in favour of cybernetics, but that's relatively negligible.


is this an idealist statement? no. there's a pretty solid scientific basis that action is directed through (in the case of bugs, pheromones, light stimuli, dampness, etc). i dont think i can get any more materialist than this… but I wish I could have just said will-to-power and be done with it. you guys are so hung up on metaphysics its unreal, even though metaphysics cant even pose the question of being and merely talks about substance of beings which implicitly relies on a proper knowledge of being AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


ill try to be a bit more sparing with the terminology in the future. im so obsessed with trying to say exactly what I am referring to and being transparent about influence that it can leave people behind.


>desire is what produces class. desiring-production, and desiring-consumption. that's all I'm saying.
yes i know. you seem to be unable of comprehending that i fundamentally disagree with this. it is not "getting hung up on terminology" or "metaphysics" to assert the inverse of this proposition anymore than it is to assert the proposition in the first place. one wonders why you posted it on an image board if you were never going to countenance any disagreement.


ok so you're just wrong then? read deleuze ig


best deleuzean argument just dropped


Completely understandable. Just obtuse to many, including me.
Also, the "take a break and let don't let The System drag you down" is a staple of many blue-collar philosophies. Same with "don't rush too fast". Synthesizing it with any sort of anti-capitalism is a natural evolution. Used to think poorly of your writing, but it's clicking now.



im gonna jot some of this down. always good to have more down-to-earth stuff to talk about.


Not gonna happen lol, I did like some of the stuff in anti-tech revolution tho


I want to fuck anfem anon


Speeding things up makes time matter less


>I think your reply is talking past all my points rather than engaging with them as they are.
Stop doing this all the time, that anons smart, youre always saying people aren't engaging right. I prefer his post over your op

Stop acting so insufferable

And I like your posta BTW I'm not being mean


>you’re always saying people aren’t engaging right
Even that anon says in his reply unapologetically that he was talking past me lol


Metaphysics != Ontology


Excuse me? What?


Ontology is first philosophy. The question of the substance of beings presupposes knowledge of beings, which relies on a certain understanding of the being of beings.


Show me the time machine


File: 1684399720224.jpg (1.42 MB, 1980x1526, TheSorrowThatKills.jpg)

Is it just me that get confused by the things- and replies-negations stated in this thread… I guess I didn't get anything at all.
Maybe it's because english is not my native. Perhaps to hav similar perception in such topics like u I would like to hear some book suggestionz ^^


What is ‘need’ and how does it differ from desire? The analysis here presupposes that a need is something that one cannot live without, cannot be ‘functional’ without. But upon inspection what is ‘functional’ is a third person’s view of what is ‘good’ (or true) for the possibility of another’s being (though with some capitalist baggage). To say the masses ‘do not need it’ is to already presume that the truth of the possibility of their being is captured in what is functional. The positive mode of concern lies in a leaping ahead and either a domination and alleviation of another’s care, or at the opposite extreme a return of another’s care. To leap ahead and provide someone with the care of being ‘functional’ is pretty arbitrary. I see a lot more for the possibility of being of each person than to be a merely servile creature. To even begin to say what is ‘good’ for another is to take care away and presuppose one already understands the being of another. The need of another is the unconcealment of the truth of their being. But the truth of that being is precisely in openness and possibility. Which is where thinking lies. I cannot think for another person. I can only think for myself. The taking-away of care of the masses is what’s really at stake here when you say ‘I know what is good for them, what their being is’. Is it justified? Maybe not. A teacher can point a student to the possibilities of the student’s being but in the teaching of a certain care dominates the student, makes a work of ‘art’ out of the student. Is it wrong? I don’t really care to moralise about it. Is it ‘the truth of that student’s being’? To some extent yes, but there is a plurality in the truth of the student’s being that is skipped over.


U need freedom! Not water!!!! (This is a joke post)


Suck my dick or no water for you


Your use of the programming version of "=/=" makes me ask, what do you think of Gender Accelerationism and those who talk about it?


You can safely ignore the post. Don't be intimidated by the obscurere academic language which is weaponized to protect the OP ego from critique. The OP is making a banal Buddhist philosophy that poses no threat to capitalism and therefore is uninteresting to everyone else but the OP.


Eh, Byung-Chul Han is Catholic.



i think the freeing of women from the constraints of reproductive biology is a good thing,


hi anarchofem good points very romantic i agree completley can you please paypal me some money


File: 1684435093175.jpg (689.76 KB, 750x1100, Chris smalls.jpg)

Alright, fair, but if a “purely active life” leads us away from class consciousness, how do you account for people like Chris Smalls that gained it through the acceleration of working in an Amazon factory during the height of COVID? It doesn’t seem like a real dichotomy to me and that there is more than one way to the same conclusion. There might be room to look at what each given situation demands.



TBH I think you're a radlib fascist but your posts save the website. BTW I like madoka but why does it have to only be girls because they 'experience more emotions' or whatevs, I think its enforcing the patriarchy though lotsa anime do that to be honest (tbh).


They're all girls because it's a magical girl series, middleschoolers changing into pretty dresses etc. The in-universe explanation is an attempt to make the lore more believable, don't read too much into it.


Hey, Femflag. Just wanted to say thanks for making original and thought provoking threads. It's a breath of fresh air over the bait threads and generals I constantly lurk in.


You can blame the Incubators since they are the ones doing all this, trying to I believe stop the Heat Death of the Universe Through Entropy. The idea is that Teenage girls give the most power since they are in their hormonal stage in life, making them a great battery resource at the expense of turning them into Witches.


I'll talk about this more in the upcoming Tiqqun post


also i appreciate the compliment and ofc femininity itself is the construction of patriarchy

You need both. The vita activa is the pure gathering of expeirences. the vita contemplativa is the processing and ordering of those experiences into that which can then be appropriated by the will.



The bolsheviks were and all communists are by definition accelerationists. Time matters MORE when things accelerate, because more happens in less time. Your post is reactionary.


File: 1684497951338.jpg (56.31 KB, 680x501, c230c03ba83618a8.jpg)

<This text presents a critical perspective on the history of philosophy and its limitations in addressing fundamental existential questions. It suggests that philosophy, as a battle against the deceptive power of language, has been unable to provide real answers to questions about existence and the nature of reality. The author argues that the will-to-power, the drive to assert one's ego onto the world, has become accelerated in modern society, leading to a restless and directionless pursuit of desires. The text also discusses the negative consequences of the domination of work and the erosion of leisure time, which result in an unreflective and unfree existence. The concept of acceleration is examined in relation to the loss of continuity and the disintegration of the self. The fragmentation of collective memory and the rise of political traditionalism are discussed as reactions to the disintegration of history and the acceleration of capitalism. The text concludes by suggesting that true freedom and a new age of thinking can only be achieved through the end of the current philosophical paradigm and the transcendence of capitalism.


ah, the underlying fallacy of basing all value on material production which capitalism grounded in, how i loathe you. y'all are on a merri-go-round. nothing is being processed. moments in accelerated time are transient. history is no longer a history of development– neither in narrative time or non-linear. merely a series of moments. just because 'more happens in less time' (it doesn't actually, 24 hours is 24 hours) doesn't mean your time is accelerating. in many ways it is slowing. what's really happening is your Dasein is being disintegrated into an instrumentality, equivalent with death.


I'm defining value as the amount of porkys and their lumpen scum rightoids shot


anfem anon threads always remind me of why I gave up on continental philosophy. So much of it reads as obscurantist schizobabble at worst and at best obtuse pointless jargon obscuring coherent points that could be made much clearer as >>15367 exemplifies


I know it always boils down to nothing or common fucking sense


File: 1684502648574.jpg (313.41 KB, 1170x1776, Fwap-z7aIAc5tn9.jpg)

this is why we need to uphold Kierkegaardian-Heideggerian thought against revisionist existentialists….


firstly, I just feel a need to be referentially transparent. I will associate each post with a plain version from now on, if y'all agree not to get overly literal about the plain version.

but the primary problem is the plain version like the post you mentioned just doesn't really get to the meat and potatoes of why. WHY does it erode collective memory? WHY does it lead to political traditionalism? WHAT is being accelerated? HOW can we understand time? it misses all those.


what i would suggest is using that post and then bootstrapping yourself up to a full understanding of the OP because it misses important details.


Oh, incomprehensible philosopher, please bestow upon our feeble minds the means to fathom the intricate nature of time. Without your profound elucidation concealed beneath layers of pompous drivel, how could we ever hope to grasp its mysteries? And, oh wise sage, do enlighten us as to the reason why the plain version lacks the exquisite profundity that resonates within your convoluted ramblings. Pray tell, within the labyrinthine corridors of your verbosity, what great insights lie concealed, waiting to unravel the enigmas of time?


Don't judge a book by the number of pages.


If we judge the substance it's just dogshit


> I just feel a need to be referentially transparent.
anfemanon just turned into a functional programming language.


The most vulgar "reading" of D&G i've ever seen. Please quote a single work of theirs that says or even implies this
>class arises because of desire, people need food, so they have to organise labour relations to get it


You have no friends in real life. I know this to be true


>you need both
Alright, I don’t really disagree I guess.


Thank u so much anon, now after I read this and the OP text I think I understand it more :3


second section of anti-oedipus lol



You're retarded, please reread anything you think you've read. Watching youtube videos does not count.


OP, can you please elaborate on your thoughts in regards to cybernetics?


lol, imagine pretending to read anti-Oedipus and getting angry over the internet wrongly arguing that it’s not largely a re formulation of Marx via looking for a proper *explanation* for the *mechanics* of class through a materialist interpretation of Nietzsche’s will-to-power (taking influence from Lyotard’s libidinal economy)….


Cybernetics etc, is the vessel which allows humanity a more full domination over nature and surroundings.


Imagine being unable to find a single quote to back up your brainless pseudery


He's already admitted that he just runs Chat GPT on all his posts to spit out nonsense hence why all the posts don't make sense and are illogical because the AI is just randomly throwing names and phrases around in some pseudo-intellectual attempt to sound like it knows what it's talking about. Stop feeding him with replies.


And by that you mean to say…?


you gave up and are just making stuff up now huh



>Why Marx and Nietzsche? Now that's really mixing things up!"

one might protest at this point. But there is really no cause for alarm.
Readers of Marx will be happy to learn that Marx fares quite well in this
confrontation. One might even say he is trimmed down to bare essentials
and improved upon from the point of view of use. Given Deleuze and
Guattari's perspective, this confrontation was inevitable. If one wants to
do an analysis of the flows of money and capital that circulate in society,
nothing is more useful than Marx and the Marxist theory of money. But
if one wishes also to analyze the flows of desire, the fears and the
anxieties, the loves and the despairs that traverse the social field as
intensive notes from the underground (i.e., libidinal economy), one must
look elsewhere. Since psychoanalysis is of no help, reducing as it does
every social manifestation of desire to the familial complex, where is
one to turn? To Nietzsche, and the Nietzschean theory of affects and

>'As Marx notes, what exists in fact is not lack, but

passion, as a "natural and sensuous object." Desire is not bolstered by needs, but
rather the contrary; needs are derived from desire: they are counterproducts
within the real that desire produces'

Maybe instead of pretending class is some primordial existing material thing you should use your brain and think about where class originates from materially :) choosing to ignore it in favour of vapid essentialism instead of coming to a historical understanding of how class comes about is the real idealism! dont be a cultist retard


>While Deleuze and Guattari quote frequently from Marx and Freud,
it would be an error to view Anti-Oedipus as yet another attempt at a
Freud/Marx synthesis. For such an attempt always treats political
economy (the flows of capital and interest) and the economy of the
libido (the flows of desire) as two separate economies, even in the work
of Reich, who went as far as possible in this direction. Deleuze and
Guattari, on the other hand, postulate one and the same economy, the
economy of flows. The flows and productions of desire will simply be
viewed as the unconscious of the social productions. Behind every
investment of time and interest and capital, an investment of desire, and
vice versa

literally in the intro. like, way to reveal you never even read anti-oedipus's first pages




File: 1684603088806.jpeg (80.3 KB, 1280x720, FPgVUzQX0AsC74h.jpeg)


Psychorrhea: A particular form of thought disorder characterized by vague and bizarre theories of philosophy; usually the stream of thought is incoherent. It is symptomatic of
the hebephrenic or disorganized type of schizophrenia.


"9. No prophecy is necessary to recognize that the sciences now establishing themselves will soon be determined and steered by the new fundamental science which is called cybernetics.This science corresponds to the determination of man as an acting social being. For it is the theory of the steering of the possible planning and arrangement of human labor. Cybernetics transforms language into an exchange of news. The arts become regulated-regulating instruments of information. "


So your answer to me asking for a quote to back up your claim that D&G explicitly say
>class arises because of desire, people need food, so they have to organise labour relations to get it.
is to quote from Foucault's introduction that has no bearing on the claim. everyone knows anti-oedipus is a melding of Nietzsche and Marx as materialist thinkers, that is not what we're arguing. None of what you quoted supports your assertion. Jfc every thread you post in is dogshit


I always forget that anfemanon is literally retarded and unable to define any of the jargon they use.



What the actual fuck is going on here


Philosophy confuses and enrages nerds


but philosophers are nerds


>asking for a quote to back up your claim that D&G explicitly say class arises because of desire
when did i ever say there's an explicit quote saying exactly this you idiot? they say need arises because of desire, so naturally if class arises from need it arises from desire.

>everyone knows anti-oedipus is a melding of Nietzsche and Marx as materialist thinkers

errr ok you're not a serious person if you think Nietzsche was a materialist lol


instead of this fake-ass outrage why dont you actually criticise the content of my argument that it's a necessary flow of D&G instead of
> uhhh well actually this they didnt literally say that verbatim!!
kill yourself pseud



leftypol: the will to power is idealist stop using those words!!
also leftypol: nietzsche was a materialist thinker


leftypol cant read basically lol


It is known


File: 1684667753121.jpeg (353.01 KB, 1366x2048, FtmJZh9aMAIryaq.jpeg)

ok skimmed this thread. at first i thought there is not input for me to make here, though there seems to be some things after all. gunna write this down bcs it touches points that i am a bit ambivalent abt. a lot of this going to be more speculative my apologies… i do suspect that there are some subtle idealist elements at work here. a major problem i suspect is going on here is that you are reducing the task of thinking largely to an abstraction as seen here >>15281 … the issue is that it is one thing to think, and it is another thing for the negativity of thought to be at one w a negativity in the material conditions themselves. if it is not, then it is merely some idle reflection. this goes back to what i was talking about in the last thread… positive freedom is always suppressed in capitalism. it never fully achieves full actuality because workers have little control over their work. this is the fundamental limitation of thinking-as-praxis. it is not to say thinking is useless, but it can be rather impotent. as you have brought up more ideas into this post, i see it appropriate to bring up brzozowski once again

>The man-as-labour metaphysics is not merely descriptive but prescriptive. You WILL work. You WILL be your labour

i think what needs to be said about man-as-labour is that it is not simply a blind fetishization of work. rather, labour is both the primordial site in which Being unfolds, and also the site in which man may be subjugated and reduced to a machine. without understanding the ontological import of labour, we fall into a contemplative liberalism, which only criticizes capitalism to the extent that it makes people work. brzozowski makes a distinction between labour which is largely free and irrational, and that which is mechanized and lifeless
<The α of labour is a leap beyond intellect because, as Bergson states, it is the function of intellect to pragmatically foresee (Bergson 1946, 34). Oblivious, the intellect seeks to formulate grounds for an activity that has no grounds beyond itself. Such grounds only appear after labour has ceased to be a delineating inner gesture, when it has become a mechanically repeatable activity in the space of homogeneous social life

i believe your criticism of accelerationism rests on a misdiagnosis of the cause of this need to temporally recollect… this part is going to be more speculative…
>Proust's 'In Search of Lost Time' is a reaction against the progressive de-temporalization of existence. The self disintegrates into a ‘succession of moments’ (succession de moments)
this to me is a clear reference to bergson's critique of the classical metaphysic of time. in the classical metaphysic, the intellect abstracts time into a mere succession of moments. this leads to a mechanical understanding of the world. likewise our labour can become mechanized and commensurate with the intellect. ultimately, by stripping workers of their autonomy, there is less "irrationality" in labour. we become dominated by hypostasized forms from without. idk if a search for lost time is really the answer, as while it finds some traces of Eternity through contemplation, it doesn't do much to address that mechanizing tendency which is a source of alienation. it feels more an attempt to scoop up what little autonomy we have in modernity rather than to actually seek for more

>This gives rise to reformulated traditions but under capitalist dementia society is forced to hold onto the memory, chasing after the enjoyment of recollection inorganically through a paranoid repression of difference- fascism arises

something ofc to be stressed here is that this memory that is often fetishized by "traditionalists" and the like is often abstracted from the concrete conditions in which it made sense. it is treated as some sort of hypostasized archetype or schema that can just be applied mechanically from without… ok something to say as well is i am a bit iffy on this stuff because the place of the intellect and the mechanical in bergson's system thought is a bit weird. it is not as though the intellect is wholly other to duration, and matter is not wholly devoid of the past either. though i guess this is similar to the fact that proles are not wholly unfree under capitalism. things are not so simple

i also do not understand this insistence that thinking is slowness. really, true "thinking" when fully actual (i.e. a negativity in base itself) is more characterized by an irrationality. slowness is not quite what is required, but rather that (often spontaneous) bringing together of the elements of past habitual (and perhaps also intentional) elements into some individuated section/sections of time


I just farted






Stop bumping your shitty threads man

Unique IPs: 41

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]