/lit/ - Literature

>>18797700
He'd be literally Jean-Claude Michéa.

It's a form of pacification. Politics inform Science.

>The crucial importance of Galileo's Scienza Nuova is above all to the fact that it made philosophically conceivable the project - the modern one par excellence - of making human beings 'masters and possessors of nature'. And yet, it is above all as the image of a new symbolic authority, the ideal of Science, an authority that could henceforth be opposed to that of the Church, that Galilean physics produced its two most important ideological effects. On the one hand, it supplied a particularly solid metaphysical foundation for the notion of progress (a point that Pascal immediately noticed). And on the other hand, it promoted the belief - whose postulates Hobbes and Spinoza were among the first to define - that the extension of the Galilean method to the study of human nature would soon make it possible to construct a 'social physics', and by way of this create the conditions at last for a 'scientific' and 'impartial' treatment of the political problem.

>>9421750
Correct.

Why doesn't feminism assess matriarchal forms of control?

>Since the nineteenth century all 'patriarchal' forms of domination have been copiously described and rejected, to the point of becoming a washed-out commonplace of social critique and 'gender studies'. Not nearly enough has been said, on the other hand, of those forms of subjection and manipulation of others that have their unconscious model in the maternal hold. This kind of 'forgetfulness' is particularly strange. It was in fact at the very moment when the dynamic of modern societies began to undermine the cultural foundation of earlier patriarchal constructions - by discrediting, to the profit of the mechanisms of Law and the Market, all references to a symbolic law - that the attention of social criticism came to focus in an almost exclusive fashion on this one modality of domination.

>Zizek gives the following example: 'A parental figure that is simply "repressive", in the mode of symbolic authority, will say to the child: "You must go to your grandmother's birthday and behave properly even if it bores you to death - I don't care if you want to or not, you just have to go." Whereas the Superego figure says to the same child: "Even though you know very well how much your grandmother wants to see you, you shouldn't go unless you really want to - otherwise, you'd better stay at home."' The ruse of the Superego thus consists in making the subject believe in this false appearance of free choice, which, as every child knows, in reality is a forced choice that implies an even more powerful order: not only 'you have to visit your grandmother whatever your desire may be', but 'you must do it, and besides, you must be thrilled to do it!'

>Zizek confines himself in this text to evoking a 'parental figure' in general, whereas the mode of operation of the 'superego figure' that he describes finds its privileged embodiment, in all evidence, in a far more precise figure: that of the 'bad mother', possessive and castrating. Where the 'patriarchal' variant of paternal authority essentially orders the subject's obedience to the law that the tyrannical 'father claims to embody, the 'matriarchal' desire for power presents itself in very different and far more stifling forms. It imposes as a duty the subject's unconditional love and by this fact, functions above all by emotional guilt-tripping and emotional blackmail, in modes of complaint, reproach and accusation that can be varied indefinitely. The first form of control establishes a mainly disciplinary order. The second establishes a control that is far more radical, in so far as it cannot be assigned any kind of limit

>The mechanisms of 'paternal' control can in general be perceived without difficulty.

>Liberal logic, in fact, objectively implies the dismantling of all normative constructions built up with explicit reference to a symbolic law, to the benefit of just the mechanisms of Market and Law, which are 'axiologically neutral'.

Because liberalism is an antihumanism.

Give me marxism, fascism, conservatism and islamism but please don't give me liberalism, this murderer of morals and politics.