Key concepts of Critical Theory / Philosophy

[Anonymous No.4692309]

I always see threads on here discussing one or two theorists/philosophers. Can we have one to discuss key concepts that you have found interesting or that have impacted you in a big way?

For me, the key concepts would be Baudrillard's "Hyperreality" and Guy Debord's "Spectacle."

>inb4 Baudrillard and Debord are shit.
This is a sharing thread. If you think these theorists are shit, post some theories/ideas of what you think are better philosophers, preferably with definitions/links.

>1. BAUDRILLARD'S "HYPERREALITY"
"In his work Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard argues the "imaginary world" of Disneyland magnetizes people inside and has been presented as "imaginary" to make people believe that all its surroundings are "real". But he believes that the Los Angeles area is not real; thus it is hyperreal. Disneyland is a set of apparatus, which tries to bring imagination and fiction to what is called "real". This concerns the American values and way of life in a sense and "concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle. QUOTE: 'The Disneyland imaginary is neither true or false: it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate in reverse the fiction of the real. Whence the debility, the infantile degeneration of this imaginary. It's meant to be an infantile world, in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the "real" world, and to conceal the fact that real childishness is everywhere, particularly among those adults who go there to act the child in order to foster illusion of their real childishness.'"

>2. DEBORD'S "SPECTACLE"
Basically, all that was once experienced first-hand is now experienced in a mediated form. Most of us know of war, famine, plague, suffering, etc through films or books on the subject; to a degree, we have supplanted this formerly direct experience with a second-hand experience.

[Anonymous No.4692333]

No one?

[Anonymous No.4692345]

>>4692333
I'm thinking.

[Anonymous No.4692347]

>>4692345
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.4692349]

>>4692345
Not much to think about: faggot op just posted quotes.

[Anonymous No.4692357]

>>4692349
Faggot, one needs to think about which quote and philosopher to pick, faggot.

[Anonymous No.4692374]

>>4692357
Not really, faggot. Let me just open my copy of aestivation theory to a random page and post the quote, the a say it has influenced me. You don't know shit about theory, pleb; kill yourself, you poseur.

[Anonymous No.4692394]

>>4692374
We have ourselves a cynic and know-it-all.

[Anonymous No.4692397]

Baudrillard's arguments are not limited to Disneyland, OP. You probably already know that but the way you worded it made it sound like it was restricted only to that space. Disneyland is just the perfect example, so he uses it

[Anonymous No.4692398]

OP, are you familiar with the concept of "symbolic exchange"? I find it difficult to wrap my head around (likely because wrapping your head around a concept is supposed to be outside of the bounds of symbolic exchange), and I'm not sure how to envision it in terms of examples.

[Anonymous No.4692405]

>>4692374
faggot

[Anonymous No.4692406]

Adorno: The metaphysical apologia at least betrayed the injustice of the established order through the incongruence of concept and reality. The impartiality of scientific language deprived what was powerless of the strength to make itself heard and merely provided the existing order with a neutral sign for itself. Such neutrality is more metaphysical than metaphysics.
Adorno and Horkheimer


Malabou: "Of course the general process of self-information is common to everybody, so in this sense it is a universal structure. But, if we take for granted that at the same time the way your brain builds itself it departs from this structure, on the ground of this structure, then auto-affection, the way we keep ourselves informed about ourselves, is always individual. It’s impossible to draw a line between universal and singular here, you know. There is a common structure, but at the same time the way it takes place in you and the way it takes place in me is not the same. The self is clearly not a substance."

Jean luc-Nancy: "But me, I, never exists alone. It exists essentially with other existing beings. The with is no external link, it is no link at all : it is togetherness - relation, sharing, exchange, mediation and immediation, meaning and feeling."


Am I good at name dropping, and providing a tangentially related quote?

[Anonymous No.4692418]

>>4692397
Indeed. I was just citing an example. I've used loads of Baudrillard's theories over the years. I like him, despite the criticism he comes in for.

Sorry if my example seemed limited.

Post some theories if you can think of any off the top of your head.

[Anonymous No.4692421]

>>4692397
OP just copy and pasted that text. He can't think for himself.

[GymmanuelKant !NCCaLTlz1w No.4692423]

Great Idea for a thread, hopefully we can get some really interesting theorists in the mix.

>Jason Moore - Capitalism as World-Ecology

Not sure I'll be great at explaining this, but Moore is a Marxist theorist who works mainly within environmental and world-systems studies. He wants us to rethink our relationship with nature, and especially the relationship between capitalism and nature. We must not think that capitalism is something that is done onto nature (therefore creating a cartesian dualism capitalism/nature) but rather that capitalism is a part of nature, bound up in its processes. That a meadow is every bit as capitalistic as Wall Street and vice versa, because they are bound bound up in socio-ecological relationships. Capitalist modernity wouldn't have happened without the trees to build the timber that created the massive slave ships. In that example, the trees being cleared away affects the land and our relationship to it (perhaps there was a dwelling there) at the same time, across the world, men are being made into slaves, and the ship is transporting them. The tree is directly related to the men through this ecological capitalist narrative.

For me it completely dismantled a lot of what Deep Ecology was preaching and seems to ally more closely with a Heideggarian response to nature.

If anyone could provide an intro to Antonio Gramsci I would be very grateful.

[Anonymous No.4692427]

>>4692418
You should learn to think for yourself and stop plagiarizing others, faggot. It told you that you don't know shit about theory, you ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.4692428]

>>4692421
Calm down. This is already the best thread on /lit/ in days.

[Anonymous No.4692430]

>>4692309
I'd say there isn't much difference between Disneyland and the so called real word, considering how the participants are merely playing roles in an environment of certain agreed upon conventions. I suppose the main difference is the level of personal awareness in relation to the artificial nature of the territory. One the other hand you might argue even in the real world most participants are very much aware about culture only being a convention and they decide to play along to gain an advantage.

Having said that I would argue christmas might be a prime example for the illusionary nature of culture. Where as in disneyland someone pretends to to be Mickey Mouse to entertain the children the father pretends to be Santa Claus even though he realizes Santa can't be real because he himself has become part of the illusion.

[Anonymous No.4692431]

>>4692406
>Am I good at name dropping, and providing a tangentially related quote?

What's with the cynicism? I started this thread to learn from others. I'll be the first to admit I'm only really familiar with Debord, Baudrillard, Adorno and Horkheimer and McLuhan. I have little-to-no knowledge of people like Nietzsche, Foucault, Habermas, Jameson, etc.

[Anonymous No.4692435]

>>4692428
Nope. When will you have an original thought, OP?

[Anonymous No.4692440]

>>4692421
Seriously, can people just chill out. I gave my own definition for the second theory I cited, which you conveniently ignored. It was easier to quote a succinct example for the the hyperreality definition as I would not have done it justice.

[Anonymous No.4692441]

What do you guys think about symbolic interactionism? I don't know much about it. I happened to pick up Blumer's book on the subject while killing time in a library before a job interview nearby.

It seems to have within it an answer to some of the missteps of contemporary sociology. Rather than treating subjects as a function of their system (the culture, the patriarchy, the class, etc.), it treats them as individuals who act according to symbolic meaning. These meanings can be derived from social interaction, etc. In this way it restores subjectivity while at the same time accounting for social influence.

It also points out that it is necessary to account for symbolic interpretations/meaning when examining social situations. So instead of examining a woman being interviewed by a man for a job through the lens of fixed social structures, you would examine how each actor responds to various verbal and nonverbal cues in that specific situation. *How* they respond to these cues can be conditioned by their ideas of fixed social structures, but they are not all constrained by the same perception of these social structures, which would lead to a more realistic analysis.

[Anonymous No.4692442]

>>4692431
You knowledge consist of plagiarizing others.

[Anonymous No.4692443]

>What Is Enlightenment?

>Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

>Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

I think that's pretty universal.

[Anonymous No.4692445]

OP is just a plagiarist
OP is a faggot XD

[Anonymous No.4692446]

>>4692427
Seriously, you're a cunt. Who gets this upset at nothing?

How is quoting something "plagiarism"? Are you this dense?

[GymmanuelKant !NCCaLTlz1w No.4692447]

>>4692435
Just leave the thread if you don't want to learn about different theorists. You seem to have an incredibly rich and fulfilled life if you're doing this.

[Deep&Edgy !!BfzNblz4cXS No.4692451]

wu wei

[Anonymous No.4692455]

>>4692446
Just stop paying attention to him. At this point he's just running off of your responses.

[Anonymous No.4692456]

>>4692446
He's not quoting the first part on hyperreality. He just plagiarized.

[Anonymous No.4692457]

>>4692442
>You knowledge consist of plagiarizing others.

Jesus, mate. You're a fucking moron. Quoting isn't plagiarising. Hey, stop using the definitions of words of the Oxford dictionary because you're plagiarising from the person who wrote the definition.

Thicko.

[GymmanuelKant !NCCaLTlz1w No.4692458]

>>4692446
Just ignore the people calling 'plagiarism.' They clearly have no experience with philosophy and they're doing this in between Game of Thrones threads. Let them have their fun, let's just post theory in spite of it.

[Anonymous No.4692461]

>>4692456
There are quotation marks around it, dickhead.

[Anonymous No.4692466]

>>4692446
OP, stop responding to the trolling. I think it's one of the more interesting threads. And to be fair, most of the original thoughts on /lit/ are pretty 4chan if you know what I'm trying to say.

[Anonymous No.4692467]

>>4692447
You don't know shit about theorists either. I've learned most of my theory in undergrad and graduate school, you faggot.

[Anonymous No.4692471]

>>4692443
>>4692441
>>4692423
>>4692398
Thanks for the responses, guys. Thread derailed for a moment there. Back onto the topic now. I'll try to respond to all.

[Anonymous No.4692473]

>>4692457
How is this not plagiarized, you vacuous cunt: In his work Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard argues the "imaginary world" of Disneyland magnetizes people inside and has been presented as "imaginary" to make people believe that all its surroundings are "real". But he believes that the Los Angeles area is not real; thus it is hyperreal. Disneyland is a set of apparatus, which tries to bring imagination and fiction to what is called "real". This concerns the American values and way of life in a sense and "concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.

[Anonymous No.4692475]

>>4692430
The point, I think, is that designating one space as "fake" affirms what is not designated this way as "authentic." Which, although I'm unsure if this is Baudrillard's conclusion, leads to a lack of critical thought pertaining to the "authentic" spaces. If we have a space for all of the pretend stuff, we don't have to face the consequences of the fact that every other space is pretend.

[Anonymous No.4692483]

ITT: dull autodidacts who don't know what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4692484]

>>4692467
Not the guy and I get the importance of being aware about the important works of philosophy, but not being able to have conversation while making up your own mind might defeat the purpose of philosophy. At least if you're relying on the words of others as a set piece of your own worldview, instead of it being a tool to help you to come to your own conclusion.

[Anonymous No.4692494]

>>4692483
Then participate in the conversation and help us. You seem to be monitoring the thread anyway, so why not post something constructive.

[Anonymous No.4692495]

>>4692483
omg im so riled

[Anonymous No.4692497]

>>4692484
Please don't respond to the solipsistic little know-it-all.

[Anonymous No.4692503]

>>4692309
That sounds like a really pretentious way of saying, "things seem real when we use our imagination, things that were real seem fictional." Or in a phrase, "suspension of disbelief."

[Anonymous No.4692505]

>>4692309
I wanted to read the book *pic related but so far I haven't. Wasn't one of the conclusions that enlightenment as Kant proclaimed it has failed?

[Anonymous No.4692506]

God, I wish moot would bring in IDs for boards other than /b/ so people would just ignore shitposters.

IGNORE IT. THE THREAD IS GETTING DERAILED.

[Anonymous No.4692510]

MORE QUOTES

Aesthetics is not a discipline dealing with art and artworks, but a kind of, what I call, distribution of the sensible. I mean a way of mapping the visible, a cartography of the visible, the intelligible and also of the possible. Aesthetics was a kind of redistribution of experience, the idea that there was a sphere of experience that didn't feed the traditional distribution, because the traditional distribution adds that people have different senses according to their position in society. Those who were destined to rule and those who were destined to be ruled didn't have the same sensory equipment, not the same eyes and ears, not the same intelligence. Aesthetics means precisely the break with that traditional way of embodying inequality in the very constitution of the sensible world. Ranciere

The cinematic illusion of a privileged voyeurism was further deconstructed by Thornton's formal schema of editing into a series of symmetrically timed scenes, cross-cutting between two figures, her sister and a close female friend. In a certain sense this work was true to cinema verité: things just happened. The reflexivity between the subjects recorded and the active presence of the camera was foregrounded, and tacitly critiqued. Thomas zummer

These scenes are the illustration of a power which, reaching its extreme point, no longer knows what to do with itself – a power henceforth without aim, without purpose, without a plausible enemy, and in total impunity. It is only capable of inflicting gratuitous humiliation and, as one knows, violence inflicted on others is after all only an expression of the violence inflicted on oneself. It only manages to humiliate itself, degrade itself and go back on its own word in a sort of unremitting perversity. The ignominy, the vileness is the ultimate symptom of a power that no longer knows what to do with itself. Baudrillard

The only true question today is: does global capitalism contain antagonisms strong enough to prevent its indefinite reproduction? Four possible antagonisms present themselves: the looming threat of ecological catastrophe; the inappropriateness of private property for so-called intellectual property; the socio-ethical implications of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics; and last, but not least, new forms of social apartheid—new walls and slums. We should note that there is a qualitative difference between the last feature, the gap that separates the excluded from the included, and the other three, which designate the domains of what Hardt and Negri call ‘commons’—the shared substance of our social being, whose privatization is a violent act which should be resisted by force, if necessary. Zizek

[Anonymous No.4692514]

>>4692503
Don't be so sensitive about "pretension." What you've written doesn't really say the same thing either Debord or Baudrillard said, though I'm sure what Baudrillard said could be said in a clearer way.

[Anonymous No.4692531]

>>4692503
It's not. If you read more about the theory, or just read the book "Simulacra and Simulation" you'd see what he means. The "hyperreal" refers more to our obliviousness to the constructed nature of society and how we take things for granted; it's the opposite of "suspension of disbelief" because that implies that you are aware of the "unrealness" of it all. It comes down to things like constructed forms of social etiquette or received attitudes; racism, sexism, nationalism etc.
>>4692505
It's a great book. Not as heavy as you might think. The recent Verso translation is great. The whole book challenges Kant.

[Anonymous No.4692550]

>>4692514
No, I think suspension of disbelief fits that excerpt perfectly. And I'm only concerned about pretense when language is used to obfuscate.
>>4692531
>"suspension of disbelief" because that implies that you are aware of the "unrealness" of it all
No, that's willful suspension of disbelief.

[Anonymous No.4692565]

>>4692510
Not sure if I got your post, but Robert Anton Wilson had an interesting concept he called reality tunnels. There's gigantic amount of information surrounding us every second and we need to evaluate what's important to us as individuals, because we can't conceive the real world in it's totality without losing our functionality. At least if we're clinging to conceptions and forms but surrender to how things are right now. But I suppose this would be the end of you, as bundle of memories, fears, desires and so on considering the very you is just conceptions.

Now what's really important?

[Anonymous No.4692576]

>>4692550
Yes, but there is no mass "disbelief" in the way a lot of society is structured - sure, there are questions about class, but people accept most things as "common sense" from currency, to repression (in the Freudian sense - i.e. we can't go around fucking in the streets. I'm not saying we should, it's just interesting to explore how we came to an agreed upon level of what is "common sense.")

[Anonymous No.4692585]

>>4692550
Does it disagree with the notion of enlightenment, or rather it's goal, but how it has been utilized in modern society in terms of education?

[Anonymous No.4692592]

>>4692576
Sure, but we weren't talking about real society, we were talking about the fictional society of disneyland.
>>4692585
What are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.4692599]

>>4692550
>I'm only concerned about pretense when language is used to obfuscate.
We're all concerned with this. I subscribe to Orwell's advice against intellectual posturing - there is an abundance of this in Critical Theory, however, there are some ideas that can't be described in two or three words. "Suspension of disbelief" does not describe it, no matter how much you want it to; you'd know this if you had read the book.

I see this all the time: people not reading the work and then dismissing it as "obvious" or "banal" while actually just misinterpreting it, or getting half the picture.

Also, this trend to overly-simplify things is as annoying as academics who try to overly-complicate things.

[Anonymous No.4692600]

>>4692309
I know it's a horrible cliche to respond to philosophy/thought with HOW HIGH DO YOU EVEN HAVE TO BE, but in Baudrillard's case it really is jusified. It sounds EXACTLY like something a stoner would say at a certain time of the night.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, mind.

[Anonymous No.4692604]

>>4692599
>you'd know this if you had read the book.
If the quote needs context, it shouldn't be removed.

[Anonymous No.4692608]

>>4692592
Disneyland is not the focus of hyperreality, though. The "unrealness" of Disneyland is obvious - the point about it was that it exists to make the rest of the world feel more "real" when in fact the "real world" is just as much of a construction. It's banal to argue that Disneyland is unreal and that people suspend their disbelief; of course they do.

You've missed the point entirely.

[Anonymous No.4692611]

>>4692565
I'm saying enlightenment as we know it is just method to gain something you want, but what is it and why do you want it? Is it power? If yes, power to do what? What's the ultimate goal here? If it's happiness who is to say some primitive farmer isn't happier living a simple live than Schopenhauer? I think it stands to debate if society as it is has made us really enjoy life or just accelerated our way of living to the point where we pursue empty pleasures in an infinite cascade of hopes and disappointments.

[Anonymous No.4692612]

>>4692604
>If the quote needs context, it shouldn't be removed.
Last gasp of a drowning man.

[Anonymous No.4692616]

I recommend anyone interested in hyperreality and the imaginary to read lacan

[Anonymous No.4692621]

>>4692592
I mean if enlightenment has the goal to think for yourself does the criticism only to the method of reaching that goal or the goal itself?

[Anonymous No.4692625]

OP here. I'm done arguing about Baudrillard. I said at the start that:

>"This is a sharing thread. If you think these theorists are shit, post some theories/ideas of what you think are better philosophers, preferably with definitions/links."

Please post more theories. We're here to learn from others.

[Anonymous No.4692628]

>>4692612
Everything I said was true of the quote in this context. If OP didn't provide the context needed to understand the quote, it's his own fault. But I have doubts as to whether this conetext exists in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4692639]

>>4692628
>Everything I said was true of the quote in this context.

No, it wasn't. You missed the whole point about "rejuvenating...the fiction of the real."

[Anonymous No.4692641]

>>4692608
>is just as much of a construction
No, it would be a layer on top of that cosctuction. And reality is determined by what we accept as reality.

[Anonymous No.4692642]

>>4692625
What can we know?

[Anonymous No.4692646]

>>4692639
Gee, sounds like part and parcel of suspension of disbelief.

[Anonymous No.4692648]

>>4692628
Yes, but you've spent the thread arguing as if from a point of view of empirical knowledge. Accept the fact that you don't know everything, just as I don't. I'd like to have a mature conversation about it and not just be shut down with "no, it means this" and knee-jerk canned responses.

[Anonymous No.4692649]

>>4692641
You mean culture? I'm pretty sure are bullet doesn't care if you think it's real or not. It will kill you. It's provable too.

[Anonymous No.4692656]

>>4692648
I've been given a quote to analyze, if it's a poorly constructed quote, it's not my fault.

[Anonymous No.4692657]

>>4692646
I understand that there's a bit of confirmation bias on your part here, but it really does not sound like "suspension of disbelief" at all.

[Anonymous No.4692659]

>>4692657
Yes, when you you come away from a fiction, that you had believed in a moment before, reality or constructed reality feels all the more real.

[Anonymous No.4692661]

>>4692656
>it's not my fault.
It is your fault that you're a bad autodidact.

[Anonymous No.4692665]

>>4692656
What if it's poorly analyzed? If you use the phrase "suspension of disbelief", you will not convey the same message that is conveyed in the quoted text. I'm sorry that you feel so passionately that you will convey the same message. The critique of the "reality principle" being affirmed is entirely lost in your phrase.

[Anonymous No.4692667]

>>4692661
I'd like to ask you what exactly you think learning is if it's not analysis of given information. I don't recall making any absolute statements about the work, just the quote in its context.

[Anonymous No.4692673]

Paraphrasing zen here: Before I was enlightened rivers were rivers and mountains were mountains. When I was in the process of being enlightened rivers weren't rivers anymore and mountains weren't mountains. After I got enlightened rivers were just rivers again and mountains only mountains.

[Anonymous No.4692674]

>>4692649
The LORD preserves the simple: I was brought low, and he helped me.
Return to your rest, O my soul; for the LORD has dealt bountifully with you.
For you have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, and my feet from falling.
I will walk before the LORD in the land of the living.
I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted:
I said in my haste, All men are liars.
hat shall I render to the LORD for all his benefits toward me?
I will take the cup of salvation, and call on the name of the LORD.
I will pay my vows to the LORD now in the presence of all his people.
Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.

[Anonymous No.4692675]

>>4692665
Why don't you finish comprehending my arguments for why I think they're the same thing before you affirm that my interpretation is poor.

[Anonymous No.4692677]

>>4692659
>Yes, when you you come away from a fiction, that you had believed in a moment before, reality or constructed reality feels all the more real.

This thought is not entailed in the concept of "suspension of disbelief", it is a thought you've amended to the concept of "suspension of disbelief." "Suspension of disbelief" does not critique the real that you return to when the fiction is over.

[Anonymous No.4692691]

>>4692677
There is a causal link between suspension of disbelief and reinforcement of reality or constructed reality. That's what the quote was referring to in the first place. Suspesion of disbelief is an experience that comes from not raising a critical eye to a fiction, once you descend back down to reality, you realize the illogical nature of the fiction.

[Anonymous No.4692694]

>>4692674
tldr: a bullet will kill you even you believe in the lord

[Anonymous No.4692695]

ANYONE HAVE ANY MORE CONCEPTS OR IDEAS TO POST?

NEVER CHANGE /LIT/

[Anonymous No.4692698]

>>4692691
Isn't logic just a concept that only works in it's particular habitat? Like a closed system?

[Anonymous No.4692700]

>>4692698
Logic works so long as there is perception.

[Anonymous No.4692701]

>>4692695
I did post a concept but nobody gives a shit.

[Anonymous No.4692702]

>>4692309
An aspect to the spectacle that I find particulary agreeable. The idea that the spectacle crystalizes out into the social space much in the way that Marx describes the money form and that the spectacle "exists" as ideas competing for recognition as relations.

[Anonymous No.4692704]

>>4692691
Causal links aren't necessarily self evident.

[Anonymous No.4692711]

>>4692704
That doesn't mean they don't exist, and it doesn't mean that what the quote referred to can't be summarized as suspension of disbelief.

[Anonymous No.4692718]

>>4692701
Which one is it? It just got lost in the deluge of argument.

[Anonymous No.4692728]

>>4692691
>once you descend back down to reality, you realize the illogical nature of the fiction.

The very phrase "descend back down to reality" is what Baudrillard is talking about: the idea that you think there is a reality to descend back down to. The concept of "suspension of disbelief" has nothing to say about this. "you realize the illogical nature of the fiction", but you do not necessarily realize the fictional nature of reality.

I feel like I've said as much as I can by now, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous No.4692733]

>>4692728
>"you realize the illogical nature of the fiction", but you do not necessarily realize the fictional nature of reality.
Well said.

[Anonymous No.4692736]

>>4692718
I'm not going to say. Read the thread.

[Anonymous No.4692739]

>>4692728
>but you do not necessarily realize the fictional nature of reality.
And you don't have to do so with suspesion of dibelief either. You can stay trapped in disneyland forever, furthermore, you can stay trapped on ice mountain forever. Removing suspension of disbelief is just coming down out of a single fiction, not all of them. I thought this was rather implicit in what I've said.

[Anonymous No.4692740]

>>4692711
It's more of an conflation between the map and the territory. The thing in itself and the ideal. Suspension of disbelief is a partial and misleading summation of the quote that leads me to think of entertainment, which is false, as for some, to them, a constructed concept of reality is sincerely believed to be the very fabric of reality.

[Anonymous No.4692741]

>>4692711
>That doesn't mean they don't exist
Never said that.

>and it doesn't mean that what the quote referred to can't be summarized as suspension of disbelief.
Yes, it does mean that. It'd be like saying that a book on classical physics can be summarized by a video of an automobile driving up a ramp. The causal links are not inherent in the concept of the automobile, they still need to be explained. You're being stubborn.

[Anonymous No.4692754]

>>4692740
>Suspension of disbelief is a partial and misleading summation of the quote that leads me to think of entertainment
Again; your fault, not mine.
>The causal links are not inherent in the concept of the automobile, they still need to be explained
Yes they are, they're just not evident.

[Anonymous No.4692755]

>>4692736
>Wants people to read his post
>Doesn't want people to read his post

Seriously?

[Anonymous No.4692759]

>>4692740
Just ignore him.

[Anonymous No.4692772]

>>4692754
>Again; your fault, not mine.

Last I checked suspension of disbelief came from literary theory as immersion into mediated fictional stories, not as an explanation of physical reality? How does suspension of disbelief relate to experienced reality?

[Anonymous No.4692777]

>>4692772
I'd say you should probably scroll up.

[Anonymous No.4692781]

>>4692755
Kinda. It's not that important I think and there are other posts by other people they might deserve more attention. You wanted to have more contributions I guess, so read the thread. There are enough interesting points.

[Anonymous No.4692818]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARGUMENTS OVER?!

ON WITH THE THREAD, POST-DERAILMENT.

[Anonymous No.4692820]

We had a Wilhelm Reich thread yesterday but it didn't get many posts. Reich was a psychologist and one of his theories was that neurosis was caused by muscular tension, which turned into "character armor" over time. Character armor would dull down emotional pain but would also reduce the amount of pleasure the individual was able to experience, especially sexually. Because it is based on muscular tension it would also keep the individual from breathing fully and properly. This turned into body-based psychotherapy. He developed practices to tense and relax specific body parts in order to dissolve the tension and let the body relax, bringing back proper breathing.

Something interesting I've come across with this is that philosophers (Nietzsche and Heidegger) will refer to sight and talk about cultures (usually Greek) that had "eyes to see." You could just attribute this to master-morality but I think that eyes without character armor in Reich's terms would "see" like the Greeks and would end up with master-morality after fighting their neuroses. Nietzsche talks about the "sickness" of the average person too and I think this is what he is referring to.

[Anonymous No.4692827]

I like Max Stirner's Society of his Spooktacle and also the one from when he was a nazi professor called 'Der Eigentliche und Seintum'

[Anonymous No.4692844]

>>4692777
Yeah, but you haven't really answered that question.

Unless you practice some kind of Cartesian doubt there is no reality to return to, which means there is otherwise no disbelief to suspend, other than disbelief in reality itself. No point of reference from which you can discover the illogical structure of anything other than reality itself. Please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.4692865]

Quote #2 sounds a lot less like some weird autistic fetishist is masturbating while writing it.

They're both supposed to be saying the same shit, right? "I'm a wiener that'd rather sit around in my own imagination than go out into the real world because it's icky btw
>implying my imagination isn't just as real as the "real world"
>implying the real world is real
Check mate, people who disagree with me. Disneyland proves communism works!"

[Anonymous No.4692870]

>>4692406
>was powerless of the strength to make itself heard and merely provided the existing order with a neutral sign for itself.

Can you please elaborate on this.

[Anonymous No.4692885]

>>4692870

The ideological nature of language makes it so that the "neutrality" of science is a mere dissimulation because of the necessity of expressing scientific findings in language. The mass neutering of knowledge pretends to not have interests, which is a guise to avert gazes away from the politics and material interests involved in scientific investment.

[Anonymous No.4692923]

>>4692885
I'll expand on this if I may, for non-academics, correct me if I'm wrong.

It only conceals the capitalist interest inherent in science. People are typically content that of course an investment in scientific inquiry should have a material payoff. They don't see this as ideological.

[Anonymous No.4692925]

>>4692820
Great contribution, thanks. Saw that thread yesterday which was a pleasant surprise.

[Anonymous No.4692927]

I'd like to get into Adorno and the Frankfurt School, would you say Dialectic of Enlightenment is the best place to start?

[Anonymous No.4692940]

>>4692923

I'm okay with this elaboration.

[Anonymous No.4693023]

>>4692927
Definitely. I prefer them together - Adorno is the more talented in my eyes, but together they're stellar. Start with this and then continue on; it's the basis for all Critical Theory today.

[Anonymous No.4693243]

>>4692309
>Critical theory.

It's like "social justice", redundant.

What is theory if not a way of critique,
What is Justice without the polis?

[Anonymous No.4693421]

>>4693243
If you have nothing to contribute, move along.

I'm sure you're a deeper thinking than Foucault, Marx or Adorno.

[Anonymous No.4693438]

>>4693023
thanks

[Anonymous No.4693458]

>>4693421
Okay, I will contribute.

Heidegger, because he actually does something,
Marx because he actually does something.

Pointing out that "critical theory" is patent nonsense isn't exactly a lack of a contribution, it's an indication that the answer to the question of useful critical theorists is "Mu."

[Anonymous No.4693524]

>>4692428

agreed.

[Anonymous No.4693617]

>>4692440
Well said. Similar to what was said in the original post, the thought you presented was second-hand thus given an example we're thinking in mediated forms.

[Anonymous No.4694414]

OP here. Bumping again to see if there are any new people on /lit/ at this hour.

[Anonymous No.4695092]

this thread looks like piss and probably tastes it