A thread focused on discussing the parasocial relationships cultivated by the
Almighty Algorithm to generate profit off of our atomization and society's commodification of petty internet drama.
Brace through the hyper-real lacanian void together!Reminder That None of This Is Real!™
ɢʀᴀʙ ᴀ ᴘᴀɪʀ ᴏꜰ sᴘᴇᴄᴛᴀᴄʟᴇs
—————————————————–
CORE THEORY >The Society of the Spectacle (1967) by Guy Debord📖 •
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0blWjssVoUQ
<The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936) by Walter Benjamin📖 •
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blq9sCIyXgA
>The Culture Industry from Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) by Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer📓 •
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm📖 •
https://libcom.org/article/dialectic-enlightenment-philosophical-fragments-theodor-adorno-and-marx-horkheimer📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSLdd8R8mY
<Understanding Media (1964) by Marshall McLuhan📖 •
https://leftypol.org/edu/src/1782045945238-0.pdf📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ML9n5f1fE
>One-Dimensional Man (1964) by Herbert Marcuse📖 •
https://libcom.org/article/one-dimensional-man-studies-ideology-advanced-industrial-society-herbert-marcuse📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZCoLbEkAqs
<Discipline and Punish (1975) by Michel Foucault📖 •
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michel-foucault-discipline-and-punishment📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s82uU4iRuko
>Simulacra and Simulation (1981) by Jean Baudrillard 📖 •
https://leftypol.org/edu/src/1782045945238-1.pdf📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yxg2_6_YLs
<Manufacturing Consent (1988) by Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky📖 •
https://libcom.org/article/manufacturing-consent-political-economy-mass-media-noam-chomsky-and-edward-s-herman📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M
>The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989) by Slavoj Zizek📖 •
https://leftypol.org/edu/src/1782045945238-2.pdf📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtIckkHsUQ4
<Postscript on the Societies of Control (1990) by Gilles Deleuze 📖 •
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gilles-deleuze-postscript-on-the-societies-of-control📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4Cq_-bLlY
>Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991) by Fredric Jameson📖 •
https://leftypol.org/edu/src/1782045945238-3.pdf📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4k26xGx1zI
<Spectres of Marx (1993) by Jacques Derrida📖 •
https://libcom.org/library/specters-marx-jacques-derrida📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJr0NwXWb6Q
>Capitalist Realism (2009) by Mark Fisher📖 •
https://libcom.org/article/capitalist-realism-mark-fisher📺 •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cb5XJH4NMI—————————————————–
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
>Precursor Material to Post-modernity and Critical Theory📖 •
Karl Marx - Book 1, Chapter 4 of
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm📺 •
Why Marx Was Right: Alienation - PlasticPills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPRxxN4Kh30📖 •
Georg Lukács - Chapter 4 of
History and Class Consciousness (1923)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm📺 •
Marxism After Marx: Reification - The Marxist Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZiI-QKxBKI 📖 •
Antonio Gramsci - Book 1, Chapter 1 of
Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1929)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/problems/intellectuals.htm📺 •
Hegemony: WTF? An introduction to Gramsci and cultural hegemony - Tom Nicholas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LI_2-qsovo📖 •
Louis Althusser -
Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (1970)
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm📺 •
Althusser's Concept of Ideology: A Discussion with Anthony Gavin - Acid Horizon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtOqXxkKwvw
<Documentaries•
The Society of the Spectacle (1974) by Guy Debord
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjF6I6SYjgA•
Manufacturing Consent (1992) by Mark Achbar & Peter Wintonick, with Noam Chomsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li2m3rvsO0I•
The Pervert's Guide to Cinema (2006) and
The Pervert's Guide to Ideology (2012) by Sophie Fiennes, with Slavoj Zizek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYuI4SFw4g0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBcFLmu_tlc•
HyperNormalisation (2016) by Adam Curtis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bv3Tr3jvZM&rco
>Easy-Bake Breadtube (for absolute beginners)•
We're All Fake Now - Wisecrack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTW1mPOJJ_Y•
Are Cell Phones Replacing Reality? - PBS Idea Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AXIAM7dTTg•
The Cultural Significance of Cyberpunk - Cuck Philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvor7hhDKTs•
Introduction to Critical Theory for the 21st Century - Nathan Dufour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7stVZPGxIw•
The Work of Art in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism - Brendan Morris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNKiBJJFXZI
<Situationist Archives•
https://situationist.org/•
https://notbored.org/SI.html•
https://bopsecrets.org/SI/index.htm—————————————————–
RECOMMENDED OP-EDS•
I Don’t Want to Be an Internet Person by Ginevra Davis
https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/11/04/i-do-not-want-to-be-an-internet-person/•
Pluralistic: Tiktok's enshittification by Cory Doctorow
https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys•
Facebook's Threads is so depressing by Jason O. Gilbert
https://jogblog.substack.com/p/facebooks-threads-is-so-depressing>>2950141>>2950136Anyway it what it is, you don't want to compete as men with the rest of us. No, you are a special case. You were born with a dick and balls but, you are actually a woman. I wish the transmen were more advocates for our gender.
>>2950178Another thing I find funny about it is western China fans will say "no China is actually very democratic, look at these grassroots elections were people choose representatives to their local government" while Chinese nationalists will just say "democracy is bad, look at what it's doing to the west". Although to be fair, this could be a language thing. The Chinese user might use "democracy" to mean the US electoral system specifically.
>>2950180Everyone wants to conceive of China in their own image.
Nobody wants to accept a China on its own terms.
>>2950178But what about le "people's billionaire"? Kek.
>>2950181yes, the point is that they'repeoples billionaires, precisely
nothing wrong with having money-handlers who have no political power
>>2950184>le wholesome chungus billionairesWhy doesn't the CCP tax their money away?
>>2950183Good point, I remember that Democracy index thing. To be clear, I'm talking specifically about Chinese people with VPNs and twitter accounts who seem to lean rightoid.
>>2950181William Ding lol
>>2950188why would they tax away their own money someone is merely holding for them?
they dont have to tax shit, they can just seize entire companies when a billionaire displeases them
>>2950191>their own moneySo China just has ceremonial billionaires, then?
You're quite confused.
>>2950193Also, page nine. Seems like most of the west has a different idea of the purpose of democracy compared to China.
>>2950193Also Israel being by far the most hated country lol
>>2950134it would be easy to say that, because they only interact with women through media, they have an idealized and very appealing image of womanhood; also, they are in permanent contact with the worst tendencies of the male population: class tyranny, class humiliation, squalid pettiness, arrogance, pedantry, envy, etc.
but I find it hard to believe that this alone would compel someone to subject themselves to the transition process. maybe there is also the fact that programming is a rather individual activity, even when done in groups, like many other crafts, it is impersonal meditation, so to speak. could
petite bourgeois subjectivism be a part of it?
and I don't like the biological determinism of it, but maybe there is something material contributing to it
>>2950171people talk about scratching liberals
scratch a nationalist and a cuck bleeds
>>2950196No surprise there really
scratch a communist and a revisionist bleeds
>>2950197Looking online, the question was even raised at least 7 years ago as to the prolific nature of trans programmers. It's a cultural stereotype for a reason, so its not just correlated, but caused by a common attribute. I would guess it's the neurodivergence, since gender deviance is noted to be more common with autistic people:
<As around 1.1% of the UK population is estimated to be on the autistic spectrum, this result would suggest that somewhere between 3.5.-6.5% of transgender and gender-diverse adults is on the autistic spectrum.https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/transgender-and-gender-diverse-individuals-are-more-likely-to-be-autistic-and-report-higher-autisticBeing trans makes you 300–600% more likely to identify as autistic than the general public. Programmers are known to be autists. So, the biological aspect would be neurodivergence, but the greater question would be why autistic males feel a greater need to identify this way. In a different culture, it would presumably manifest differently.
null suicide soon 🙏
>>2950205>3.5%>but if we extrapolate it, we can say there is a 300% differenceuntrustworthy angle. besides, even if it was true it is only 3.5% of trans people
>>2950229That's how everyone use statistics, they're like 400% increase in murders and it's 0.6% instead of 0.2,it just sounds so much more interesting
Here is a Socratic dialogue I wrote on the topic of this video:
>atheism makes no sense
<why?
>because morality and logic
<okay, so let's establish morality and logic: is it wrong to kill people?
>yes
<but if God told you to murder people, would it then be good?
>but God wouldn't do that.
<God told Abraham to murder Isaac. Was Abraham justified?
>yes…
<okay, so murder is wrong, unless God tells you to murder.
>I suppose so.
<so, murder isn't wrong, if God tells you to do it. Is rape wrong? Etc.
>what's your point?
<my point is that morality is not subject to law, but to whim. So, if in my reason, I contradict God by defying his command to murder, I am immoral, but if I incline to murder my son, I violate the moral law. The Pharisees were convicted in the law, so are guiltless. How should we know the Son of God if the law does not apply to Him? How should we respect the authority of God if he is a hypocrite? Does this suffice?
>I'm bored of this. How do you derive your godless morality, then?
<just as we began. Ask me if murder is wrong, and I say yes. But how do I judge that murder is wrong and why what means? By reason.
>but if you accept reason, you accept logic, and logic is immaterial
<howso?
>because the laws of logic are abstract. They are not empirical.
<true enough. Now, wouldn't you say that we are determined to logic?
>of course, because of our rational soul
<well, let's not jump ahead. What determines us in reasoning?
>it is the necessity of judgement in a sequence. One moves another.
<right; identity produces the same, contradiction is otherness, etc. But in this, don't we find a curious relation to physical motion?
>how do you mean?
<well, if necessity inclines the certainty of judgement, where objects of the mind move in a sequence to a final end, is this not implying an internal motion, say, between the start and end of a series of moves?
>perhaps, but please continue.
<certainly. If we begin with a claim, it then has cause to another claim, and so the sequence of logic is causal, determined, necessitated, etc. within a chain or series of causes. This is motion, as seen in reality.
>okay, so what's your point?
<my point is that as physical beings we are determined by motion, and as mental beings, we are determined by motion. What rules heaven and earth is the same principle, and so one need not deny physical reality to affirm the mental, or vice versa. Reason is inherent in both.
>so, what are you saying?
<I am saying that the real is rational and that reason is real. If our minds evolved out of matter, it then resembles what is evident in it.
>I don't even know how we got here.
<but we did arrive here by a certain sequence of logic, no? Anyway, the question is, how do we know something is immoral. Because it must also be irrational; unnecessary. I say this, whilst you say that what is immoral is only that which God forbids. Morality to you is irrational, since it does not spring from the judgement of reason, but only loyalty.
>>2950229>extrapolateNo, its a statistical description.
3 is 300% greater than 1. You just can't into maths.
>>2950244You'll notice that he only uses Communist examples and not Hitler.
A bit telling, wouldn't you say?
>>2950238I cba watching 23 minutes of this shit but why would the existence of God mean there was actual objective morality? Why would that not just be another set of arbitrary rules enforced by threat of eternal damnation? Mind you, even if God is real and morality is indeed objective because of this, there appears to be no indication we have any ability to figure out what either God or morailty is.
>>2950268Precisely.
Plato explains this in his dialogue "Euthyphro".
If God = Good, then either God is forced to be good, limiting his power, or Good is whatever God says, in which case, there is no real Good. It is in line with the question "can God create a stone he cannot lift?" If so, he is not all-powerful, and if not, he is not all-powerful. So, God denies the possibility of an absolute morality, and absolute morality denies the possibility of God. Again, we return to the question, "is murder wrong?" Yes – except if God says so. So, there is no morality. The problem is that the concept of God and morality are opposed.
Further is the argument attributed to Epicurus:
Omnipotence contradicts omnibenevolence, so God cannot be good.
>if God is real and morality is indeed objective because of this,As I show, it is the opposite. God excludes any moral possibility.
>>2950268>>2950275There is a convoluted theology of the point in the Bible itself.
We read that Jesus never came to abolish the law, but to fulfill it – he says this even as he breaks the law. He thus appeals to what is termed by Paul, as the differencre between the "letter" and "spirit" of the law. For example, in Matthew 12, we read that Jesus plucks grain on the Sabbath, breaking the law, but the greater law is hunger, as Jesus explains. This seems relativistic and circumstantial, but it has a greater rationale. Too, we read in Matthew 12 and Luke 15, connection between the parables of lost sheep, that even on the Sabbath shall a man rejoice more greatly at saving 1 sheep than keeping 99. Here, the spirit of the law outweighs the letter by what we may term as a "greater good", which nonetheless requires a primary transgression. It is the same logic employed by Plato in his "noble lie"; that it is better to negate virtue (e.g. truth) so as to allow a greater virtue. Here then, what is best is that which is last, rather than first. We then suppose that all evil is for the ends of a greater good, as Jesus says in John 9, that the negation of negation is best to glorify God. But this has its own problems. If I stab you, then heal you, I negate the negation, but meaninglessly. Too, if God is omnipotent, consequentialism is futile. The point here though is that there are two laws; the letter and spirit. The spirit negates the letter, so is affirmed by its abolition; sublation. The issue is that this presumes the subjectivity of time – we can say "all's well that end's well", but for God, nothing begins, so cannot end. So, God's glory is apparently proven by negating a negation, but the negation doesn't have to exist in the first place, unless there is no God.
>>2950275Would you say any position of moral realism could be correct at all? It bothers me sometimes that I know fuck all about moral philosophy and just live life essentially as a nihilist out of pure ignorance.
>>2949830You've got brain problems
>>2950341What an absolutely idiotic meme lmao
>>2950345It's posted in a place called r/Palestinian_Violence , what would you expect
>>2950348I mean, the Confederates? Really?
>>2950238>>because the laws of logic are abstract. They are not empirical.WRONG! Logic is nothing but 0s and 1s which we can model in nature with electrical circuits. Computers are CONCRETE LOGIC. Logic is MATERIALIST.
>>2950248Like half of these people will transition at 25 the latest when they realize they can't be twinks/femboys forever
The other half will just become regular guys
>>2950268>>2950275There's literally no reason to accept the premise that a God, if one existed, would be good to begin with.
What if there were a God but he was either incompetent or evil, hmm?
Why are the Red Scare subreddits so transphobic? I’m a trans woman and I like to browse them because I’m intererested in topics like film and literature, but it seems like most of the userbase are cis women and gay men who resent us for some reason.
It’s funny because I can see a lot of crossover between them and /lgbt/.
A crossover between the 4tran and RS communities would be the worst place on the internet, it’s for the better that these two stay apart
>>2950692A good part of Red Scare culture is that they hate nerds (because they want to LARP as mean girls) and the online trans community has become dominated by AGP who are obsessed with stuff like Fallout New Vegas so they’re kind of natural enemies
>>2950711Yes they associate the trans / queer community with buttertroll Pokemon players while they pretend to be the cool mean kids from a Bret Easton Ellis Novel
tfw trans woman who mostly hangs out in cis female and gay make spaces because I want to talk about fashion and pop music instead of fucking deltarune or whatever they talk about in these trans subreddits
HSTS = effeminate gay men who transitioned
AGP = nerds who couldn’t fit into traditional masculinity and transitioned
>>2950692The user base is literally 90% CT refugees that want to pretend they're above gay chinese jokes. Whatever women there have long left for one of the splinter subs.
>>2950320It depends on what we mean by morality.
Typically, morality concerns practice; that which we should or should not do, either as a means to an end, or as an end in itself. In the first case, the ends justify the means, and in the second, the ends and the means are identical. Children often ask each other moral dilemmas to penetrate this: "would you rather?" We must also ask ourselves if there is anything that we would never do, no matter the consequence. For example, Satan offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, but Jesus declines. Where we betray our moral "principles", we "sell our soul" in common verbage.
So, there are two cases; (i) "consequentialism" – the morality that the ends justify the means (e.g. Plato's noble lie, for a "greater good"). The other moral case is (ii) "deontology" – the morality that the ends of an act is considered in itself, so one cannot do it out of duty; necessity (e.g. Jesus not selling his soul, even for all of the earth). Conversely, one has the need to also perform certain acts. So then, in both, there is a positive and negative aspect; what we ought to do, and what we ought not to do. Adolescent boys often ask each other these questions, "would you do [shameful thing] for [x amount of money]?" Here, this introduces a moral question. If one will not accept the money under any cost, we say that this person has "principles". A moral principle cannot be broken, so the principled person has a belief so strong that they would rather suffer than to submit to falsehood.
I say "falsehood" in place of immorality, because if one "believes" in a moral principle, they imagine it to be "true", no? Why else would you believe in something if you didn't believe in it? So then, all morality is not just practical; the practical reveals a theoretical consideration. So, if I ask you the question "is there anything you wouldn't do for money?" Or "is there anything you wouldn't do even if you could get away with it?" Then you are a moral realist, because now you have stepped over mere consequentialism into a sense of moral duty. I would further state that one's genuine politics reflects one's morality. There are political grifters who would "sell their soul" for money, but there are also political martyrs, who have "political principles". So, I think God complicates things, since Heaven/Hell is a consequence of activity, so is sought as a means to an end. Only where an action is done, or not done, without reward, is an act truly moral. So, I would say that morality is that which you would not do, even if you could get away with it – therefore, I suspect you are not a moral "nihilist" 🙂
>>2950812Assumed this since i watched the one about the nonce film director.
Had to assume it was made up because nobody half-sane or worthy of watching even as popcorn would have this reaction and whimsy to such serious claims, playing it off for gags.
Having said that, the director guy is probably still an absolute wrong 'un though.
>>2950803I think I get what you're saying, but the reason I say I'm a nihilist is because I feel like there's nothing grounding the principles I definitely do have. I could seriously endanger people's wellbeing by halfassing my job every day so I can get home to my family early, but I don't because that is not right. Why is that not right? Well… Because it's just not bro trust me. Maybe nihilist isn't the right word, perhaps vulgar utilitarian would be more accurate. You could say morality is real, but that at the end of the day it is pretty much arbitrary what set of moral prinicples an individual holds or the importance they attribute to them. And if that is the case, why is one set of principles more correct than another? Is moral realism correct if there is not some universal standard by which to judge an individuals actions?
Of course, moral principles are not really arbitrary, because, as the saying goes, we live in a society, so in that sense one could also say morality is also real. That is, a product of material reality which includes human beings and the social formations they inhabit. Saying morality doesn't exists would then be no different than saying money isn't real, despite the fact you can definitely take your fake money and go to the store to buy very real use values.
Idk man >>2951026>Why is that not right? Well… Because it's just not bro trust me. It does become circular. A thing is wrong because it's wrong, and so on, which is irrational. To apply reason to morality is to rationalise why we at least feel that a thing is wrong, rather than know it – that's why I say moral principles are beliefs (e.g. strong opinions), not factual. If it could be known, we could offer proof, so we do not actually know.
>vulgar utilitarianWell, utility is considered both absolutely and relatively, as well as positively and negatively. In view of negative utility, death is best for all things, since this means a lack of displeasure. It seems rational to kill ourselves to end suffering, yet we cling to life, and wish others to do the same. Is life then moral or immoral? For positive utility, there is the idea of mutual benefit, or fairness, and the idea of one-sided gain. If considered absolutely, however, absolute one-sided gain could be justified so long as a minority serves to please a majority. This is the typical psychology of scapegoating. Say, a child is passed around to a bunch of adults for the sake of sexual pleasure. Here, one victim serves many victors. So, utility is increased, but considered totally. Critics of utilitarianism refer to such things as "utility monsters" where it is converse, of majorities serving priviliged minorities, e.g. slavery. So, if "utility" is the moral object, it cannot serve itself while it serves all. Either it will be shared, to a lower intensity, or it will be hoarded.
>Is moral realism correct if there is not some universal standard by which to judge an individuals actions?Well, the fact that we can reason about morality shows that there is "something" to discuss. I doubt we can be like Moses and deliver the moral law, but at the same time, we see recurrence of moral themes throughout history. It's my belief that morality doesn't really change in history. Jesus spoke of universal love. We still speak of universal love.
>we live in a societyBut don't you find an interesting phenomenon between the letter and spirit of the law? The ruling class preach morals which they don't follow, like how parents say "do as I say, not as I do". The child internalises morality which the parent betrays. As a result, the child is more moral than the parent. I would compare this to Hegel's master-servant dialectic. The master is weakened by his mastery. Marx:
<The English Established Church, e.g., will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income. Now-a-days atheism is culpa levis [a relatively slight sin, c.f. mortal sin], as compared with criticism of existing property relations. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htmNotice then how hypocrisy doesn't reveal the unreality of morals, but the reality of morals, since a hypocrite fails to practice one's ideals. To me, the persistence of moral ideals proves that morals are real. Where and what morals are "in themselves" is another discussion.
>>2951026>>2951041Sorry, to pardon myself, I will correct what I said.
I shouldn't say that moral realism is "proven" by anything.
Rather, moral intuition points to "something" beyond immediate reality.
If you are a Marxist, this would indeed be "society", but morality also shows its own transhistorical character, so is immanently universal. The bourgeois enlightenment was about realising this universality, but by the rise of capitalism, liberalism turned to a cynical self-interest, as opposed to utopian visions. So, the real socialist critique to me is that the bourgeoisie are hypocrites, not that their moral intuition is wrong.
>>2951041>>2951052>>2951026As per my Socratic dialogue:
>>2950238We see that logic is a description of need; necessity is what determines a sequence of reasoning. If morality is rational, then it must also be considered in regard to need. For the human being, his primary need is survival, making his most immediate object the satiety of food and drink. Without these, man cannot fulfill his needs, and so cannot be purposeful (e.g. teleological) of his own being. So then, need comports primarily to purpose or meaning, which begins in feeding and drinking. To be a human being is to be determined to these ends, and so to give the greatest meaning to one's survival. This then explains why we cling to life, since one's being is self-determined. What then is our being? Human being. What is best (i.e. most moral) for human beings? That which satisfies its needs, and so on. Politically, isn't socialism fundamentally a moral theory of providing for the needs of humanity generally, rather than particularly?
In terms of needs themselves, there are different ideas; Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" is most famous, and it has a similar reasoning to the primary and secondary needs in the economist, Carl Menger's system. Once we find satiety in primary needs (e.g. food, drink, shelter), we then become superfluous, or increasingly needless in our desires. Plato discusses this in terms of "wealth". If health is simply the negation of sickness, then wealth is the negation of poverty. The rich man then is poorest, since he requires the most things to satisfy his needs (the desire for luxury itself proves poverty). If we don't need much, we are the richest man, and so on. So then, the difference between need and want is the same difference between hunger and gluttony. So then, wouldn't you say that "need" defines morality, in terms of what is most essential to our own human being, firstly? Need defines morality, since it is logical, and reality itself is a rational entity.
>>2951060Something something… I wish both sides could lose?
Since Pahlavists want to be bombed so badly, it would be the best of all possible worlds to do so.
>>2951067>Since Pahlavists want to be bombed so badly, it would be the best of all possible worlds to do so.99% of "Pahlavists" live in the US or Europe and would be unaffected by bombing Iran.
"ai coding is fine but ai art is bad and wrong"
there's materialist zero logic to this
oung Rock is genuinely such a fucking insane concept for a show. The show itself is essentially a generic sitcom, but what makes it so bizarre is just how radically its portrayal of reality differs from what we know about Dwayne Johnson's actual childhood.
The show depicts young Dwayne growing up in a fairly typical sitcom family, a workaholic but loving father and a no-nonsense but equally loving mother. And that's what makes it so fucking insane. In reality Dwayne's father, Rocky Johnson, was constantly cheating to his wife, frequently absent and faced multiple sexual assault allegations, including allegations involving minors. the last one's being when he was a guidance councilor at a community center in 2000.
Dwayne's mother cause of this life, struggled with depression, and when Dwayne was 15, she attempted to kill herself by walking into oncoming traffic. Dwayne and his siblings had to restrain her physically from killing herself.
And Dwayne who signed off on the show and serves as its narrator depicts this family dynamic as that of a sitcom-loving family, which is fucking insane.
>>2951132A lot of wrestlers, especially from the era that Rocky Johnson competed in, had questionable morals to put it mildly. The wrestler Jake "the Snake" Roberts father, Grizzly Smith, was a notorious pedophile who may have murdered one of his daughters/rape victims. Another wrestler Buck Zumhoff is currently serving a long stretch for molesting his daughter and he had served time before for another sex assault too. Those are just two of the most infamous.
>>2951159I'm well aware of that, what I find insane is presenting that life-style as a wholesome sitcom family, presenting your pedophile father who you cut contact with as a loving family man whose only flaw is that he works too hard.
>>2951159roidfags be raping. roidfags be noncing.
>>2951159>Aurelian Smith Jr.[7] was born in Gainesville, Texas. His father, Aurelian "Grizzly" Smith (1932–2010), also a wrestler, left his mother when she was 17 by which time she had given birth to another child. Roberts lived with his grandmother until she died in 1966, forcing him to move back to live with his father and his new wife. Roberts had a strained relationship with his pedophilic father,[8] and was sexually and physically abused by his stepmother during his childhood, which included vaginal penetration - his father was doing the same thing to his daughters (Aurelian Jr.'s sisters) too.[8] He has a half-brother, Michael Smith, and a half-sister, Robin Smith, both of whom also became wrestlers. During the late 1980s, all three wrestled at the same time for the WWF (now WWE).[9] >>2951171It might be because pro wrestling eventually became promoted as a family friendly or at least a child friendly or specifically boy friendly form of entertainment. That might've actually made it easier for those sleazier types to operate. Pro wrestling was always a fairly sleazy business, probably like most of them really. It'd be interesting if they made fictional show about pro wrestling that dealt with the darker aspects of the business. There was that about GLOW wrestling but never watched it. Also that Wrestler movie though I don't know if any have touched the pedophile and sex assault controversies.
>>2951336SHARTduro was an evangeliKKKal so no surprise he starts turning Zionist
>>2951365She made Oblivion
>>2951365it's kinda funny people called Channel 5 the new Vice News and he's making the same mistakes that killed Vice News by just promoting shitty people and grifters out of a vapid sense of "public interest". A few months ago he even had to apologize to his fans because HUNTER BIDEN tried to rugpull Channel 5 viewers with a crypto scam after getting the Channel 5 mailing list from Andrew.
>>2951342the tradcath larper was raised jewish and the artist was triggering her was raised catholic
>>2951342Why the fuck is she crying
>>2951375She just has a lot of feelings about beauty and aesthetics okay
>>2951159>>2951183The culture was pretty toxic. You had these gigantic men who were treated like superheroes, all of whom were on steroids and whatever drugs were popular at the time (cocaine, acid, LSD), constantly starting trouble.
There’s a podcast featuring The Undertaker in which he talks about the bone street krew, an unofficial friend group consisting of him, Yokozuna, The Godfather and a few other guys. He tells a story about going to a club, and so these gigantic guys, dressed in leather jackets, would walk in and everyone else would move away from the best seats. They ordered beers but had to leave their seats for some reason. When they returned hours later, their seats were still empty and their beers were still sitting there untouched. They got a kick out of that.
>>2951534>You know what the scariest parts about this is? Lack of medical care available for americans. Not even animals are treated this badly.
>>2951536In the UK we have the NHS and yet the mental health care is somehow worse.
I have said this before and will say again. Rest of the world should send humanitarian aid to USA.
>>2951534This woman is a classic schizophrenic, where is the evidence that she has been fucked with by powerful people?
>>2950973Who is your favorite gay guy in this vid anons? I'm partial to skinny bald guy with glasses or black tanktop asian guy
>>2951598Best: Muscly Asian
Worst: Agent Kochinski
>>2951599>Agent KochinskiThere's at least three Agent Kochinski variants there tho
>>2951534it's interesting that "the voice" that schizophrenics hear is always in their first language
>>2951534Picture a society where techbros run the underlying infrastructure of the state, regardless of any assurances. Where every interation you have with people, money or technology is centralized under the control of a few oligarchs. Every action you take is measured, analyzed and, if you happen to be worth the effort, recorded. Then some vast network of computers decides how life is going to go for you. Silently, without so much as a single piece of paper being signed, your life is decided for you.
Was that bad luck? Or did your job applications get sent to the bottom of every stack because your secret PalantirScore is too low? Nobody knows, the SAAS office software provider swears nobody has a back door. That's just conspiracy. You can rent freely, and cheaply, everybody does it. Personal (read: non-cloud, local) computing is such an environmental unfriendly thing! Such waste.They don't need to control your mind when so much of your environment relies on tech.
The west is building a prototype in Ukraine. The first few post-war years will be interesting to watch. The entire state bureaucracy is being privatized and outsourced to western techbros with zero transparency.
>>2951534Is this HannahWurld person a good candidate for advancing the TempleOS project or nah?
This is a very good video, but I feel the need to criticise the numerical realism applied to the fifth case of mathematical scepticism. It is said that Pi as a "really long number" cannot be fully represented (e.g. as an infinity), but it actually exists (e.g. in itself). Does it though? Where do numbers actually exist? Here is then the category error, confusing quantity and number. Numbers are representatives, and quantities are abstractions. A real quantity is a contradiction in terms, the same way that nature does not make triangles, yet triangles are the basis of all further geometry (e.g. Euclid's Elements). Supposing "numbers" to really exist begins in the fallacy of supposing "quantity" to really exist. The sixth point also invokes the problems of abstraction, as given in the terms of any set. Infinity is simultaneously a finitude (e.g. a set), so there is no infinity, except as a representation of a set, which in itself is singular. But I will ask you anons, is mathematics discovered?
>>2951342Oh joy, crocodile tears done by the fake "Tradcath" (Protestant LARPing as a Catholic) influencer.
Her tears are all part of the act.
>>2951342Isn't she the daughter of an oil tycoon?
>>2951364I'd say in LatAm they maybe are.
>>2951963I'm sorry but I'm stupid and my brain if filled with bourgeois sophistry; therefore, I cannot accept what you're saying
>>2951963I think we moved beyond Cartesian dualism.
>>2952034>I think we moved beyond Cartesian dualism.Have we, though?
You can't reconcile the real and the abstract. Both are unconditonal.
The curiosity of abstraction is that it determines its own ends, so is also concrete. For example, a triangle counts as an abstract fact, not an abstract fiction. You can't even imagine a 4-sided triangle, say. It is still the case that abstractions are not real, despite having truth.
>>2952042>>2952047<le HR women!Tell us you are PMCs without telling us.
>>2952052sorry I don't care what a "spiritual atheist" has to say about Jordan Peterson's postmodern but not postmodern Christianity
>>2952053What is the point if Hasan isn't there to shill capitalism
>>2952080He really strikes me as the kind of guy who if he had teenage fans he'd most definitely be trying to sleep with them, but also has devised a system he's put a lot of thought into that he thinks will stop him getting caught.
>>29511250, he's going to triple down on the zionist shit and fully embrace vice signaling
>>2952125And the wife will back his return so he can continue to bring in the cash.
>>2952160cytube link
https://tv.leftypol.org/r/Streaming(unless the dorks disable embedding)
>>2951342Can you just be offended by shit and the attention economy will give you tokens?
Because I find most of existence highly offensive
I
>>2952042There was a fascist post about spiritual girls and how you might 'enlighten' them toward fascism, I suppose you could just as easily 'enlighten' them toward communism in the same way.
>>2952210Communism is materialist and anti-SSpirituality tho
>>2952210Spiritualism is only a hair's breadth away from fascism, while not being much like communism at all
>>2952210If the same way isn't building class consciousness then it isn't going to work and you are retarded.
>>2952053Watching it right now, it's just a bunch of freaks spouting the most cliche talking points ("lobbying is voting with your money" "uyghur extermination camps" "what about punk rock bro"), and Haz infuriates me once again because he still unable to respond with good arguments.
>>2952300I think any of the guys from Midwestern Marx would do a better job
>>2952246Incredible things are happening in China
>>2952246The spirit of Mao got stuck in the John Deere again.
>>2952168>>2952066>>2952053holy shit this was so boring, he didn't chimp out even a little bit and mostly fielded the most stock anticommunist canards you ever heard
>>2952426Couture by Tetsuya Nomura
>>2952426It's a shame she's a fascoid grifter because, fuck, would
>>2952426>because I don't think any of these people are really Jewish.That ending came out of left field. What the hell did that have to do with anything.
>>2952442I was ripping on this woman and some other woman was getting mad at me for making fun of a middle aged woman lol. This chick is 27 and younger than the other woman who was getting offended(who had no idea who this War on Beauty chick is.)
>>2952442She cleans up well and looks fine but I think a lot of this "war on beauty" stuff is projection outwards. She's really very insecure about her appearance.
>>2952442eh she just looks like every white girl ever if you live in a big city. The fact she's a billionaire's daughter and looks so mid after probably dozens of plastic surgeries is kinda sad. Like at least Ivanka Trump looks like a blow up sex doll after all those surgeries. This chick just looks certifiably Mid.
>>2952444her audience wants her to blame the jews (unaware she is jewish)
>>2952490>The essence of all art is rage baiting the soul into feeling something.trve
>>2952243ok i was pretty meh about the ai slop but then the end had me rollin
>>2952354>mostly fielded the most stock anticommunist canards you ever heardyou only need stock anticommunist canards to keep people brainwashed. lies become "common sense" when repeated often
>>2952504The bit with the phone got me
>>2952300>and Haz infuriates me once again because he still unable to respond with good arguments.wow maybe because his fuckin job is to make communism look like retarded maga chud shit just like Hasan's job is to make communism look like standard liberalism
>>2952506Only when they don’t run into immediate anecdotal daily realities
>>2952508They’re on the same payroll and also gay with each other
>>2952510so much hair, so much sweat, and they're both anatolian too
>>2952511Haz is the insecure bottom
>>2944308isn't it interesting how pedophilia is a behavior which develops from the patriarchal social structure, and yet, this 'pedo-hunter' content is produced to flatter the male ego as being a 'protector' of children.
I think the real nature of this content has nothing to do with 'protecting children', it exists as a backlash to the exploitation of children which happens outside the acceptable boundries of patriarchal society; preists can abuse children, fathers can abuse children, but a line is drawn when men attempt to abuse a child which is not 'rightfuly theirs to abuse'.
Reddit is now a website purely for llms, having an actual opinion (literally any opinion that isn't in line with silicon valley freaks) will get you banned, it's pretty much linkedin at this point.
>>2952611x dot com née twitter is also linkedin probably even more than reddit, since that's where CEOs post their shit. i'm not even exaggerating, literally i had some town square bullshit with the big cheese in the place i work at and he was asking employees to juice the company on x.com and linkedin
>>2952668the kaiser simply sent a basket of exiled "radicals" (how he envisioned it) back to russia without a care in the world for whether they were bolshevik, menshevik, anarchist, liberal, or whatever. why? because he saw them as a destabilizing element against his WW1 enemy. lenin gladly accepted that help because it was the easiest and safest way to get back into russia after the february revolution and start pushing for revolutionary defeatism and start attacking the provisional government. not all "color revolutions" are made equal, we judge them by their results
>>2952669gregory gapon led the 1905 revolution, which lenin described as the dressing rehearsal for 1917, while under the Okhrana payroll. the reality is glowies are not omnipotent and sometimes counterproductive
>>2952525This game isn't very good.
>>2952684He should sign his assests over to his side chick and work under the table for cash only. Maybe leave California and get a job then quit it when they find out. Rinse and repeat.
>>2952683whatever incipient movement that's not just generalized anti-incumbent sentiment is going to die in january when hakeem jeffries is named speaker of the house and hasan makes his audience swallow the L, all the energy spent on the midterms will be wasted ahead of 2028.
>>2952671hell even ISIS counts as that if we want modern exemples,getting paid doesn't make you an unthinking puppet to the guy giving you money,it's just the path of least resistance
>>2952732The explanation is always that you are in fact retarded.
>>2952732Commodified outrage drives engagement on social media platforms, so there are financial incentives to generate retarded culture war idpol slop images like the one you posted
>>2952737why are you upset?
>>2952738that makes sense and i'm sure it was posted by some right-wing grifter account based in south asia. but i can't deny feminist media is always ugly as fuck. i was wondering if there's some theory explanation for it or it's just an aesthetic choice that all feminists randomly subscribe to wanting to look like slobs.
>>2952732>if I don't see boobas and Stellar Blade cleavage and flashing level of unrealistic beauty and fitness, it's ugly.you need to go back.
>>2952743>feminist mediai wont even click the thumbnail but i 100% guarantee there's nothing anywhere close to "feminist media" in that video
>>2952746i don't think it's even a video i just took that image from /v/ and wanted to see if any of you guys had an opinion on it.
>>2952743Are you trying to prove my hypothesis that you are retarded?
>>2952749well my opinion is that none of those are "feminist media" to begin with
>>2952743>feminist mediaI don't really know what you mean by that. Like the barbie movie? I think Margot Robbie is pretty hot tho tbh
>>2952426lol she doesn't know how to pronounce jeffrey deitch lol
>>2952761I'm struggling to think of
any video game I would describe as feminist media tbh. Most games are about riding trucks or slaying things with a sword or whatever.
Will GTA 6 feminist media? It has a girlboss latina main character. She can get it tho, so it kind of goes against anon's point
Would be great if he could qualify what he means
>>2952765>Besides, a lot of you are so autistic that anything isn't generic flat anime same face looks ugly to you.not true, I think a lot of non-anime but still asian-inspired games like Resident Evil have really attractive female characters.
>Human noses and cheekbones scare you.real people don't have supermodel gaunt faces either though. that's just meth/plastic surgery face that for whatever reason the beauty industry idolizes. like the argument that the characters in that image are more sincere or a more accurate portrayal of femininity just seems wrong to me. the ghost of yotei character is probably the most "real" and even then its just because they took a very average looking actress and scanned her face without any artistic elements being added, which imo is kinda lame.
>>2952764>Would be great if he could qualify what he meansfrom top left to bottom right the games in that image are Ghosts of Yotei, Star Wars Outlaws, Last of Us II(I think or some other Naughty Dog slop), and Kingdom Come Deliverance II.
>>2952770he asks you to qualify what do you mean by feminist media, not list the games in the image. you really are stupid in a way only the unemployable can afford.
>>2952767True, Disco is feminist media. Klaasje can get it as well tho.
>>2952768Probably, probably
>>2952770>Ghosts of Yotei, Star Wars Outlaws, Last of Us II(I think or some other Naughty Dog slop), and Kingdom Come Deliverance IIThose are just games tho, what makes them feminist media? Is it what the anon above said about it not being anime slop/the women wear clothes?
>>2952771It's pretty feminist coded I think, I never played it but she looks like a female gigachad
>>2952732>>2952768The real materialist question is why goymers spend time yelling about woke and titties in vydia, while music and book fans don't and are actually normal.
>>2952764not explicitly feminist but Shion from xenosaga is the weltgeist o algo
Overwatch is a feminist game.
>>2952785Thats not the same girl uygha
>>2952785Nyooooo!! We must fight beauty harder!
>>2952786It's a cartoon character from an unreleased video game uygha. She's not real. They can make her look like whatever they want.
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1482712603664317&id=TheGBSGaming&seo_visit=1# >>2952781perhaps because most "goymers" are incels….? We need some social science studies to corroborate.
>>2952783>Shion from xenosaga<Shion as seen in Xenosaga Episode I has been called "cute" and "likable" by critics.[19][20] IGN also praised the more realistic character designs seen in Episode II, noting that Shion's design became "more flattering", having "been injected with ye old 'Babe Serum.'"[21] RPGamer also praised the design change, though they felt that Shion's lack of glasses in that episode was "amusing".[22] In a review of the first volume of Xenosaga: The Animation, GameSpot compared Shion and KOS-MOS to "the ultimate fanboy fan-service pair", feeling that Shion was an example of a "cute, yet smart glasses girl".[23]
<Personalitywise, Shion has been described by GameSpot as being "pretty straightforward as a heroine, though maybe a little ditzy for someone who's supposedly one of the best scientists in the galaxy".[24] On the other hand, IGN felt that the character was "more complicated than she first lets on".[25] In a review of the Xenosaga anime, another reviewer from IGN noted that Shion's idealism and naivety were out of place considering her tragic past, and that it was annoying "since it seems to happen a lot with anime heroines".[23] GameSpy echoed this concern, stating that Shion was "often naïve to the point of unbelievability".[20] On voice acting, GameSpy felt Shion in Episode I was "excellent" despite the game not having "Hollywood-quality" acting. The site called the character a "calm center" around which the rest of the game is built.[26]Is there discourse around this character or something? Idgi
>>2952798I don't think all that naked is feminism, or close to be feminist, lol. Like, look at Rikku from FF-X2, and she's 17, lmao. Always women in fit outfit and showing too much skin is for male gaze. Which is not necessarily sexist or misogynistic, if one has the mental tools to understand that's unrealistic and it's not how women are most of the time, but is largely consumed by hollow men with a peanut for brain, so it reinforces their cultural perception about women.
Look at Aloy from Horizon Zero Dawn. That's how a game that is not looking to exploit male gaze looks like.
I don't think there's a good AAA
feminist game out there. Maybe Silent Hill f, and still…
>>2952791>Some people say thisWho?
>>2952798the average game reviewer hasn't read the books that the game title references.
She starts as a nerdy shy woman, and turns into an ubermensch world historical figure to overcome the eternal recurrence.
I'm not being hyperbolic, the games make heavy use of gnosticism, and german/hegelian philosophy.
Jungian gendered archetypes play a strong role, with the anima and animus being played directly by Mary Magdalen and Jesus Christ.
Shion's agency and will to power is key to the climax of the game.
Another gendered theme is the ideal woman, which is seen to be accomplished by two man-made androids, KOS-MOS and T-elos. Both are supreme in their function, but have very different aesthetics. Their struggle for self-determination is another theme.
I don't really know how to classify this, as it's not explicitly feminist, but still empowers women and gives them agency.
>>2952814>Horizon Zero Dawnwell they did decide to change the actress face for the sequel lol
>>2952764Well depends what we mean by feminism. Hollow Knight Silksong and Laika: Aged with Blood are feminist. If we mean feminism in a broad sense and not as a specific bourgeois ideology, then there are an uncountable number of games that are feminist.
>>2952817people on the internet, unnamed anonymous behind fake names and pictures posters in video reviews or game reviews.
>>2952836What's feminist about those games? How are they feminist media?
From what I can see the characters in those games are like dogs and bugs, so I don't know where to place them on the goonability scale
>>2952853>What's feminist about those games?nothing, he's just fucking stupid
>>2952781Because books and music aren't a visual medium?
Brooks or music neither require a high budget and there's ALOT of it. People typically read and listen to thr Brooks and music they Luke/are interested in.
For video games there's only a few big companies tuhat have the budget for AAA games so you're stuck with whatever they make (that's not my perspective, I don and don't think anyone should care for western 3D AAA slop).
If you want good artwork just play East Asian games some Indies are fine too
>>2952814>RikuAnd iirc she's also retarded, like actually. Not explicitly stated, beyond in-universe lol-so-random and having a prepubescent mental age. Also conveyed through everyone low key thinking she has the death drive of an unattended baby and needs to be protected.
She may be 17, but she acts like a low tween. Riku is fanservice for pedos. Who, despite their mediocrity, think so high of themselves that in order to fantasize about grooming a youth into a lover, the subject of the fantasy has to be downgraded to actual, in universe, mental retardation.
>>2952853Hornet is a strong independent fembug who don't need no manbug. Jokes aside I would argue Silksong is in fact feminist for portraying a female in a leading role without any exploitation of her sex appeal/romance or any prominent male characters involved in the story. It's very rare for a piece of media starring a woman to portray her as an independent entity rather than being a counterpart to a male(see:GTA6, TLoU, etc).
>>2951365>>2951368I low key think Andrew is being groomed like Charlie Kirk and Russel Brand. The doors of the grift-o-sphere open for these people and suddenly it becomes the path of least resistance to obscene amounts of money and clout. And then, the very same power who elevate them, throw them to the lions for some cheap spectacle.
Everyone loses when these climbers are given an easy path.
>>2952917People rating and comparing women like this on the base of attractiveness is vapid, infantile and quite chuddy actually.
>>2952921>>2952935i was gonna come in here and say "ironically the replies to the original tweet are all women" because that's what usually happens with these viral personality test fads, but in fact it's just a bunch of chuds projecting an entire personality and fantasizing about a future with AI GENERATED WOMEN
https://goyimx.com/cold_and_quiet/status/2120143114878758915humanity has completely lost the plot
>>2952952This dude definitely has csam on his hard drive
>>2952862I guess grooming is the new buzzword for people doing things reactionaries don't like. There's a minor asshurt wave on youtube right now because a trans woman made a cartoon with a scene where the male protagonist has drinks with the transfem protagonist, and is convinced to go on estrogen and transition. Rightoids have been crying about it being "grooming" non-stop.
>>2952900You have brain damage.
>>2952927>Startup Grifters dropping "entrepreneur" for "Founder""You see, I'm too important to be a mere
startup "entrepreneur". I'm a
Founder, my shitty ideas are not mere barely-proof of mostly-dogshit concepts, built by other people with the money I steal through a pyramid scheme. MY IDEAS will not gather dust in a dragon's hoard of patents at some transnational corporation."
"I'm a Founder, Peasant. I write my name upon things and call them mine. I'm just like ."
>>2953023 (me)
Just like [
Ebay Mafia Rerference]
>>2953023
>THE FOUNDERSHector would be very proud.
>>2952921True but the girl on the left is really bretty
Revived from 2023/24, Link Arcana is an old school curated web directory, over 1200 sites, compared to the 300~ listed when the project was abandoned. Peep the solarpunk 'roku city''. Curation leans heavy marxist/socialist/anarchist/communist.
https://linkarcana.neocities.org/>>2953189omg he mentioned my favorite great man of history! im soying out!
>>2953189He should've done a live reading of Lenin's Appeal to Soldiers.
>>2953309At this point antisemitism is more or less justified
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2953309I swear every other post from this guy is "DA JOOS " lmao
>>2953346it IS the hot topic amongst the nazis
>>2953346Jews are people and can be chauvinist and awful, outright villains sometimes, the vast majority support the existence of Israel. They demand to be treated as a vulnerable minority while raking in the privileges of the original WASP ruling class of the US. This is like complaining about Irish Republicans being critical of Ulsterites.
>>2953346socialism of the fools etc.
shit empanada has no theory, so he just parrots whatever is the most inflammatory (and therefore profitable for his personal brand) "radical" opinion around. which is why he falls for ZOGposting, transphobia,
>>2953349one or N of your claims could be true or not, that's not the point.
the point is that "DSA is essentially a racial chauvinist organization that places Jews on top of everyone else" is objectively a reactionary position because DSA is essentially a national chauvinist organization that places labor aristocrats of all "races" on top of everyone else, *in service* (unwitting or otherwise) of white supremacy.
<Ooooooh! PedoEmpanada said something OUTRAGEOUS again! I better cap this and post it on leftypol dot org. Later I will samefag a few saying how based he is for whatever reactionary nonsense he is spewing.
>>2953373I don't like this guy but this pedo smear is obviously bad faith and makes you look like a shill.
>>2953189what an embarrassing buffoon
>>2953309>>2953325people react to the ZOGposting and "Jews = Zionism" shit people like bad empanada post with "you know what maybe jews are bad and we should do another holocaust" and people still can't smell that the fuckers doing this are just antisemites trying to launder their retardation through opposing Israel.
Never forget that antisemitism is not exclusively a system of structural racism (we can argue about the degree to which Jews face discrimination but that's another topic). Antisemitism is also a form of brain rot for schizophrenics that creeps into every facet of their ideology and poisons what they say with paranoia and misattribution fallacies. Even if every single Jew was a zionist piece of shit, that wouldn't make "Jews in the walls" fantasies real, but that is precisely wht people end up believing if they huff the "Jews are bad" gas too long (same with any X group are bad but Jews are just a common target for historically contingent reasons).
>>2953346well, yeah, zionists are currently trying to get the DSA to a-ok "ethnic endogamy"
>>2953309he is not wrong
the dsa goyim are extremely gullible
>People still crying and shitting their pants about Basedempenada's objectively correct takesWhat is it about George that gets people so riled up? Are you really that much of a simpleton that his mildly inflammatory bullshit gets to you? Like that retard that keeps trying to pedojacket him lol. Why does he brainbreak people like this?
>>2953325Would an anon also get banned for saying anti-white racism is more or less justified? Something to think about guys
>>2953401>We must secure the existence of the chosen people and a future for jewish childrenGive it a rest bro, BE has never advocated for "doing another holocaust" nor implied or encouraged anything of the sort, nor is something like that even in the realm of possibility of actually happening. The only ones doing a holocaust right now are jewish people against the palestinians. Nothing he has said is antisemitic. Unless you think it's antisemitic to acknowledge that 85% or so of jewish people are zionists
>>2953401the only correct take here
It’s not surprising that western leftists refuse to come to terms with the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jews are genocidal pedophilic freaks and their “religion” explicitly demands it, since the same people are the ones who founded the western left in the first place
>>2953401>if you dare slight a Jew you’re automatically a Nazi!!!!<regards, Frankfurt School pedophile>>2953401>>2953419keep fighting the good fight
>>2953401The correct take is that most, but not all, Jews, especially from older generations, are subversive Israel-firsters.
That said I think slow normalization of anti-zionist and outright anti-semitic attitudes is not organic and is being driven by factions of the deep state that are sick of Israel's control over US politics.
>>2953401sartre was pro-israel btw
>>2953365>shit empanada has no theory>the point is that "DSA is essentially a racial chauvinist organization that places Jews on top of everyone else" is objectively a reactionary position because DSA is essentially a national chauvinist organization that places labor aristocrats of all "races" on top of everyone else, *in service* (unwitting or otherwise) of white supremacy.your theory is the same thing BE believes but you just say white supremacy instead of jewish supremacy lol
>>2953473>your theory is the same thing BE believes but you just say white supremacy instead of jewish supremacy lolBecause he's knows BE is right, and the obvious glaring exception that there is for Zionism in "liberal" values. And how it causes dissonance when rancid colonial ideas from last century are enforced into normality.
So he's doing liberal hasbara and deflecting onto something else. Not unlike when Zios bring up US crimes to claim undue attention to theirs, but really, to chum the waters for "progressives" to have something to attack without hitting at Zionism.
>>2953416>Why does he brainbreak people like this?he doesnt dickride democrats or united russia, most users of this place are absolutetly in love with at least one of those two liberal, zionist organizations, I see no other explanation
ultimately the best position for jews to be in is to completely abandon jewish-identity politics and just identify themselves as americans. *same for trans people tbqh but from what i've seen they're fully aware of this fact and it's the far-right that constantly brings them up.* the more attention you draw to yourself as some external group the more you'll get pushback from the goyim. just learn2assimilate bro.
like nation-state identity politics already caused two world wars, are we really still relitigating it because the jews deserve their chance to do it after arriving late to the party? zionism is a fucking death cult, and young jews are moving away from it in droves. zionism itself is a dying concept. we don't need to do anything on that front except continue dunking on israel and putting pressure on the american jewish community to abandon israel. you don't need hate crimes or holocausts to kill an ideology.
tbh i don't see why there's so much "self-policing" on the left against anti-jewish hate, something that doesn't fucking exist in any measurable sense on the left. it just breeds conspiracy theories that every leftist organization and even leftypol itself are so singularly obsessed with protecting the feelings of this tiny religious group. it's counterproductive if anything by not allowing people to have open conversations about zionist influence in american judaism and how it mirrors the republican takeover of american christianity through evangelicals.
>>2953480>having a bad opinion on a separate issue invalidate a different opinion on another issueWhen will leftychuds stop sucking off their knee-jerk emotional responses to things?
>BE said this
<BE said that
Why take BE seriously at all?
>>2953527>having a bad opinion on a separate issue invalidate a different opinion on another issuei think advocating pedophilia is kind of a big invalidating factor dude. i wouldn't dare cite a pedophile's opinion on anything for winning an argument.
Why can't we admit the ZOG is a real thing without holding it against Jews in a racial way? Israel, not the Jewish race, is the real problem, and of the things you can hold against Jews it's all downstream of Israel's existence and spookery.
>>2953536if a person who has done something bad says "2 + 2 = 4" the truth of that statement gets invalidated?
>>2953553Because it's idealist drivel and clearly contradictory by what's happening, Israel is B(urger)OG not the other way around
>>2953559reducing the entire thing to a single state, either israel or america, is idealist drivel
>>2953558yeah but why dont you cite someone who says 2+2=4 and isn't a pedophile? like if your opinion is so correct surely someone who isn't a pedophile must hold the same views? why post sartre to promote zionism? surely there must be some non-pedo zionist you can replace him with for your shilling?
>>2953559You realize American imperialism is being dismantled as we speak right? Israel's actions do not benefit the American Empire, they're an active hindrance and leading to a series of very dumb self-destructive decisions.
>>2953553The government is not really "occupied" by zionists tho is it? It's pretty much entirely zionist by volition, not because it's forced to lol
>>2953598>American imperialism is being dismantled as we speakWild wish casting, the petro dollar is going strong, carrier groups are relaying themselves bombing Iran without a single loss yet and the countries that actually suffer from this are in the neocolonial third world where demand is destroyed, but don't worry they will be offered IMF loans
>>2953585>I have no idea who he's talking abouthe seems to be talking about DSA Jews who care about who other Jews date, marry and have sex with in an ethnic supremacist way and seem to have managed to get someone kicked out of a "socialist" organization for disagreeing with their ethno-nationalist ways, but I dont really know much about what happened either
>>2953585Man, you really are a contrarian, Michael Tracey kind of guy.
Actually no, I know what you are. You are one of those redscarepod-like hoes trying to sound all personable and worldly retelling the stuff you hear from your sugar daddies. Thinking that maybe one day, it will be your nose snorting the Thielbucks if you enlist enough leftoids to sell your cryptofascist tupperware kind of ideology.
But then, as soon as you think you have an audience, you blow it dropping a liberal/hasbara stinker.
>>2953655what? what gay nazi is saying is 100% correct, people who care about that shit are reactionary morons, which is why is concerning people like that have power inside DSA, lets hope its not true and BE is just making shit up
>>2953661You would not defend a white person claiming miscegenation is wrong for white people. Or any other group, other than Jews.
For Jews, you would defend anything.
>>2953585it doesn't matter. none of this matters. Looking at the data 60% of american jews have intermarried since 2010, so the reality is capitalism is assimilating every national minority on a mass scale which sets the stage for socialism
>>2953665>it doesn't matter. none of this matters.What is being discussed, is that the DSA does care.
They kicked a guy out because one such anti-miscegenation Jew, who was taking his position straight form Jonathan Greenblat and other Zionist jews, lost a twitter fight. And then, called a bunch of other Zionist Jews to smear Omar as an antisemite and get him kicked out of the DSA.
What is being claimed is that:
>The DSA is essentially a racial chauvinist organization that places Jews on top of everyone elseThe events cited confirm that statement. The organization took the side of the race realist anti-miscegenation Jews and kicked Omar in their name.
If you want Omar's side of the story:
https://theatheistomar.substack.com/p/a-fractal-of-jewish-exceptionalism >>2953667>ai substack rantpriors confirmed, dsa made the right call
>>2953668>>2953665Much deflecting, not so many arguments.
>>2953665>Looking at the data 60% of american jews have intermarried since 2010you're kinda missing the point here. jews are not a distinct ethnic group. the jewish ethnicity is just a zionist psyop to differentiate themselves from arabs/europeans. genetically they are identical to the places they live in and intermarry freely with the local population. american jews are just white people. middle eastern jews are just arabs and more specifically palestinians. european jews are just white people. once the left abandons the "jewish racial identity" spook we can start having productive conversations about antisemitism vs antizionism.
>>2953646>he seems to be talking about DSA Jews who care about who other Jews date, marry and have sex with in an ethnic supremacist way I'm going to have to look at this Substack.
There are Jews who prefer to date other Jews and marry Jews to have Jewish kids, yeah.
>>2953655>retelling the stuff you hear from your sugar daddiesI wish
>it will be your nose snorting the Thielbucks if you enlist enough leftoids to sell your cryptofascist tupperware kind of ideology.That's a great insult.
>>2953664>You would not defend a white person claiming miscegenation is wrong for white people. Or any other group, other than Jews. I would disagree with someone claiming miscgenation is "wrong." I'm for free trade in booty worldwide, but I wouldn't try to stop them. I find that just completely weird how people get so concerned with these personal choices that people make. Like are you anti-trans if you don't want to date trans people. What if you were a straight man and I'm gay but how dare you not have gay sex with me, you phobe. What are you a bigot. Does me excluding women from my preferences smack of sexism? Maybe it does! Does it follow that I should change it. Should I go in for therapy or hypnosis. I dunno. Maybe I'll meet a woman who will open up a whole heterosexual world for me. It doesn't follow that I should go hunt one down. It's kind of random. Is the DSA really going to establish a committee to socially engineer this.
>>2953665>If you want Omar's side of the story:Okay I'm going read this.
Alright so this DSA member, Ben, said endogamy (marrying exclusively within the tribe) is not inherently racist and then used a bunch of blabber to claim YOU are racist Western supremacist if you criticize it. Okay that's dumb. Maybe it is racist! But I don't care.
Holy hell I just looked at the rest of this article, this is long.
fwiw if we accept that jews exclusively marrying "within the tribe" is acceptable then white guys who exclusively date asian women are also kosher, no?
<"it's just a preference bro"
>>2953676>fwiw if we accept that jews exclusively marrying "within the tribe" is acceptable then white guys who exclusively date asian women are also kosher, no? Uhhh…. yeah? Why the fuck would that be a problem to anyone? Lol do you feel under assault for
dating jacking off only to Asian women.
>>2953677no I'm just making sure. honestly I feel the same way, I don't really care how people choose to date. if a racist exclusively dates white women then like…that's their prerogative, I wouldn't want to inflict them upon non-white women by forcing them to date outside their race. if a jew exclusively dates jews that's fine too. i just want us to be consistent on this and make sure we don't go around judging strangers for who they date.
>>2953678tbh this isn't a /pol/ thing it's more in line with the idea israeli jews and palestinians are the same and should view eachother as brothers instead of enemies. zionists went to great lengths to devleop the myth of the "jewish ethnicity" as a means of otherizing themselves from their host countries and/or justifying genocide in british occupied palestine. we should in fact push back on it more and remind jews that they're just white/arab/etc and their choice of religion and "culture" doesn't change that.
a pretty obvious comparison is how muslims operate:
>don't date outside of islam>support the muslim community through donations, loans, etc to fellow muslims>muslims have a long cultural history and are proud of that culture, but islamic culture and arab culture are separate and distinct things>the global muslim "ummah" is a brotherhood>yet you don't have to be arab to be a muslim, and no muslim claims there's a distinct muslim "race" or that arab muslims are somehow better than non-arab muslims.i think jews segregating themselves into a "cultural ethnic group" that has no genetic basis is doing more harm than good if you approach it in good faith. at beast it's just misguided idpol and at worst it's a zionist psyop.
>>2953681>zionists went to great lengths to devleop the myth of the "jewish ethnicity"read Stalin
>>2953682Stalin was a Zionist, one of his few mistakes.
>>2953681My cousin is a white guy that only has ever dated Asian women as far as I'm aware of. I think he had three of them and he's settled down with one. His fam jokes about it, but it's not a big deal. Actually I think his half brothers only dated Asian women too. But yeah, nobody cares.
One time I was at this party at my friend's fam's house and this weird white guy sat down next to me started talking to me, he was an assistant DA apparently, seemed kinda coked up, then when he got up a few minutes later, he said "I think I see some mediocre Asian women, that's my specialty." When I recounted this story to my friend and his family later, his dad said in his very dry British accent, "oh noooo his girlfriend is Asian." That story just cracks me.
Yeah, I mean it could just so happen that all your GFs are Asian like my cousin, never heard him say that he has some rule about only dating Asians, or you could be a creep about it like that other guy. But either way, who cares.
>>2953684Now try that, but your cousin runs a white supremacist settler colony carved out of Thailand.
And some vicious racist like Jonathan Greenblat is doing the 14 words in relation to that ethnostate project.Because one has to maintain the purity and White majority of Hwite-istan.
And when your cousin gets called out for supporting the white supremacists, who are currently genociding a few million Thai, you come out to drop this dogshit take on his defense. And add levity to racists defending their racist ethnostate's policy.
>>2953684>Now try that, but your cousin runs *Lives in
Yeah it's pretty racist to straight up say you're going to force your kids to only date or marry your race(don't know how we got on to white guys dating Asians) or you'll disown them or whatever Greenblatt was implying. I think depending on the group, it comes off as more or less racist. I think it has often been criticized about all the whites or whatever race being anti-miscegenation and specifically anti-black(coal-burning or mudsharking or whatever new lingo they're calling it.) TBH you here black people say the same anti-miscegenation rhetoric too. Actually it is typically most lambasted when it's women from your race dating another race, because of paternalism, getting cucked sentiments, and I guess the long history of men conquering other groups then taking the women like it says in the bible.
But moving on, out of all the crazy shit Greenblatt has said, this has to be really low down on the list lol.
>Greenblatt is a racist/chauvinist/supremacist? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!
>>2953568>yeah but why dont you cite someone who says 2+2=4 and isn't a pedophile?Because Sartre put it best about how antisemitism is a mental disorder. Bringing up other points about him in this context is effectively saying "Sartre was a pedo therefore there's Jews in my walls"
>>2953716It doesn't really help the argument that "everyone is just hysterical about the jews eating babies" when the jew saying it is also a pedophile. Like, every time you cite him as your "source" about right-wing hysteria about jews you're playing into their game where they can say "SEE?? LOOK, A PEDOPHILE JEW IS UPSET AT US CALLING THEM OUT" and like…what then?
>>2953673>There are Jews who prefer to date other Jews and marry Jews to have Jewish kidsyes, some of them do it out of ethno-nationalism, not mere chance, and are inside an organization that calls itself socialist and seem to have a degree of power in it, would you describe them as a type of national socialists?
>Maybe it is racist! But I don't care.very based and me-ne-frego-pilled, my gay fuhrer
>>2953309So, uh who is he even talking about? Who got kicked out? Who were the Jews? Someone give me a recap of this whole controversy.
>>2953731This reminds me of that leftypol anarchist namefag who believed in Jewish communes.
>>2953733That's fucking crazy. Literally making whataboutism laws.
Do americans benefit from imperialism?
>>2953734Except its not whataboutism because pissrael is uniquely evil. Case in point, Iran is not killing muh own citizens and China is not killing uyghurs. For nazis and zionazis killing outgroup is good while policing ingroup is bad, which is why the constant muh own people cope is a telltale sign that one is a subzero autism score triboid.
>>2953523Could've gotten better results? What the fuck is this guy on about? Are they really this fucking stupid? Of course kids love drawing and making shit have they ever spent 5 minutes with a toddler
>>2953737George is the only true leftist left, he has the powerlevel to own destiny and Hasan, he is the future
>>2953737destroying DSA would be good for the American Left. DSA are libleft zionist cucks who will never amount to anything but being the left flank of the Democrats.
This is so funny.
The Marxist Unity Group (MUG) caucus within the DSA, which is the one Omar got kicked out of, is actually against expelling AOC from the national DSA. You see, they don't wanna kick people out for mere "political disagreements" like funding the Iron Dome, approving every defense of Zionism under the guise of antisemitism or generally the bog standard Democrat Zionist position that
Israel has a Right to Defend Itself!.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/08/dsa-collision-course-aoc/407434/
>[…]But even those upset with Ocasio-Cortez don’t necessarily want to kick her out of the socialist organization. Sidney Carlson White, a member of the internal “Marxist Unity Group” caucus who serves on the National Political Committee, said that his caucus is generally opposed to expelling members over political disagreements.
>“This is something that Lenin discovered a while back,” he said. “The idea of trying to dissolve your parliamentary faction by expulsion would do very little to heighten the contradictions around the issues that you disagreed upon.”>…Nonono those are minor disagreements, and, at most warrant a withdrawal of endorsement. And if at any point Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides to throw a few rhetorical bones to the Palestinian cause,
they would be more than happy to re-endorse her. Say, after the deed is done and AOC and the DSA can have land-acknowledgements about what
once was the Palestinian people. No point crying over genocided peoples, what's done is done, lets all be progressive together!
And besides, in a few years, liberal Zionism will have completely subsumed any Anti-Zionism and AOCs voting record would be, well I dare say, extremely pro-Palestinian. Just ask the Jews!https://socialisttribune.substack.com/p/commit-to-palestine
>As decided through Resolution-22 at DSA’s 2025 convention, opposition to BDS or the struggle for Palestinian liberation, affiliation with any zionist lobbying groups, or knowing provision of material aid to Israel directly contradicts the will of DSA’s membership and DSA’s program that demands an end to military and economic aid to Israel and a free Palestine.
>In the last five years, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly affirmed her belief that Israel has a right to “defend itself” and broke with fellow socialists in office to vote against an amendment that would have eliminated $500 million in current material aid for the Iron Dome, a key part of Israel’s expansionist policy even if it is labeled a “defensive weapon.” It is unacceptable for a socialist elected to pursue such a policy.
>MUG struggles in DSA for democratic discipline—where all our members and electeds are bound to the democratic will of our members; a commitment to fight the imperial police state and its imperial projects like Israel; and unity with DSA’s program that demands a free Palestine. A vote to re-endorse Rep. Ocasio-Cortez without any change on her support for “defensive” weapons would contradict our support for Palestinian liberation and make DSA’s political strategy incoherent.
>We call on our comrades in NYC DSA to vote NO on an endorsement of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez unless she confirms that she will align with DSA’s program and Resolution-22 by committing to oppose all military and settlement funding to Israel, including “defensive” weapons such as the Iron Dome, and any legislation conflating antisemitism and anti-zionism, as every other DSA-endorsed candidate has committed to, both nationally and in NYC.
>As socialists, we know that we are stronger when we fight together, and that we can change and be changed by the struggle. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has a historic opportunity to showcase democratic discipline by changing course from a position that weakens and breeds distrust among the socialist movement. She can exemplify the integrity and uncompromising commitment of a socialist in office who seeks to unify our movement by abiding by our democratically deliberated program. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez should show the world what it looks like to stand unafraid with and earn the support of a democratic socialist movement.So remember kids:
Using your congressional seat to fund the livestreamed genocide of a couple million Palestinians and settler colonial Zionism?✅ Minor disagreement, we just need to talk it out. Just get it done and call us when the last Palestinian baby is dead, okay?
A few Jewish supremacist Jews (defending Zionism) baselessly call you antisemitic for a Twitter post?❌ Sorry bud, you are out. Gotta enforce discipline in this serious political organization what we are running. You are making us look bad.
>>2953761 (me)
I'm framing this around the Gaza genocide, because the matter at hand is Zionism. But I'm sure a more plugged USian can find plenty of reasons AOC should be repudiated by socialists, before and after the present genocide.
>>2953559Everything I'm seeing seems to support the Israeli subversion model.
The relationship is obviously more complicated than one owning the other; Israel is dependent on US support for it's survival, if we were to retract our support or turn on Israel they would be doomed and they know that.
So what did they do? Subverted political and economic institutions in the US in order to ensure that the support they depend on will continue. The US holds Israel's fate in its hands, but Israel now has a powerful and corrupt special interest lobby, and the influence of wealthy dual-loyalist Jews in key institutional positions in government and business, forcing the US to keep it safe and prosperous at its own expense. There are some foreign policy goal alignments between the two, sure, but the US empire would theoretically gain more by being allies with Gulf States and Iran than with Israel which means there must be other motives than cold, rational imperial logic at play.
Frankly, I think the reason the left still peddles the narrative the Israel is poor little puppet of the American empire is solely a stubborn refusal to admit chuds were partially right about something.
>>2953788Israel is a pawn of usa imperialism , however the usa definitely got/gets played by israel, usa bougies have their head too far up their own asses to see this.
with a bit of luck they will drag eachother down to hell.
>>2953739Yes, duh. What kind of dumbass question is that?
>>2953788>being allies with Gulf States and IranYes but no, even under the pressure of Israel existing they're still trying to decouple from the petrodollar.
The US plan for the middle east is not to have unreliable "allies", it's to keep them tied to selling oil in US dollars in perpetuity
>>2953761
>“This is something that Lenin discovered a while back,” he said. “The idea of trying to dissolve your parliamentary faction by expulsion would do very little to heighten the contradictions around the issues that you disagreed upon.”I'm so fucking tired of these dweebs to quote mine lenin to defend socdemery
>>2953803Lenin of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party you mean?
>>2953761ok but they give you their reasoning in the quote you posted. namely that expelling aoc would do literally nothing and couldn't result in any anti-imperialist action or a heightened discipline among dsa electeds at this point. if you want them to expel aoc for symbolic cred among /usapol/ posters, what would be the point? it wouldn't be a productive action. they explicitly said that they don't endorse her for the reasons you cited.
>>2953808 (me)
something you Notice after interacting with burger "anti-imperialist" leftists online is a complete lack of recognition of their own powerlessness and the realities of building a political movement to change that. the critique is never
>ok, this sucks, given the material conditions, you should do x and y instead of z, it would help you build up the movement and achieve your stated goalsinstead they just throw a fit that the things they want don't happen in society and beg their organizations to leave politics, as if relegating yourself to the fringes of society and endless protest would be more productive. the reason why aoc is not calling for levantine jdpon now is precisely because you lack power, shutting your ears to this reality and denouncing it as loud as you can will not abolish the present state of things. you have 2 choices - either you change the political reality in a way that's immanent to your society or you become jason unruhe and receive your Goodest Leftist award from people who think like you
>>2953761Isn't this basically just an example of how the DSA has no way to enforce their positions? As a politician you can use it to get some cred, but you're not accountable to the organization at all. In the end it means nothing, whereas toeing the democrat line means everything
What is the point of this organization besides giving support to democrat careerists? Why are there "marxists" in this org? It's baffling
>>2953810Either you vote for Israel getting missiles or you're Jason unruhe!
>>2953817they're not voting for israel getting missiles. neither am i advocating for them to vote for israel getting missiles. work on your reading comprehension
>>2953808Dude, not supporting Israel has a larger support amongst the American population than you might think, even amonst some Republicans, especiialy younger ones. It is totally realistic to get a congressman that least votes no on supporting Israel, your "Levantine jdpon" is a strawman. Didn't Massie - a Republican - voted against it?
Burgers also don't realize the massive leverage they have on hurting imperialism. The US is Israels biggest supporter, do you realize how fucked Israel would be if the US stopped supporting them? The genocide would right on the same day. But they have nothing to fear, because you'd rather do incrementalism.
>>2953812>Isn't this basically just an example of how the DSA has no way to enforce their positions?what do you mean? they purge people for not being zionist enough, thats how they enforce their position
>>2953803>I'm so fucking tired of these dweebs to quote mine lenin to defend socdemeryturning marxism from revolutionary theory into ideology is an ancient leftist tradition, you will respect it and you will be happy
>>2953825Perfect reasoning as for why leftism is useless
>>2953808>if you want them to expel aoc for symbolic cred among /usapol/ posterI want them go expel her because she's a zionist imperialist
>>2953848Didn't they only barely pass a motion to oppose Zionism at their national congress?
>>2953788>the US empire would theoretically gain more by being allies with Gulf States and Iran than with Israel which means there must be other motives than cold, rational imperial logic at play.The U.S. is allied with the Gulf States. There's a pretense of neutrality but I think it's all pretty two-faced. Israel and the UAE are practically in an open military alliance. So there's an alliance between Israel and the UAE, and then an alliance between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan. The U.S. plays both sides. Also there's a lot of profits of oil to be recapitalized in the U.S., people tend to think about oil but not about the future profits of oil and where they end up. The U.S. also has an alliance with Jordan, and right now the U.S. military is falling back to Jordan and trying to shore up its position there.
>Frankly, I think the reason the left still peddles the narrative the Israel is poor little puppet of the American empire is solely a stubborn refusal to admit chuds were partially right about something.Well the chuds make the claim that the Jews have hijacked American policy. Then the Israel lobby says that the U.S. supports Israel because of some ~abstract morality~ about democracy and American national interests blah blah, and the more corporate and mainstream right promotes that. Then on the left you have a split. Some on the left say the U.S. and Israel are allies because of shared interests like the corporate right does (but that's bad), and then others on the left say the Israel lobby is a bigger factor but unlike the chuds don't like to say "Jews" because the left is opposed to antisemitism. The strongest argument from the left about why the chuds are wrong is that the U.S. acts in a bad way everywhere else in the world to advance the interests of American corporations, and not just in the Middle East.
Also there are, in fact, non-Jewish conservatives who support Israel and have imperialistic views. They don't like Iran and haven't liked Iran since the Shah was ousted, and they want to put the Shah back into power. The U.S. and Iran were allies when the Shah was in control.
The strongest argument for the Israel lobby's influence going against the American interest is probably related to the occupation specifically. The U.S. doesn't get anything out of that. Israel gets a lot of out of it because they want the land, but it gives Arabs another reason to hate America, and that makes it more difficult for the U.S. to deploy troops around the region, although a lot of these Arabs live under dictatorships that are aligned with Washington.
>>2953739>Do americans benefit from imperialism?it depends if you consider getting socially (and maybe even biologically) engineered into DNC-GOP cattle a benefit or not
>>2953730be has jew derangement syndrome
notice how he's always attacking the left
>>2953788True. I think nobody on the left would have a problem with saying that white Protestant Anglo-Saxons made up the American ruling class for a long time, so what's the issue to point a disproportionate amount of subversion by Jews in the state apparatus, especially when Jews as a group operate far more as a collective and have a much tighter in-group wary of outsiders than Anglo-Saxons.
>>2953900Who are these people that think BE is some kind of leftcom ultra?
Have you actually read this pamphlet anon? Or are you just baiting?
DiddyEmpanada isn't even a communist.
>>2953553>Huwite protestant mails dindu nuffin it's the dastardly yids telling them to blow up brown children!Ask yourself this; if Israel was an openly secular anti-racist multipolarista socdem/socialist state. Do you think they'd still be supported?
Hint; Pro-zionist rightoids like Israel because they want their own countries be like that
>>2953911of course he would salute israel's greatest friend
>>2953911Damn, can he get any more based? Clearly not a leftcom as well here
Despite his snickering, the salute to the soviet anthem still brings a tear to mine eyes
so, now that it has been confirmed DSA purges leftists for not supporting ethno-nationalism, can we all finally agree DSA is a right-wing organization and their shills should be treated the same way ACPoids get here?
>>2953918Bro they are worse than ACPoids, at least those tards don't shill democrats
>can we agree reformists are traitors
Yes
>>2953919They shill republicans instead. They can get fucked.
>>2953920>reformistswhat reform has DSA done?
>>2953922Not really, certainly not in the way DSA shills dems. You can think their magacom thing was a bad strat or that they're patsocs whatever, but at the very least they advocate for an independent party. That is if you don't consider them feds lol
im very happy everyone talks about the dsa all the time, imagine living in a nation with a socialist movement so irrelevant and inconsequential nobody knows about it or talks about it at all. id kill myself tbqh
>>2953918>DSA purges leftists for not supporting ethno-nationalismSource?
>>2953900be and his dickriders avoid lenin like a vampire does garlic
>>2953935socialist movement?
What are even the political ideologies of BE? Third-worldism?
>>2953943according to a recent video where he debunks some literally who streamer, it's harm reduction for the supposed fall of the us empire that's coming any day now
>>2953943standard non american leftist
Dialectics is when 2 things
>>2953930>Not reallyReally ACPshill. Now hit the road.
>>2953944>Clearly, everybody is just pretending to know stuff they don't.Just like Hegel.
>>2953944we had a bona fide hegelian come here once and he explained it really well, unfortunately nothing really sticked with me outside of the vague intuition of dialectics being recognizing how ideas contain their own contradiction buried underneath
there's a "maybe mass literacy is actually… le bad and oppressive???" discourse going on xitter
everyone who has a xitter account should be killed.
>>2953961>everyone who has a xitter account should be killed.i agree, you should come to my house and murder me right now
>>2953944Freedom can mean on one hand not being limited by others, yet include the freedom to oppress others (it's own negation), what's created from applying freedom is thus not really freedom, and not really oppression either, and it's not a mix of both, it's just about understanding that x concept is bigger than the words we use to describe them.
Also using hegel's dialectic for anything that isn't abstract concepts is completely missing how hegel used it
That's what I kinda understand from it.
How the fuck does someone even start reading Hegel?
>>2953955Yes really, afaik they don't have party members run as republicans and they don't endorse republican candidates as a party
I'm not trying to shill for them, if anything it's embarrassing that the streamer eceleb party has a better position on this than the DSA
Also once you understand the Frankfurt school got brain broken by the Holocaust and decided to reject all philosophy made before on this basis alone(how could western philosophy not stop genocide!!) you get why they're completely clueless on some aspects
>>2953900BE is not a leftcom he's a latam socdem. That's what he cares about, the lost cause of Bolivarian revolutions, because then he doesn't have to tackle the question of what happens when you when. He just gets to eternally complain about imperialism fucking over the region (which they are) but ultimately it's a dead end ideology. More recently he's pivoted to opportunistic contrarianism chasing clicks but generally siding against imperial powers (which is itself ultimately a form of contrarianism and not a positive political program).
>>2953975The ACP does something more like the CPUSA except vice versa. Like the CPUSA doesn't actually explicitly say to vote for Democrats but to "defeat fascism" by voting but they mean vote for the Democrats. The ACP doesn't say they vote Republican but they do say they think the Democrats are worse than the Republicans and some of those guys individually did in fact vote for Trump in 2024 and said they did but now deny it.
The DSA meanwhile actually gets people elected on the Democratic ballot line. But it's funny because some of them are actual DSA people who started out in the politics that way, and then others join the DSA to get DSA members to volunteer for them when they run for office, then they let their membership lapse the week before the election and then win and when journalists ask them about it they're like "I'm not a DSA member, idk what you're talking about." And then politicians like Abdul El-Sayed are supported by people who just happen to be in the DSA as individuals despite AES not being in the DSA and not even a socialist as journalists are like when will you denounce Hasan Piker.
>>2953975>afaik they don't have party members run as republicans and they don't endorse republican candidates as a partyRepublican independents are not new. Heck, republican Democrat insiders are nothing new.
>>2953965I only see a contradiction where "freedom" is treated abstractly. The freedom to oppress others is itself freedom in particular, relative to that of another. Freedom thus implies its own negation, but not of its own concept, but only of a particular determination. It seems that to treat abstractions as real is then where the "contradiction" begins. If I say "man", I mean "men", yet "men" in particular contradict "man" in general. To begin with the abstraction is to misidentify reality.
For example, contradiction may be treated of external things, but what is implied in your reading of Hegel is the notorious "internal contradiction". All wholes have parts, yet a conflict of parts is solved by their maintenance in the whole. A whole proves the semblance, and so the non-contradiction of its parts. That's how I see it, at least. A leg is not an arm, yet they are parts of the whole body, so by this identity in the body, they are not contradicted from within. So, where we are able to abstract, it seems to be that which occurs after concreteness.
>>2953944I'm majoring philosophy now with Hegel next semester. I'm going to have to a paper about him. Hopefully after that, I'm going to have insight.
>>2953993Maybe Im not familiar enough with the differences between their parties, but I don't really think that ACP has an equivalent kind of "we must vote republican to beat the dem fascists" kind of line. I haven't really ever seen them talk about going out and voting for either party in any major capacity. It'd kind of go against their image imo
To me democrats and republicans are equally bad. You could argue the dems are worse by being more competent/less retarded though
>>2953999That's irrelevant, they don't endorse candidates as a party, neither rep or dem while DSA does
>>2954009Good.
I'm just offering my amateur opinions in any case.
The real question is, does reality have contradictions in it?
I would say no, since then we wouldn't have logic in the first place.
The theory of "substance" from Spinoza to Hegel seems to be counter to atomism – atomism is a non-contradictory theory of particulars.
>>2954013No idea about atomism. Spinoza is a radical monist, there is only one substance, God, nature, intellect. From what I learned, Spinoza believed in "corpuscles", infinite particles that can infinity divided - so no atoms.
Atomism wasn't popular again for a very long time. There is the scholastic theory of substantial forms, coming from Aristotle. Both Descartes and Spinoza deny their existence, in vastly different ways.
That's all I've learned so far.
>>2954090Tired: reading theory
Wired: writing a 300-page manifesto against reading theory
>>2953990>the way to fight america is in the cultural blablablaNo actually, no.
The way to fight America is launching 10% of the missiles they did across thousand of Km of NATO air defense towards israel, as a part of the 12 day, pre-arranged with the USA farce… To their neighbor's oil infrastructure and the KSA. And in less than a week, permanently destroy the US economy, the petrodollar and soon the rest of NATO behind.
But alas, Iran is too much of a bitch to China and Russia. Who see themselves as the inheritors of a post-US-hegemony liberal order, an inheritance they would rather not set aflame. So instead, tens of millions of workers must die in pointless wars and terroristic posturing across the globe, to litigate the new order, before global bourgeoisie decides to divest from US hegemony.
>>2954003>is treated abstractlyyes,all the exemples ever given of hegel's dialectic are about concepts in the abstract (especially the being,nothing,becoming that gets peddled)
They even scoff at Marx trying to impose it on political movements or historical events
nothingburger above me
nothingpizza below me
>>2953944to understand hegelian dialectics, one must appreciate the meta-concept of 'begriff' (often translated to the Notion or the Concept) which traces back to goethe. what we see in begriff is a mode of thinking that is a generative process which unfolds itself into moments which are immanently connected to one another in a system of coherence - begriff is both the generative process as well as the entire series of moments. a feature of this system is that each part must virtually contain all of the rest in order to attain their intelligibility. a concrete analogous example is that of the bricks of a house. a brick is only a brick because it is part of a house, outside of this context it is simply a clump of mineral. hence, we see that the brick must immanently contain within itself the entire house in order to be what it is. more generally, any determination must be accompanied by a whole host of other determinations in order to be properly intelligible
the language of dialectical contradiction ultimately refers back to this dynamic. for instance, for an object to move, its current place must become a different place. hece, the determination of the objects positionality must immanently contain within it the determination of its future position, otherwise its motion would remain unintelligible. for change to occur an object must both be what it is and immanently contain what it is not. a more marxist example lies in the observation of the contradiction between proletariat and capitalist. both of these can only have their complete definition in relation to the other. these are part of the singular begriff which is that of capital, and this is part of why in a rigorous dialectical materialism, relations of production must ultimately precede individuals (a point which i have made elsewhere)
something to note is that if the intelligibility of items is ultimately determined by a pragmatic context of dialectical tensions, it follows that changes in context lead to changes in the meaning of earlier moments. this is the manifestation of a retroactive necessity which reveals that there is a necessary incompleteness in the original moment. this is a point which zizek puts a lot of effort into stressing and building off of for his own understanding of dialectical materialism
you can cross-reference the concept of begriff with the huayan buddhist concept of li as emptiness which i go into here
>>2946865 - all of these connections foreshadow my own aeonic materialism as well as 'dialectical empiricism' (not yet exposited)
>>2954342And they're keeping girl with a microphone?
LMAO >>2954313Damn, imagine if that post was intelligible, I'm sure it would be cool
>>2954313Was irritated from this take as you just worded the unity or opposites very weirdly, but then I saw you referenced Zizek, who is not a serious philosopher.
>>2954373contemplate the examples i gave and also watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa9y3Z9ZwhQanother example to help explain what i mean of begriff being both the generative process and the entire process is that of a plant. every plant goes through multiple stages in its development and goethe noticed that it evolves in an alternation of contractions (-> determinations) and expansions (-> negations). this culminates in the seed which immanently contains the entire process within itself. the plant is both the productive principle which produces each stage of its growth as well as the whole series of developmental stages. each stage of the plant is part of what the plant is or in other words is part of its concept
>>2954379>unity or oppositesawkh wudh it is not just the unity of opposites. the unity of opposites is a special case of a more general process of conceptual inter-determination and unfolding
>I saw you referenced Zizek, who is not a serious philosopheryawn i only referenced zizek at the end to highlight a subtle point. the rest was not drawn from him at all
>>2954383>the entire process*the entire series
>>2954385yeah he was basically just a walking corpse they weekend at bernies'd around.
>>2954393>>2954385Yeah but insane or not, Ethan was the main draw of the show. HHila is a charisma blackhole and none of the other mfs are interesting enough to watch.
>>2954342>Ethan gone>IDF appointed wife takes overCalling it now, Hasan and other leftoids(D) will be rehabilitating the Raider of Ramallah on short notice.
>>2954435nah he would never do that
>>2954385So what drugs do you think, guys?
>>2954385dude what the fuck is this clip, this guy is clearly on something
>>2954342With who? She just fired everybody
>>2954469>>2954560My guess is either Adderall or cocaine
>>2954452>Why exactly??They'd never miss the chance to rehabilitate a Zionazi. The fallout on Ethan provides good progressive feminist cover to do so. And, at the same time, expiate their own association with the KKKleins, offload all the bad on Ethan's crude humor and generally repulsive personality.
The Zio propaganda machine is in full effect with Netanyahu deflection as well,right now. The window is brief to claim being "anti-netanyahu" as progressive. Soon, the hype will die down and the programming will revert to the regular schedule of genocide and hasbara.
>>2954568I'd agree if it wasn't about hila kkklein, she is legitimately too stupid to rehabilitate publicly and a literal black hole of charisma. No one is going to touch that
>>2954313>traces back to GoetheIt was Goethe who had a materialist reversal of Genesis; "in the beginning was the act" – rather than the word.
>begriff is both the generative process as well as the entire series of momentsThe concept generates itself?
>each part must virtually contain all of the rest in order to attain their intelligibilityWell, I would rather say that a whole has parts, but parts precede the whole. The whole does not create its parts, therefore, unless the telos is determinative of the very process of becoming. But then we must ask, what happens when a process fails to realise its purpose (e.g. to become actual, of potential)? We can revert to Aristotle. We know a material and efficient cause, but the final cause seems contingent, not necessary – say, of converting wood into a chair. If we try and fail to make a chair, we still have the wood. The wood is the substance of a thing, no matter which form it takes. A materialist understanding then sees the material and efficient causes as necessary of procession, but a final cause is the idealist leap of 'self-generative concepts', no?
>a brick is only a brick because it is part of a house, outside of this context it is simply a clump of mineralThat's not true. A part is itself a whole, which itself has parts, all the way down to atoms, which as wholes, also have parts, ad infinitum. Aristotle interestingly discusses the notion of an "undivided line" in his writings, or an irreducible quantum, which today we would call planck length. Even so, a quantity is always divisible by its nature of infinity.
>the brick must immanently contain within itself the entire house in order to be what it isMust? This is the controversy.
I don't presume the brick to have a final cause; a purpose, a telos, yet I still presume the brick to be a brick, conceptually. A brick is a brick.
>for an object to move, its current place must become a different placeA different place is not in contradiction to another. Difference implies different terms (A, B, C). If one moved into the same place, this would be a contradiction in terms, contrarily.
>must immanently contain within it the determination of its future positionYou mean that a thing has the potential to move? Yes, but until this is made actual, it has no motion. Until I hit a billiard ball, it is umoved.
>both of these can only have their complete definition in relation to the other. these are part of the singular begriff which is that of capitalYou are right in the first place and wrong in the second.
As I explained, relativity implies opposition.
But opposition within the same concept implies an abstraction.
Where we treat abstraction, we treat universality. So, "man" is not in contradiction to itself, but is in contradiction to "men" in particular. It seems to me that to include the particular (e.g. worker/capitalist) into the universal (e.g. capital) is the error. As such, a house is a whole, and so where it has parts, these are included into the whole, but without conflict. If parts of a thing where in conflict with its whole, it would cease to be whole, since its parts would no longer actually be parts.
>necessary incompleteness in the original momentRight, you are describing teleology.
A seed grows into a plant, etc.
But not all processes have purpose, and not all purposes are granted.
>>2954313>>2954635Just to clarify my final point:
It is only because the parts of my body are not in conflict that I even have a body. It was the ancient opinion thus that sickness was an imbalance of humours in the body, causing disequilibrium/imbalance. What held the body together was the soul, which is why when the soul leaves the body in death, the body rots. Only so far as parts are parts is where they are parts of wholes, and where they cease harmony in the whole, the whole itself disintegrates. Again, if sickness is caused by parts of the body being in conflict with the whole, the whole is lost. Cancer is an obvious example; it pursues its self-interest against the harmony of the body, and so kills the body, like any type of parasite.
>>2954568Hila was at times worst than Ethan.
>>2954635why are you trying to turn this into an argument when i am simply explaining hegel's notion of dialectics? in my article on aeonic materialism i already explain my break with the sufficiency of dialectics and 'dialectical empiricism' is meant to make this critique more practical in some ways for developing a systemic understanding which grasps the contingency of meaning's systemic organization
>The concept generates itself?yes it is self-determining
https://goethe-lexicon.pitt.edu/GL/article/view/34<As suggested in “Einwirkung,” a revealing analogy from the physical world for Goethe’s reconstruction of the philosophical concept as a self-generating and self-governing apparatus can be found in his botanical writings. Much like the elusive principle of botanical conceptualization that he discovered in the Botanical Garden in Palermo as a budding philosopher of plant life, the problem of the philosophical concept required a conceptual machine that would be as adequate to the underlying variability in the life of Begriff as his Urpflanze (primal plant) and subsequently his Blatt (leaf) were to the equally challenging variability in the life of the plant.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl164.htm<As self-relation of the negative the one is a process of determining — and as self-relation it is an infinite self-determining. But because being-for-self is now in the form of immediacy, these differences are no longer posited only as moments of one and the same self-determination, but as at the same time affirmatively present. The ideality of being-for-self as a totality thus reverts, in the first place, to reality and that too in its most fixed, abstract form, as the one. In the one, being-for-self is the posited unity of simple being and determinate being, as the absolute union of the relation to other and self-relation; but, further, the determinateness of being also stands opposed to the determination of the infinite negation, to the self-determination, so that what the one is in itself is now only ideally present in it, and the negative consequently is an other distinct from it. What shows itself to be present as distinct from the one is its own self-determining; the unity of the one with itself as thus distinguished from itself is reduced to a relation, and as a negative unity it is a negation of its own self as other, exclusion of the one as other from itself, from the one.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phc3c.htm<In this way, then, Spirit is Spirit knowing its own self. It knows itself; that, which is for it object, exists, or, in other words, its figurative idea is the true absolute content. As we saw, the content expresses just Spirit itself. It is at the same time not merely content of self-consciousness, and not merely object for self-consciousness; it is also actual Spirit. It is this by the fact of its passing through the three elements of its nature: this movement through its whole self constitutes its actual reality. What moves itself, that is Spirit; it is the subject of the movement, and it is likewise the moving process itself, or the substance through which the subject passes. We saw how the notion of spirit arose when we entered the sphere of religion: it was the process of spirit certain of its self, which forgives evil, and in so doing puts aside its own simplicity and rigid unchangeableness: it was, to state it otherwise, the process, in which what is absolutely in opposition recognizes itself as the same as its opposite, and this knowledge breaks out into the “yea, yea”, with which one extreme meets the other. The religious consciousness, to which the Absolute Being is revealed, beholds this notion, and does away with the distinction of its self from what it beholds; and as it is Subject, so it is also Substance; and is thus itself Spirit just because and in so far as it is this process.>A materialist understanding then sees the material and efficient causes as necessary of procession, but a final cause is the idealist leap of 'self-generative concepts', no?marx's reaction to hegel is to recognize the historial contingency in the expression of a system's begriff but not to deny the existence of such a thing, otherwise he would not have written capital. further, marxists still talk about "real abstractions", universals which society instantiates even without conscious reflection
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm<Form and Content are a Unity of Opposites: they are two aspects of one and the same thing, which in the process of development of the thing and in its cognition, interpenetrate one another, interact and transform one into the other - Form becomes Content and Content Form.<There can be no Content without a Form (a thing exists in one form or another) nor Form without Content (everything is connected to other things, is capable of transforming into something else, leads to something else); but a given Form may be more or less true to the Content.<A story which "works" as a movie, may fail as a novel, and vice versa; a given conflict in the class struggle may find fruitful expression in the form of a disciplined organisation, while another conflict may not be resolved at all in such a form.<Natural and social processes exhibit a process of "shedding" untrue forms and taking on forms closer to the content — as if the content was struggling against the form, overthrowing it and becoming itself a new form, only to be replaced by a new deeper content. Contrariwise, an untrue form can overcome the dynamic of the content, suppress it and draw in a new Content more in keeping with the form.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm<In modern history at least it is, therefore, proved that all political struggles are class struggles, and all class struggles for emancipation, despite their necessarily political form — for every class struggle is a political struggle — turn ultimately on the question of economic emancipation. Therefore, here at least, the state — the political order — is the subordination, and civil society — the realm of economic relations — the decisive element. The traditional conception, to which Hegel, too, pays homage, saw in the state the determining element, and in civil society the element determined by it. Appearances correspond to this. As all the driving forces of the actions of any individual person must pass through his brain, and transform themselves into motives of his will in order to set him into action, so also all the needs of civil society — no matter which class happens to be the ruling one — must pass through the will of the state in order to secure general validity in the form of laws. That is the formal aspect of the matter — the one which is self-evident. The question arises, however, what is the content of this merely formal will — of the individual as well as of the state — and whence is this content derived? Why is just this willed and not something else? If we enquire into this, we discover that in modern history the will of the state is, on the whole, determined by the changing needs of civil society, but the supremacy of this or that class, in the last resort, by the development of the productive forces and relations of exchange.https://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/marx-engels/grundisse.htm<As a rule, the most general abstractions arise only in the midst of the richest possible concrete development, where one thing appears as common to many, to all. Then it ceases to be thinkable in a particular form alone. On the other side, this abstraction of labour as such is not merely the mental product of a concrete totality of labours. Indifference towards specific labours corresponds to a form of society in which individuals can with ease transfer from one labour to another, and where the specific kind is a matter of chance for them, hence of indifference. Not only the category, labour, but labour in reality has here become the means of creating wealth in general, and has ceased to be organically linked with particular individuals in any specific form. Such a state of affairs is at its most developed in the most modern form of existence of bourgeois society—in the United States. Here, then, for the first time, the point of departure of modern economics, namely the abstraction of the category 'labour', 'labour as such', labour pure and simple, becomes true in practice. The simplest abstraction, then, which modern economics places at the head of its discussions, and which expresses an immeasurably ancient relation valid in all forms of society, nevertheless achieves practical truth as an abstraction only as a category of the most modern society<Bourgeois society is the most developed and the most complex historic organization of production. The categories which express its relations, the comprehension of its structure, thereby also allows insights into the structure and the relations of production of all the vanished social formations out of whose ruins and elements it built itself up, whose partly still unconquered remnants are carried along within it, whose mere nuances have developed explicit significance within it, etc. Human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the higher development is already known. The bourgeois economy thus supplies the key to the ancient, etc. But not at all in the manner of those economists who smudge over all historical differences and see bourgeois relations in all forms of society.>Must? This is the controversy.there is no controversy. it is in the concept of what a brick is
<(countable) A hardened rectangular block of mud, clay etc., used for building.the intelligibility of a brick being a brick rests on it containing virtually within itself what it is capable of building
>A different place is not in contradiction to anotherall i did was explain what is typically meant by contradiction in the language of dialectics. you can decide whether it is a "real" contradiction or whatever, but there is nothing interesting to argue about there. also you should understand zeno's arrow paradox which is what the dialectical view of motion is responding to
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl431.htm<Now as regards the assertion that there is no contradiction, that it does not exist, this statement need not cause us any concern; an absolute determination of essence must be present in every experience, in everything actual, as in every notion. We made the same remark above in connection with the infinite, which is the contradiction as displayed in the sphere of being. But common experience itself enunciates it when it says that at least there is a host of contradictory things, contradictory arrangements, whose contradiction exists not merely in an external reflection but in themselves. Further, it is not to be taken merely as an abnormality which occurs only here and there, but is rather the negative as determined in the sphere of essence, the principle of all self-movement, which consists solely in an exhibition of it. External, sensuous movement itself is contradiction's immediate existence. Something moves, not because at one moment it is here and at another there, but because at one and the same moment it is here and not here, because in this 'here', it at once is and is not. The ancient dialecticians must be granted the contradictions that they pointed out in motion; but it does not follow that therefore there is no motion, but on the contrary, that motion is existent contradiction itself.<Similarly, internal self-movement proper, instinctive urge in general, (the appetite or nisus of the monad, the entelechy of absolutely simple essence), is nothing else but the fact that something is, in one and the same respect, self-contained and deficient, the negative of itself. Abstract self-identity has no vitality, but the positive, being in its own self a negativity, goes outside itself and undergoes alteration. Something is therefore alive only in so far as it contains contradiction within it, and moreover is this power to hold and endure the contradiction within it. But if an existent in its positive determination is at the same time incapable of reaching beyond its negative determination and holding the one firmly in the other, is incapable of containing contradiction within it, then it is not the living unity itself, not ground, but in the contradiction falls to the ground. Speculative thinking consists solely in the fact that thought holds fast contradiction, and in it, its own self, but does not allow itself to be dominated by it as in ordinary thinking, where its determinations are resolved by contradiction only into other determinations or into nothing.>the particular (e.g. worker/capitalist)"worker" and "capitalist" are determinations which themselves have a universal existence insofar as they span over multiple individuals. and these two inter-determining universal determinations are themselves modes of the greater real abstraction that is capital. any determination one may ascribe to an object is either a universal quality (e.g. colour) which may be shared with other objects or a relationality (e.g. besides .., composed of .. - and note these relationalities may be subordinated to a universal which is the class of relation to which they belong). if you try to cut out any quality which an object might share with another object or any relation it has with another object, you can not even leave in being (as then we would have indeterminate being, which ultimately is just an incomplete moment of the Absolute Idea as hegel demonstrates in the science of logic). what you have left is pure pre-intelligibility. any object, insofar as it is intelligible, hence must be exhausted by its relationality
aeonic materialism breaks with diamat in acknowledging the existence of the pre-intelligible field. the notion of activation admits within itself various degrees of incoherence wherein a positivity is underdetermined in its relation to other things. in physics, this is manifest in heisenberg's uncertainty principle, whilst when it comes to organic motion this is manifest in the ancient chinese concept of qihttps://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/phil/terseaeonmat.html<Within the articulation of act as contraction, we have introduced here a critique of dialectics, and of course by critique we mean more specifically the Kantian gesture of establishing conditions of possibility for a phenomenon. Dialecticians note that in motion there is the presence of the contradiction A=not A as a thing becomes what it is not. This is possible due to the unfolding-enfolding of difference in contraction. From such a perspective, we see that the concept of a 'superposition' is ultimately an abstraction from a greater unfolding development or 'implicate order'. As all motion is indivisible, any particular moment in a movement must be manifestly underdetermined, as it must be subordinated and subordinatable to a greater totality. Motion presupposes both coherent and incoherent activation. Before contradiction, there is the proto-dialectic which cuts across the states of any superposition. hegel is a waste of time when marx already extracted the materialist kernel and discarded the idealist crap
>>2954831Sould I know who either of these are?
>>2954840JAW is a popular idealist and Goatis is a radical materialist
It's a philosophical discussion
>>2954629How come Indians made their Jesus look white?
>turns out it was marco rubio who organized to have jensen huang taken down
how does this fit with our line that politicians are just the servants of the bourgeoisie?
Does the US have a planned economy?
Maybe CEOs are working class?
>>2954834>why are you trying to turn this into an argument when i am simply explaining hegel's notion of dialectics?I am only offering my thoughts on your thoughts on Hegel's thoughts.
>it is self-determiningTo the Greeks, only the soul is self-determining, since it is active life.
Is Hegel's "Spirit" akin to this idea of automation; self-movement?
<As self-relation of the negative the one is a process of determining — and as self-relation it is an infinite self-determining.Okay, so negativity is a determination from without; e.g. relatively, and as positivity, it is self-determined.
<The ideality of being-for-self as a totality thus reverts, in the first place, to reality and that too in its most fixed, abstract form, as the one. The "most" fixed and abstract oneness, like Parmenides' monad?
<the determination of the infinite negation, to the self-determination, so that what the one is in itself is now only ideally present in it, and the negative consequently is an other distinct from itThis seems contradictory. If oneness is totally positive, how can it permit of infinite otherness? But the same problem exists for Plato, who must resolve to treating the cosmos both as an image of God yet so too, as imperfect through the procession of time (e.g. becoming). Time for Plato is brought about by the lower cosmic orders, delegated to the lower deities. Is Hegel then presuming a heavenly temporality?
<What shows itself to be present as distinct from the one is its own self-determining; the unity of the one with itself as thus distinguished from itself is reduced to a relation, and as a negative unity it is a negation of its own self as other, exclusion of the one as other from itself, from the one.So as Plato says, time is the moving image of eternity. It is a negation which negates itself (Plato actually sees an astrological cycle like that of the Yuga Cycle as bringing the cosmos into perfection). We must then ask, is this negation of negation inherent to oneness; e.g. must God allow Adam and Eve to sin so as to overcome the curse? Uniting the Tree of Life with Knowledge seems to be the Communist idea. If we say however that God is determined from without, time precedes his oneness as the cause of his identity. God is only "worshipped" after the fall, not prior to it, since the fall is due to disobedience against him.
<Spirit is Spirit knowing its own selfThis seems reminiscent of Aristotle's unmoved mover.
<not merely content of self-consciousness, and not merely object for self-consciousness; it is also actual Spirit.And the Spirit is actual, not potential, like the soul.
<passing through the three elements of its nature: this movement through its whole self constitutes its actual reality.Now this is different. To presume the soul has motion is to presume the soul has temporality. This then contextualises the earlier comments on "self-relation" by mutual otherness. The classical God has no otherness, but Christianity's God is self-relating by its inner otherness (e.g. by the sacrifice of Jesus and the reclaiming of the Kingdom of Heaven).
<The religious consciousness, to which the Absolute Being is revealedJust sounds like Hegel is making basic protestant arguments.
>marx's reaction to hegel is to recognize the historial contingency in the expression of a system's begriff but not to deny the existence of such a thing, otherwise he would not have written capital.If a system has a begriff, it can only be necessary of its telos, no?
Didn't Marx have a deterministic view of history's unfoldment?
<we discover that in modern history the will of the state is, on the whole, determined by the changing needs of civil society, but the supremacy of this or that class, in the last resort, by the development of the productive forces and relations of exchange.So productivity is an efficient cause, but is Communism a final cause?
<The simplest abstraction, then, which modern economics places at the head of its discussions, and which expresses an immeasurably ancient relation valid in all forms of society, nevertheless achieves practical truth as an abstraction only as a category of the most modern societyOr is Marx saying that the conception of class struggle unto utopia is self-determined by the abstraction of labour, in capitalist society? We see in the Christian conception a view to utopia. Is Marx Christian?
<the intelligibility of a brick being a brick rests on it containing virtually within itself what it is capable of buildingTo a slave master, a slave is only a type of property. That is his concept, but this is not necessarily the slave's concept.
<the infinite, which is the contradiction as displayed in the sphere of beingMaybe this is Hegel's confusion. Zeno also abuses the idea of infinity to frustrate logicians. Infinity can thus be discarded in real discussions.
<Something moves, not because at one moment it is here and at another there, but because at one and the same moment it is here and not here, because in this 'here', it at once is and is not.Hegel is again confused. The first statement is correct. Movement is the relative positioning from one space to another, in time.
<The ancient dialecticians must be granted the contradictions that they pointed out in motionThis is seen in Plato's treatment of Parmindes' monad.
Even for physicists. How can time emerge out of eternity?
<Abstract self-identity has no vitality, but the positive, being in its own self a negativity, goes outside itself and undergoes alteration. Something is therefore alive only in so far as it contains contradiction within itThe Baghavad Gita interestingly approaches this problem of causation. In the text, the cause of sight is the eyes, and so the self has no part in it. Nothing is moved from within, but only without. Plato means only the same in Phaedo where he says that the flesh is the cause of all evil.
>these two inter-determining universal determinations are themselves modes of the greater real abstraction that is capitalI wouldn't say that anything inter-determining is "universal". A universal is only defined by itself, not another, elsewise it is simply a particular.
>greater real abstractionHow can an abstraction be greater than universality?
>a universal quality (e.g. colour) Colour is only universal of that which is the same colour.
>any object, insofar as it is intelligible, hence must be exhausted by its relationalityWhat you are saying is that for a thing to be entered into itself, it must at once find its place in relation to the absolute, like any how ideal forms descend from the monad. Yet, if we presume an actual, ideal reality, then all things are already contained within the universal mind; the nous. All things are then simply unconscious, but still arising from themselves.
>the pre-intelligible fieldIs there pre-intelligibility or just an unconscious?
Lovecraft attempted to pose otherness as the unintelligible, but this is only true where negativity is presumed to exist as a thing in itself. Are you suggesting that there is a substantial no-thing, or formlessness?
<As all motion is indivisible, any particular moment in a movement must be manifestly underdetermined, as it must be subordinated and subordinatable to a greater totality. This seems contradictory. How is a thing both undetermined yet also subordinated to a greater totality, if a totality determines things?
>>2954838>hegel is a waste of time when marx already extracted the materialist kernel and discarded the idealist crapmarx inherited bourgeois idealist crap from hegel and adam smith, all of them are a waste of time and useless currently, since there is no current real movement of proletarians using marxism to abolish the present state of things, until further notice is just another theory floating in the air, you may read any of them or none of them, the result is the same
>>2954878>Is Hegel's "Spirit" akin to this idea of automation; self-movement?yes
>so negativity is a determination from withoutultimately otherness is part of the positivity itself. absolute spirit differentiates out of itself an other which is nevertheless still itself
>The "most" fixed and abstract oneness, like Parmenides' monad?it is more like an immediate unity of what is. i guess you can connect it to parmenides who denied motion because it would involve what is passing into what is not
>how can it permit of infinite othernessotherness is relative. what he means by infinite negation is one that lacks limitation, and for something to fully lack limitation it must incorporate its other into itself
https://hegel.net/en/v11123froeb.htm<But how to do this with the infinite? By definition it is unlimited, so it has no limit, so it has nothing higher above it.<On the other hand, it is in its name, after all, defined by the finite differentiated. But if one had to imagine that the Finite on the one side, Infinity on the other side, then there would be something beyond the finite and infinite. (A meta-infinity so to speak. And can one then not above this meta-infinity another meta-infinity construct, etc.? This is the idea that is used in mathematics: still a higher meta-level and one above it - only another way to create “bad infinity” on a new level).<Moreover, an infinity, which itself is limited by something else (here by the finite) is limited, insofar as it is itself limited, so it is not infinite in that sense, but itself finite (this is the same argument after the turned to the other side).<Which leads us to the question: what is the relationship between the finite and the infinity in such a way that the paradox(es) mentioned do not arise?that is why he calls this infinite otherness self-determination
>must God allow Adam and Eve to sin so as to overcome the curse?that is the hegelian view yes
>This seems reminiscent of Aristotle's unmoved mover.it is
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397034740_The_Dialectics_of_Energy_From_the_Concept_to_Actuality_from_Actuality_to_Virtuality_from_Virtuality_to<“It seems,” Aristotle suggests, “that everything that actually functions has a potential-ity, whereas not everything that has a potentiality actually functions; so that potentiality isprior [δoκεῖγὰρ τὸµὲνἐνεργoῦν πᾶν δύνασθαι τὸδὲδυνάµενoνoὐπᾶνἐνεργεῖν,ὥστεπρóτερoν εἶναι τὴν δύναµιν]” (1071b, 22–5). These are only potential actualities, notliving up to his roundabout definition of energeia in terms of the presence of a thing rid ofpotentiality. And so, still within the phenomenal field of movement, Aristotle leaps to “thatwhich moves without being moved,” a conceptual knot tying together energeia, or actuality,being, and the unmoved mover. With regard to a work (ergon), we must conclude that,while it comes out of itself, “there is also something that moves it. And since that whichis moved while it moves is intermediate, there is something which moves without beingmoved; something eternal, which is both substance and actuality [ἔστι τι ὃoὐκινoύµενoνκινεῖ,ἀΐδιoν καὶoὐσία καὶ ἐνέργεια oὖσα]” (1072a, 20–5).<Even a cursory glance is sufficient to realize that the unmoved mover has little todo with the metaphysical caricatures it has been subject to in the history of philosophy.Pure, active without a shadow of passivity, eternal being deduced from the impossibility ofinfinite regress (something is moved while it moves, and what moves it is itself moved. . .)is entwined with the movement of becoming. Corresponding to the definition of energeia asa presence that is not potential, it does not stagnate, but “moves without being moved.” Itsactivity is counterbalanced by a substantive form: first, as ousia and, second, as energeia. Inthe shape of actuality, Aristotle’s energy is, at the same time, the act that actuality contains,the unity of subject and substance, to put it in Hegelian language.>If a system has a begriff, it can only be necessary of its telos, no?no because form does not necessarily exhaust a system's content. the non-identity of form and content is essential to dialectical materialism
>So productivity is an efficient cause, but is Communism a final cause?productive relations are part of the content and so the deeper underlying begriff of the system. communism is not quite a final cause in the sense that it is not about a particular end state, a particular form
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm<Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.many leftists do not understand the non-identity of form and content and hence treat communism as a particular state of affairs, leading them to say that AES states were not "real communism"
>Is Marx Christian?yes but it is not because of utopianism (as that would treat communism as a specific state of affairs) - rather because he is faithful to the immanent generative process underlying human existence. note that marx like feuerbach refused to call himself an atheist. feuerbach already located god within infinite self-determining ideals, and marx extended feuerbach's material to sensuous activity and thereby larger relations of production
<The characteristic human mode of being, as distinct from that of the animal, is not only the basis, but also the object of religion. But religion is the consciousness of the infinite; hence it is, and cannot be anything other than, man’s consciousness of his own essential nature, understood not as a finite or limited, but as an infinite nature. A really finite being has not even the slightest inkling, let alone consciousness, of what an infinite being is, for the mode of consciousness is limited by the mode of being. The consciousness of the caterpillar, whose life is confined to a particular species of plant, does not extend beyond this limited sphere; it is, of course, able to distinguish this plant from other plants, but that is the entire extent of its knowledge. In a case where consciousness is so limited but where, precisely because of this limitation, it is also infallible and unerring, we speak of instinct rather than consciousness. Consciousness in the strict sense, or consciousness properly speaking, and consciousness of the infinite cannot be separated from each other; a limited consciousness is no consciousness; consciousness is essentially infinite and all-encompassing. The consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of the infinity of consciousness. To put it in other words, in its consciousness of infinity, the conscious being is conscious of the infinity of its own being.<But what is the being of man of which he is conscious, or what is that which constitutes in him his species, his humanity proper? [1] Reason, Will, and Heart. To a complete man belongs the power of thought, the power of will, and the power of heart. The power of thought is the light of knowledge, the power of will is the energy of character, the power of heart is love. Reason, love, and power of will are perfections of man; they are his highest powers, his absolute essence in so far as he is man, the purpose of his existence. Man exists in order to think, love, and will. What is the end of reason? Reason. Of love? Love. Of will? The freedom to will. We pursue knowledge in order to know; love in order to love; will in order to will, that is, in order to be free. Truly to be is to be able to think, love, and will. Only that which exists for its own sake is true, perfect, and divine. But such is love, such is reason, and such is will. The divine trinity in man, but transcending the individual man, is the unity of reason, love, and will. Reason (imagination, fantasy, conception, opinion), will, and love or heart are powers that man does not possess, although he is nothing without them but is what he is through them. As elements constituting his essence which he neither possesses nor makes, they are the very powers that animate, determine, and govern him – divine, absolute powers that he is powerless to resist. [2]>not necessarily the slave's conceptinsofar as the slave recognizes themselves as a slave, they recognize themselves as property. but of course slave is a particular form which does not exhaust the content of the slave's essence
>>2954932>Zeno also abuses the idea of infinity to frustrate logiciansthe arrow paradox is different from the paradox of achilles and the tortoise
>A universal is only defined by itself, not another, elsewise it is simply a particular.a universal is what is held in common by particulars. hegel points out that a concrete universal must hence virtually contain within itself particulars which admit it. ultimately there is a trinity between universal, singular and particular in hegel's logic which he goes on to relate to the christian trinity
>then all things are already contained within the universal mind; the nous. All things are then simply unconscious, but still arising from themselves.yes but contingency is important in dialectical materialism. i dont think marx was a determinist. materialism to me underscores the non-identity of form and content as well as the reality of contingency. now the question is, if we admit contingency, how can we conceptualize the intelligibility of contingency? this is why zizek emphasizes the incompleteness of nature and takes an interest in quantum mechanics. the not-all becomes a superposition of different totalities which collapses into a particular history. this can be compared to the huayan buddhist understanding of li as emptiness
https://web.archive.org/web/20170910083143/http://www.fgu.edu.tw/~cbs/pdf/2013%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%E9%9B%86/q16.pdf<The first of these types of perspectives is termed “shi,” often rendered as “phenomenon” or “event” (事). This is the tacit, ordinary, conventional perspective with which most people identify most of the time. This is why it is not included in the original model – it is not a meditative perspective, it is a mundane one. It takes events at more or less face value – it does not raise questions about metaphysics or ontological or epistemological status. There are a virtually infinite set of possible perspectives at this level. Garma Chang, in The Buddhist Teaching of Totality, offers the example of a glass of water. The water is seen by a chemist as H2O, or a universal solvent. It is seen by a firefighter as something used to extinguish flames. It is seen by a thirsty person as something to drink. It is in fact all of these things, potentially, though at any given time it may function in one or another way. The problem with this perspective arises when it is universally applied, even in cases when other perspectives seem to conflict with it. Although admittedly a silly example, if a firefighter were dying of thirst but could only see the water as a means of extinguishing fires, then he might die of thirst before he would think to drink the water. Obstinate application of disjunctive perspectives is counterproductive and causes frustration or suffering, the elimination of which is the goal of Buddhism in general. Again, the problem is not with this perspective per se, but with fixation or attachment to a particular perspective. What we think are the essences of objects are really therefore nothing but mere names, mere functional designations, and none of these contextual definitions need necessarily interfere with any of the others. The significance of an object, and in fact it’s very reality, at any given moment is a function of the contextual perspective from which it is approached. At rest, all of these potential contextual perspectives interpenetrate, in that each context is at that point still merely a possible approach to functional significance. Functional designations are actualized when the moment of their use for some practical purpose is at hand. And a particular perspective is adopted.<This model correlates with modern Quantum Mechanical views of the universe. Basically a statistical model of reality, Quantum Mechanics suggests that the occurrence of events can be described mathematically by a series of wave functions. As the occurrence of an event approaches, there are wave functions which describe the probabilities of all particular possible outcomes of the event. These probability functions do not interfere with each other, and exist side by side until the event actually occurs. Until the event occurs, it is all of them and none of them. At that moment, one of the wave functions, that which describes the actual outcome, expands to one hundred per cent probability. While the others collapse to zero probability. The point is that until the wave function collapse and the event actually occurs, all possible outcomes are equally inherent, and it is only when the moment of actualization is at hand that one possible outcome becomes dominant. The process philosopher Whitehead calls this process “concrescence,” or the actual becoming concrete of abstract possibilities.>Are you suggesting that there is a substantial no-thing, or formlessness?sort of but it is not just a para brahman. it is more like what deleuze's grasped in saying that nonsense is in fact immanent to sense
<Let us return to Levi-Strauss' paradox: two series being given, signifying and signified, there is a natural excess of the signifying series and a natural lack of the signified series. There is, necessarily, a 'Jloatin9 si9nifier, which is the servitude of all finite thought, but also the promise of all art, all poetry, all mythic and aesthetic invention. " We would like to add that it is the promise of all revolutions. And then there is on the other side a kind of floated si9nped, given by the signifier "without being thereby known," without being thereby assigned or realized. LeviStrauss proposes to interpret in this way the words "gadget" or "whatnot," "something," "aliquid, " but also the famous "mono" (or, yet again, "it" [ c;a ]). This is a value "in itself void of sense and thus susceptible of taking on any sense, whose unique function would be to fill the gap between signifier and signified. " "It is a symbolic value zero, that is, a sign marking the necessity of a symbolic content supplementary to that which already charges the signified, but able to take any value whatsoever, on the condition that it belong to the available reserve … " It is necessary to understand that the two series are marked, one by excess, the other by lack, and that the two determinations are interchanged without ever reaching equilibrium. What is in excess in the signifying series is literally an empty square and an always displaced place without an occupant. What is lacking in the signified series is a supernumerary and non-situated given-an unknown, an occupant without a place, or something always displaced. These are two sides of the same thingtwo uneven sides-by means of which the series communicate without losing their difference. It is the adventure in the Sheep's shop or the story that the esoteric word narrates.<Authors referred to as "structuralists" by recent practice may have no essential point in common other than this: sense, regarded not at all as appearance but as surface effect and position effect, and produced by the circulation of the empty square in the structural series (the place of the dummy, the place of the king, the blind spot, the floating signifier, the value degree· zero, the off-stage or absent cause, etc.). Structuralism, whether consciously or not, celebrates new findings of a Stoic and Carrollian inspiration. Structure is in fact a machine for the production of incorporeal sense (skindapsos). But when structuralism shows in this manner that sense is produced by nonsense and its perpetual displacement, and that it is born of the respective position of elements which are not by themselves "signifying," we should not at all compare it with what was called the philosophy of the absurd: Carroll, yes; Camus, no. This is so because, for the philosophy of the absurd, nonsense is what is opposed to sense in a simple relation with it, so that the absurd is always defined by a deficiency of sense and a lack (there is not enough of it … ). From the point of view of structure, on the contrary, there is always too much sense: an excess produced and over-produced by nonsense as a lack of itself. Jakobson defines a phoneme zero, having no phonetically determined value, by its opposition to the absence of the phoneme rather than to the phoneme itself. Likewise, nonsense does not have any particular sense, but is opposed to the absence of sense rather than to the sense that it produces in excess-without ever maintaining with its product the simple relation of exclusion to which some people would like to reduce them. 3 Nonsense is that which has no sense, and that which, as such and as it enacts the donation of sense, is opposed to the absence of sense. This is what we must understand by "nonsense. "here is a writing where i attempt to explain my perspective more:
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/phil/anacoord.html<i would lean things more into a “mind-distribution identity theory”. i actually mentioned this mind-object approach because it really highlights why my ontology (/meontology?) is so important. optical flow perception helps explain phenomena such as the apparent wobbling of a strobing cube and the fact that qualia is actually processual explains why LSD in low doses makes colours become seemingly more vivid along with increases in visual acuity the increased visual acuity in the above example points to the fact that all qualia are in fact further determinables or potential determinables. a particular shade of red can potentially diffract into finer shades of red depending on both the physical conditions of the organism and those of the object. it seems perfectly conceivable that a physical system could resonate with its environment in arbitrarily small scales of time resulting in arbitrarily diffracted light qualia.<[…] i do agree that our experiences are concept laden, but our experience also contains conceptual indeterminacy within it. an example of this is a monk two thousand years ago attending to his motor experience as he grips a broom. there is an extent to which that motor experience could have further inferential structure connecting it to gripping a bike handle. however, bikes did not exist two thousand years ago, and therefore we have a degree “unrealized potential” within the experience itself. as i reject the existence of a pre-existent realm of possibility, this is necessarily an actually ontological indeterminacy kauffman’s no-entailment laws in biology may be applied to this problem of conceptual underdetermination as an alternative especially to brandom’s conceptual realism. any other example we can have is how floors existed before brooms existed. it should only be after the invention of brooms that we could say there are any inferential relationships between the two>How is a thing both undetermined yet also subordinated to a greater totality, if a totality determines things?underdetermined, not whole undetermined. there is a matter of degree in determination
>>2954933>not whole undetermined*not wholly undetermined
>>2954932>otherness is part of the positivity itselfThis seems contradictory, since otherness surely negates.
One cannot be self-other except by negation of negation, but in this case, the double-negative results in a positive, like in arithmetic.
>absolute spirit differentiates out of itself an other which is nevertheless still itselfThis I find irrational, but then again, pure logic leads to problems.
>A meta-infinityThis seems to be the meaning of infinity itself.
An endless sequence is an infinity, which is given as a set.
Infinity is then unreal. It describes continuation, but isn't a continuum.
The boundless is really the unconditional, which is more coherent.
For example, "reality" is an unconditional clause, not infinity.
>form does not necessarily exhaust a system's contentBut doesn't content become "intelligible" by its format?
>>2954933>a universal is what is held in common by particularsYes, and so I don't think a universal can itself become particular to a "higher" universality, abstraction or totality. It is already those things.
>the non-identity of form and content Coukd you elaborate on what you mean by this? Thanks.
>the incompleteness of natureRight, and I would say that this is teleological.
In this clip, Zizek simply de-substantialises the ideal form, but sees it persist in the tendency of objects. Zizek is a half-hearted idealist, which maybe describes most materialists, wouldn't you say?
>there is a matter of degree in determinationAnd would you say that this is to do with formality?
Where a content is brought into conception by relation to absolute, this is where it gains its determinacy as part of the greater whole? In this case, would you agree with Hegel that protestant theology is the terminus of conception? A revealed religion which historicises itself?
why do some reacionaries hide behind not being political but when being called out claim 'its bringing in politics', or 'stop making it about politics'.
>>2954949>This seems to be the meaning of infinity itself.well the meta-infinity if it takes on the same form as before just repeats the same problem. hegel's true infinite has to incorporate otherness into itself. it is like the divine self-differentiating itself into multiplicity
https://hegel.net/en/v11123froeb.htm<Then logically the only solution that remains is that the finite must therefore be contained in infinity, or, to put it another way, that the infinite includes everything finite. (One can see this from the perspective of the finiteness in such a way that the finite has therefore at part at infinity, is part of infinity).<This infinity is therefore self-determining and has its own difference (particularities) in itself. It is therefore not the “abstract” infinity of an “infinite” set containing finite elements, but more the infinite concept containing its particularities.<In religious language, it is not an abstract God that is just above and beyond all and where all differences disappear.this can be connected to the mystical panentheistic experience of omnipresence
>But doesn't content become "intelligible" by its format?yes but this does not mean everything within content can be immediately made manifest
>I don't think a universal can itself become particular to a "higher" universality, abstraction or totalitydifferent colours are universals insofar as they are held in common by their own array of objects, but they are also particular colours. colour itself is subordinated to the universal of quality. one way of thinking of this can be found in nishida's logic of basho
https://thekyotoschoolofphilosophy.wordpress.com/the-logic-of-basho/<Just as, in the Inquiry, Nishida stated that “pure experience includes thinking,” (Nishida, An Inquiry into the Good ,17), he finds that the initial intuition, which he calls “intellectual intuition,” includes “the structure of the relationship,” that is, that the colour red necessarily arises at the same time as the universal called “colour.” Already in the Inquiry, we read: “If red were the only color, it would not appear to us as such, because for it to do so there must be colors that are not red. Moreover, for one quality to be compared with and distinguished from another, both qualities must be fundamentally identical; two things totally different with no point in common cannot be compared and distinguished. If all things are established through such opposition, then there must be a certain unifying reality concealed at their base.” (Nishida, An Inquiry into the Good, 56), This unity concealed at the base of all colours is the universal called “colour.” So the colour red and the universal called “colour” are intuited in pure experience. The word “system” – instead of “universal” – used by Carter when he says that “to say that one’s glass of wine is red, then, is to have already “bought into” the system of wines and their types,” refers to the fact that when things are given “names,” they are actually “enveloped” by a multiplicity of universals, not just one – here the different types of wines, the different brands for each type, the various vintages, the many grape varieties used, the winemaking styles traditional to various regions, etc.<So, Carter continues: “What is primary in the judgment “red is a color,” is not the grammatical subject … the real subject of the sentence “red is a color” is not “red,” nor even the grammatical predicate “color,” but the system of colors itself. To have a concept of “red” is already to have a concept of colors. Of course, the system, like “color” itself, has no color.” (Carter, The Nothingness Beyond God, 27). As all things can only appear in contrast with each other within pairs of opposites, the concept of red is intuited at the same time as the concept of colour. “Color is a “field” in which specifications arise … A field-theory takes the background as the real foreground, the real subject. So, in a field of energy, focuses or concentrations of energy are really specifications of the whole, just as in a Zen rock garden, a particular shape simply calls attention to the undifferentiated expanse on which it sits, or better, out of which it arises … “The field itself, however, is not all colors… but that which supports, or even generates, colors … “It is an intuition, a given of experience or conception of which individual instances are but partial articulations.”(Carter, The Nothingness Beyond God, 29)>Coukd you elaborate on what you mean by this? Thanks.it goes back to the inexhaustibility of content and the fact that a form can express content to different degrees of adequacy. for instance, a prime marxist observation is how bourgeois institutions are never able to be true to their own pretence of abstract universality, as their expression is always tainted by the backroom deals and lobbying that comes with our present mode of production
>Right, and I would say that this is teleological.hyperteleological even, as a superposition of different telos's. necessity's retroaction is a collapse of the wave function
>would you agree with Hegel that protestant theology is the terminus of conception?i think this is true to an extent but i see not-all qua superposition as something that is true when one wants to maintain the autonomy of conception. if instead you bracket the individuation of the different possibilities and you also accept the possibility of an embodied intellectual intuition of activation's energetic incoherent intensities, then the theology changes. this is why i talk of tiamat as being a sort of immanent generativity prior to the triune godhead, insofar as it pertains to this sort of energetic consistency who's universality is more a morphic resonance rather than sharp demarcation under fixed universal law
>>2954944Finding out Ethan Klein was a Hyde wannabe fanboy was a funny revelation
I'm a trot
>>2955088The better clips of Hasan I've seen usually involve Stavros.
>>2954944J-woke was one of his funniest bits and this was right before the genocode iirc
>>2955325>I think Hasan is kind of an idiot but I feel kind of bad for him because he's probably miserable all the fucking time because he's a streamer and a bunch of psychotic people hate himI think you are a parasocial retard projecting your own miserable life circumstances on a popular person who leads a fulfilled life of luxury.
>>2954970>hegel's true infinite has to incorporate otherness into itself. it is like the divine self-differentiating itself into multiplicityPlato's Timaeus has a fascinating account of creation, where matter and God (called "the living thing") both exist before time. God orders matter into shape and this creates time. The prima materia then can be seen to compose God, from which he thence emerges, or perhaps contrarily, God comes into a pre-existent matter from his own domain. In any case, there is a multiplicity assumed before unity, or harmony, rather than the multiple emerging from the singular. Ex Nihilo as the doctrine of creation is contradictory, so matter can only be self-other of God, unless matter is uncreated. It is said that God crafted cosmos in his own image, and so as a likeness, it must also be a reflection. Why doth God create? To create his own image; e.g. man, by which he is reflected through. This is also the Marxist perspective, in reverse; e.g. following Feuerbach, that man makes God in his own image by which his essence is reflected – this becomes money, and capital. If this is the riddle of history solved, then fair enough, but it doesn't get to the philosophical argumemt of why there is something rather than nothing. The Christian view is that sin (negation) is the determining factor of history (e.g. toward apocalypse) and whereby it negates itself, in Hell itself being thrown into the lake of fire, and so man being united in his knowledge of good and evil, and of the waters of life. It's interesting, since the Christian view is historical, not post-historical. God himself enters into history as its pivot. We live in a Christian world of self-consciousness, but is this our destiny, or can the Olympians return?
<the infinite concept containing its particularities.But doesn't this imply an infinite series of particulars?
>the mystical panentheistic experience of omnipresenceBut doesn't the otherness of God imply his ontological absence?
The Catholic view of Hell is of a godless space and time.
Justice can persist so long as people willfully abandon God, no?
For example, T.S. Elliot's Satanic poetry:
<I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/44212/the-love-song-of-j-alfred-prufrockThe drive to escape self-consciousness surely has its right.
>does not mean everything within content can be immediately made manifestWhy not? Only by time. Without time, everything may be immediate.
From what I perceive, Hegel presumes God to be caught in time.
>they are also particular colours<when things are given “names,” they are actually “enveloped” by a multiplicity of universals, not just oneBut this becomes an absurdity. If we presume real universals to exist then the primary universal of "all" contains all universals, making all universals actually particulars. For this reason, Aristotle did not treat universals substantially; which in Ockham, became nominalism. If we are Platonic, we see that each thing really is a formal essence by participating in other forms unto infinity. This is the view of Hegel, it seems – to propose a series of essences which combine into things. It is true nonetheless that in a given concept, there is an implicit idea already within it. Redness implies colour, so must be a part of colour. But is colour an independent quality? Thus the question; is black a colour, or a lack of colour? If all colours are also parts of whiteness, then calling anything "red" seems incorrect, if it is really "white". Too, is white its own colour, or many colours? So, "colour" has implication.
<“color” itself, has no color.” Does a house have no bricks? Or is it simply many bricks?
>as a superposition of different telos's. Teloi are unable to be plural of the same thing, since the final cause of a thing is inscribed into its process, like Hegel's concept, you wrote. In the case of contingency, this simply means failure is possible. Zizek's view of contingency appears to be that telos is effected by accident, not necessity, like how many things were invented by incompetence.
>immanent generativity prior to the triune godheadWould you compare this to prima materia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_materia >>2955343>>2954970>>2954949Interesting discussion and something that is central to my existence. I don't think I can wade into every aspect of what you two are talking about, but I'd like to give my own take and I think I can explain it very simply without jargon or making it overly complex since I've tried to espouse it to so many people over the years. It has similarities to a lot of different views, and I believe that, if there is an objective truth, then everyone will come to the same conclusions naturally. Like the world being a globe, the Earth orbiting the sun, etc. etc. If it is objectively true, then with enough time and study, everyone will come to the same conclusions.
I believe "god" is the one true thing in existence. I'm god, you're god, everyone and everything is that thing. Everything that exists is purely imaginary. Like when you have a dream, everyone and everything in that dream is purely you right? That is how it is with the universe/existence whatever. Now that thing is the only thing that has ever existed or will ever exist or could possibly exist. We are all imaginary subdivisions of that infinite, solitary thing. One and infinity are the same thing. UNIverse. There is no "other universes" there is only that one thing. Our whole concept of things, being in a container, being BOUNDED, by some other concept or thing are irrelevant to that universal thing. In fact, all concepts are irrelevant. Things that exist can only exist in contrast to their opposite. This universal thing has no opposite, has no other. It is good and evil simultaneously, up and down, left and right, old and young. There is no before or after. That thing is qualitiless, because qualities are finite and only exist in the form of their imaginary opposite. Our, it's only existence is pure qualitlessness. It is suffering and pleasure at the same time, forever. It is literally ineffable, something else would have to exist for it to be described, since it is the only thing to exist, that's not possible.
Now back to the core question, why should a existence exist? Simply to pass the time. We have an eternity to work through. Time is an irrelevant concept to that thing because time is also imaginary.
So what is the purpose in even knowing this(or rather having an inkling, because it is impossible to know the truth, we are known, we can't know it.) Well it is like(back to the dream analogy) gaining lucidity in a dream. You come to have power over that dream. Does it matter at all in some grand scheme of things? No it doesn't, nothing matters at all. It really is a question of ending this cycle/existence whatever, faster or slower, but that is also irrelevant because we still have an eternity of existences to go through. I believe that all things gravitate to this truth and will become one with it in enough time eventually. I like to say that we are beyond the event horizon of god/that thing. Because it doesn't matter if you move left/right/up/down in relation to anything else, because you are always on a trajectory to it.
>>2955345>If you can't physically present a thing to me, you can't prove it.Okay then present to me a thing using categories independent of our conscious reasoning of the thing.
>>2955349Intelligence, omniscience, is the true nature of that thing, because this existence is imaginary. Ignorance is purely imaginary. God/that thing is imagining, "what if imaginary ignorant things did this and that, that and this." That is why things evolve, and move towards intelligence, because that is our/its true nature, because we are just imaginary things it is imagining. This whole existence could rather be thought of as a thought experiment or a hypothetical, because in reality, nothing is happening or ever will happen. The thing is ineffable and immutable. It's more a thought experiment like "what if I could be described?" "What if I could change?" But that's just an illusory idea that will work itself out, then another illusory idea will be entertained, and so on and so forth forever.
To put more simply and emotionally, I think it is lonely being that thing, it creates imaginary friends to pass the eternal time.
>>2955349>>2955353That thing is where all concepts and opposites terminate or rather they were nonsensical paradoxes in the first place. In that way too, absolute freedom is a prison. That thing has freedom to do anything, but there is nothing to do anything to, freedom to go anywhere, but there is nowhere to go to.
>>2955349>existence is a dreamThis is the view of Bernardo Kastrup, who I would recommend for you.
In art, there is also Lovecraft's Atazoth, Kanye West's "Ultralight Beams" (e.g. "We're in a God-dream") and Adventure Time's Prizmo.
>oneness is without qualities, yet is the source of quality.We could call this Brahman, as exposited in the Hindu Upanishads;
The ground of everything which resembles nothing, like the Tao.
>unity is absolutely distinguished from diversityWe could say that this how the Platonic Monad and Dyad operate. In the Dyad is duality as you describe, which is the Heraclitean Logos. In Christianity as well, the Father (Monad) begets the Son (Logos), and only through the Logos is anything made. This is also seen in the Tao.
>Simply to pass the timeWould you characterise this as a "fall" into time or matter?
>It really is a question of ending this cycle/existence whateverIn our discussion on Hegel, the Christian point would be that a cycle of completion involves the negation of negation, which like in all of these mystical traditions, is about "ending the cycle" of suffering. In Plato and the Mahabrata, it is characterised as an astrological cycle.
>>2955353Loneliness is surely only a relationship of opposition, though?
>>2955356>This is the view of Bernardo Kastrup, who I would recommend for you.Interesting, I'll try to check him out. Add it to my list.
>In art, there is also Lovecraft's Atazoth, Never got too deep into Lovecraft but also maybe I will check out whatever that is from.
>Kanye West's "Ultralight Beams" (e.g. "We're in a God-dream") and Adventure Time's Prizmo.I like Adventure Time, not a big fan of Kanye. I think I remember Prizmo a little, never finished the whole thing.
>We could call this Brahman, as exposited in the Hindu Upanishads;I'm pretty big into Hindu philosophy. It's what has resonated with me more than anything but I don't like into get into subscribing to this system or that. I like what Vivekananda says about books becoming useless once you touch that thing and gain knowledge of it with practice.
>The ground of everything which resembles nothing, like the Tao.I like what I've read of the Tao Te ching, but I think maybe it is too abstract instead of trying to explain clearly and thoroughly, not that I think that is truly possible.
>unity is absolutely distinguished from diversityI'm not saying that. I'm saying UNI is the same thing as infinity. To be infinite, it has to be unitary. This goes back to what I was talking about, about all paradoxes and contrary concepts meeting their opposite.
>Would you characterise this as a "fall" into time or matter?Not in the sense typically meant.
>Loneliness is surely only a relationship of opposition, though?I said it was an emotional, humanistic kind of simplification, I would say that I believe our true existence is "unbearable" which is why that thing always creates imaginary existences.
>In our discussion on Hegel, the Christian point would be that a cycle of completion involves the negation of negation, which like in all of these mystical traditions, is about "ending the cycle" of suffering. In Plato and the Mahabrata, it is characterised as an astrological cycle.The suffering never ends. Our true existence is more insufferable than anything possible in the imaginary existence of creation. Like I said, for us to imagine as humans what that is. Nothing means anything, nothing is pleasurable or painful, or it is both in equal measure. It will never end. The only thing that thing can do is imagine imaginary realities where these kind of concepts have meaning.
>>2955358>Adventure TimeI think I'm the only person who knows that Finn and Jake represent the boy and dog on the Fool (0) Tarot Card. Esoterically, this seems to refer to the sun and sirius (e.g. the dog star).
>I think maybe it is too abstract instead of trying to explain clearly and thoroughlyWell, the point of the Tao is that it cannot be described.
Like Brahman, since it is emptiness, it lacks description.
A proper reading of Plato yields the same result for the Good.
Negative theology also encounters the ineffibility of God.
>To be infinite, it has to be unitary. I would call this a contradiction
>The suffering never endsWhy live, if existence is suffering?
>>2955369>I think I'm the only person who knows that Finn and Jake represent the boy and dog on the Fool (0) Tarot Card. Esoterically, this seems to refer to the sun and sirius (e.g. the dog star).I like The Holy Mountain too.
>Why live, if existence is suffering?Because there is no other choice. Like Arjuna, like The Fool. They say The Fool represents both the beginning and the end.
>In the cyclical structure of the Major Arcana, The Fool (0) represents both the absolute beginning and the seamless return to the infinite, acting as the bridge that connects the end of one journey to the start of the next<The Starting Point (0): Numbered zero, The Fool stands outside the numbered sequence (I to XXI), embodying pure, unmanifested potential, innocence, and a blank slate before stepping into life's experiences.<The Return After The World (XXI): After passing through all the archetypal lessons, trials, and-accomplishments of the Major Arcana culminating in The World, the cycle does not simply stop. Instead, The Fool loops back around—carrying the wisdom, scars, and integration of the entire journey—to step off the cliff once more with a renewed, transformed innocence<The Continuous Ring: Rather than a straight line from birth to death, the Major Arcana functions as a continuous spiral or ring where every ending births a new beginning
>Well, the point of the Tao is that it cannot be described. >Like Brahman, since it is emptiness, it lacks description.Yes I agree and I see the truth in it and many other things. Sometimes some vague abstract poetical statements resonate with me, sometimes not. I think the truth is beyond thinking and indescribable like I said, but thinking sometimes gets the ball rolling from my experience even if it loops back around to not thinking, the fool.
>I would call this a contradictionBut it's not. Seeming opposites are all really the same thing is a point I kept bringing up. "Two sides of the same coin." In a more direct sense, it is literally baked into the English language. UNI, meaning single. The universe, meaning all that is. To hold everything, it must be singular. If there were things that were not a part of it, then it wouldn't be universal. If there were multiple infinities, they wouldn't be infinite(don't bother me about mathematical set theory whatever, I am talking about true infinity in the original meaning.)
A concept you haven't brought up I like is Maya. Specifically the idea that pleasure creates suffering, good creates evil and vice-versa. In some aspects this is literally true, like to create things in this illusion, we have to destroy things. Our bodies have to destroy life to survive, to create our bodies. But even if those physical laws could be overcome, on a moral inescapable level, pleasure creates suffering. The more you love someone, the more it will hurt when they inevitably die, the more your enjoy something, the more it will hurt when its over, etc.
>As we increase our power to be happy, we also increase our power to suffer, and sometimes I am inclined to think that if we increase our power to become happy in arithmetical progression, we shall increase, on the other hand, our power to become miserable in geometrical progression. We who are progressing know that the more we progress, the more avenues are opened to pain as well as to pleasure. And this is Maya.
>“"The sum total is always the same. Wherever there is a wave in one place, there is a hollow in another. If one nation becomes rich, others become poor. Good balances evil."But why am I a leftist, a "materialist" in some regards and how can any of this provide some useful material benefit? I think knowing the truth makes you realize how easily we could overcome the smaller and easier paradoxes/contradictions of life. We could easily create a utopian world where everyone is beyond the basic problems of hunger/disease etc. etc. The greater insurmountable paradoxes will always be there, but we could at least have respite from such basic silly problems. I find in life, people tend to artificially create simple problems in life(self-destructive behaviors) to keep their minds from contemplating the real, insurmountable ones(I'm often one of them.) I think that explains so much about why human society is the way it is. We all could solve the basic problems so easily.
>>2955377>ArjunaBut what Krishna says to Arjuna concerning the Dharma is that one does not need to suffer where he has consciousness of Krishna. I take the position that Wisdom means detachment from possessions and so a liberation into bliss. Suffering comes from our attachments; our identities in other things. Krishna consciousness is self-identity.
>Sometimes some vague abstract poetical statements resonate with me, sometimes notThe fact that all wisdom is encoded in myth shows that the truth can't be revealed excepy by symbols, like Jungian archetypes and so on. It is impossible to grasp the ungraspable. Like with Medusa, we may only view her by a mirror, backwards. To look directly is becoming stone; petrified. Like Arjuna's glimpse of Krishna's infinite form, it is unbearable. This is maybe why drug trips can't be perfectly recalled.
>Seeming opposites are all really the same thing>MayaBut isn't Maya a trickster? To confuse good for evil is unwise, no?
>We could easily create a utopian world where everyone is beyond the basic problems of hunger/disease etc. I consider myself a political Taoist (verse 80):
<If a country is governed wisely, its inhabitants will be content. They enjoy the labor of their hands and don't waste time inventing labor-saving machines. Since they dearly love their homes, they aren't interested in travel. There may be a few wagons and boats, but these don't go anywhere. There may be an arsenal of weapons, but nobody ever uses them. People enjoy their food, take pleasure in being with their families, spend weekends working in their gardens, delight in the doings of the neighborhood. And even though the next country is so close that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking, they are content to die of old age without ever having gone to see it.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html >>2955380>>2955378Guess it didn't work out with Tamara either huh
>>2955381>But what Krishna says to Arjuna concerning the Dharma is that one does not need to suffer where he has consciousness of Krishna. I take the position that Wisdom means detachment from possessions and so a liberation into bliss. Suffering comes from our attachments;I think that detachment brings relief from the suffering resulting from those attachments. But ask yourself, why would god create suffering and attachments in the first place.
>But isn't Maya a trickster? To confuse good for evil is unwise, no?Good and evil only exist within a context and framework. It is bad to kill, it is good to kill to save others lives. Trolley problem etc. etc. The absolute is neither good nor evil or it is both in equal measure. I'm not saying we cannot define good or bad within a certain context like creating a better world for humans, life on this planet, etc. But the absolute is what created good and evil in the first place. In fact you can only have good in relation to evil.
I said the true existence is suffering, but that is not exactly accurate, it's ineffable. I do not feel like it is a peace of any kind otherwise why would this thing keep creating universes filled with suffering? It's not exactly a heart warming message to be sure. To me god is neither good nor evil. Creation is neither good nor evil. To me if I have to describe the ineffable, I would say god is just a victim of their reality. But they are their own reality. So god is a victim of itself. And in our world of creation it surely is because it is playing both the victim and the oppressor. To describe what the feeling is of the true existence to me, it is like a perfect bipolar state where you're laughing and crying at the same time. Boundaries melting away. You spoke of a "fall" it is falling into yourself. But you can't describe it as good or bad, pleasurable or painful, peaceful or violent. It is just the state it has always been and will ever be in. We can't really understand how comfortable the illusion of time and directionality is of scale and dimension, of being bounded. Maybe I am just projecting too much of my own feelings on to it, but again I say ask: Why would thing keep creating these imaginary creations/universes? Or why would god not just create an existence of pure pleasure and bliss? Because qualities can only exist in regards to their opposite qualities. In the extreme end, bliss becomes pain. Eventually everything becomes unbounded and that's the end point and the starting point all over again. That's why it becomes the fool again because knowing kinda sucks if I had to put a quality on it. Some say some stuff like "god comes to better understand itself" blahh blahh, but there is nothing to understand. It's true existence is answering its own question before it even asks it. In that way too, even the creation is just a 'blink of an eye' but actually even shorter than that because it exists outside of time.
>>2955361Bro is desperate to have a king
>>2955399>why would god create suffering and attachments in the first place.Great question.
As we see from ancient ethics, the Buddhist "middle way" and the Aristotelian "golden mean" both preach moderation. Extremity in either direction causes suffering by disequilibrium. As I have discussed above, the medical theory of the humours is a theory of imbalance. As for suffering in general, it comes from the flesh, or the illusion of Maya. Both Plato and Jesus saw the flesh as the cause of suffering. We see in Genesis how after the fall of man, God clothes them in "animal skins" by which this means material bodies. Hesiod too sees man descend from being an incorporeal spirit into a body. So, all pain exists in the body, which is why the mystic wants to escape the body. Evidently, man "falls" by a primordial sin, but what is the sin? Either way, the ancients speak of reincarnation (metempsychosis) unto the final release of a soul from this material "vale of tears" toward God.
>why would this thing keep creating universes filled with suffering?If life is a dream, a terrible life is a nightmare.
When we wake up (e.g. die) we realise how silly suffering really is, no?
>why would god not just create an existence of pure pleasure and bliss? Krishna says that when we die we receive our rewards in the heavens. Too, Plato writes that in death, we return to our soul-star to have bliss. It's clear that this world is only temporary and our true selves persist.
Read what Plato writes here:
<He who lived well during his appointed time was to return and dwell in his native star, and there he would have a blessed and congenial existence. But if he failed in attaining this, at the second birth he would pass into a woman, and if, when in that state of being, he did not desist from evil, he would continually be changed into some brute who resembled him in the evil nature which he had acquired, and would not cease from his toils and transformations until he followed the revolution of the same and the like within him, and overcame by the help of reason the turbulent and irrational mob of later accretions, made up of fire and air and water and earth, and returned to the form of his first and better state. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1572/1572-h/1572-h.htmLife is some sort of a test where souls are perfected by suffering.
>>2955417>>2955417>But if he failed in attaining this, at the second birth he would pass into a woman, Lol.
>>2955417>Life is some sort of a test where souls are perfected by suffering.Yes this is a common line of thinking. That is generally the Christian way of thinking.>>2955417
>and would not cease from his toils and transformations until he followed the revolution of the same and the like within him, and overcame by the help of reason the turbulent and irrational mob of later accretions, made up of fire and air and water and earth, and returned to the form of his first and better state. Yes that is sort of what I am saying.
I believe in reincarnation and persistent souls across lives, but at the end of time and creation I believe we become one but with the original soul we are just a fragment of. Indivuation of any kind is also illusion.
So why does that perfect soul create existence, the imperfection, then come back to perfection, then create imperfection again, endlessly? That thing is immutable. It cannot change. To put it simply, I say to pass the time of eternity. That perfect state is itself not perfected, or it can find resolution or peace. Things move through a cycle of creation back to perfection and unity, then another imperfect creation of imaginary division springs into existence. As for us, all we can do is move towards perfection once again, but is no true end point. We are that thing trapped in the endless cycle.
>>2955546>>2955567The people who don't understand how "I would sell my kids to Epstein if it meant deportations" could've POSSIBLY lost at the ballot box don't understand how numbers and history work? Whaaaat?
>>2954568You sound very confident. When it doesn't happen you need to upload a video of you drinking your own piss or something.
Unique IPs: 183