C'mon lets get thiz shit started...

[Anonymous No.950480]

Greatest Western philosopher ever. Understood fireworks. Adorno bitchez.

[OP No.950483]

I'm sorry, I'm drunk, I shouldn't be posting threads.

[Anonymous No.950512]

Horatio Alger

an interesting fellow

[Anonymous No.950559]

Theodor W. Adorno presides.

[Anonymous No.950575]

Aｓ pＲＥＶＩOuSlｙ_mＥＮＴIｏｎＥd, TＨeSE MeSsＳＡGEＳ_wiLL conｔＩｎUE ｕnTil ｙｏu ｐＥＲmanＥＮＴLy ＳtOｐ_ａTＴＡＣkＩnG anＤ FｕckｉＮg_ＷIＴH ＷWｗ.ａnoｎＭｏＯｏｏｔａLk.ＳE (RｅmＯｖｅ_ｔＨＥ_cｏw_SｏｕＮD), ＲＥＭＯve_Ａll ilLｅｇＡｌ ＣLoｎes oｆ Iｔ_ａｎｄ_ＬｉeＳ_AboＵｔ iT_AnD_DＯｎATＥ_aT_lＥＡｓｔ_Ａ_MIＬｌIoN Ｕｓｄ Tｏ_sySｏP_AＳ ｃＯＭpＥnｓaTＩON fＯr ｔｈｅ_MＡSsＩＶｅ ｄAｍAｇE_ｙOｕ_ＲeTＡrdＳ_ＨＡＶＥ_ＣａＵsｅＤ.
ip mlrqmfaz qmjembww mrnb as uqfumbr vh

[Anonymous No.950593]

>>950483
I'll drink to that.

[Anonymous No.950597]

John Stuart Mill representin'

[Anonymous No.950685]

>In the 1960s he was the most prominent challenger to both Sir Karl Popper's philosophy of science and Martin Heidegger's philosophy of existence. Jürgen Habermas, Germany's foremost social philosopher after 1970, was Adorno's student and assistant. The scope of Adorno's influence stems from the interdisciplinary character of his research and of the Frankfurt School to which he belonged. It also stems from the thoroughness with which he examined Western philosophical traditions, especially from Kant onward, and the radicalness to his critique of contemporary Western society. He was a seminal social philosopher and a leading member of the first generation of Critical Theory.

Adorno was always my favorite of the Franks. Smart, consistent guy. Better than Althusser, for sure.

[Anonymous No.951583]

>>950685
Bloody hard to read though. I think he's my favorite overall, but as for the Frankfurters I prefer Benjamin if I want to read something and not end up with a headache. Horkheimer is also really underrated.

[Anonymous No.951586]

Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.951593]

>>951586
Adorno was influenced alot by him actually.

[Anonymous No.951595]

>>950480

Oh great, another Communist.

[Anonymous No.951598]

>>951595
I like how many commie punks there are on /lit/. Feels good, man.

[Anonymous No.951599]

>>951593
>Alot
Get the fuck out

[Anonymous No.951603]

>Adorno
>philosopher

Yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.951606]

>>951603
Sorry. I should have said 'theoretical scientist'. Its materialism he's working with after all.

[Anonymous No.951618]

At the end. – The only philosophy which would still be accountable in the face of despair, would be the attempt to consider all things, as they would be portrayed from the standpoint of redemption. Cognition has no other light than that which shines from redemption out upon the world; all else exhausts itself in post-construction and remains a piece of technics. Perspectives must be produced which set the world beside itself, alienated from itself, revealing its cracks and fissures, as needy and distorted as it will one day lay there in the messianic light. To win such perspectives without caprice or violence, wholly by the feel for objects, this alone is what thinking is all about. It is the simplest of all things, because the condition irrefutably call for such cognitions, indeed because completed negativity, once it comes fully into view, shoots [zusammenschiesst] into the mirror-writing of its opposite. But it is also that which is totally impossible, because it presupposes a standpoint at a remove, were it even the tiniest bit, from the bane [Bannkreis] of the existent; meanwhile every possible cognition must not only be wrested from that which is, in order to be binding, but for that very reason is stricken with the same distortedness and neediness which it intends to escape. The more passionately thought seals itself off from its conditional being for the sake of what is unconditional, the more unconsciously, and thereby catastrophically, it falls into the world. It must comprehend even its own impossibility for the sake of possibility. In relation to the demand thereby imposed on it, the question concerning the reality or non-reality of redemption is however almost inconsequential.

[Anonymous No.951623]

>>951618
Love this. Source?

[Anonymous No.951627]

last paragraph of minima moralia

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1951/mm/index.htm

[Anonymous No.951629]

>>951627
Cool thanks.

[Anonymous No.951638]

>>951618
>At the end. – The only philosophy which would still be accountable in the face of despair, would be the attempt to consider all things, as they would be portrayed from the standpoint of redemption.

wat

haveyoueverherpedsomuchthatyouderped.bmp

[Anonymous No.951642]

>>951638
Don't judge our Marxist religion bitch.

[Anonymous No.951661]

>>951638
He's right you know.

[Anonymous No.951663]

Revolution gonna bring revelation yo!

[Anonymous No.951670]

Spinoza, the prince of philosophers

[Anonymous No.951672]

>>951670
Schelling. Arch-Duke of philosophers.

[Anonymous No.951675]

>>951663
In his right hand, the seven stars; in his mouth, a sharp double-edged sword.

[Anonymous No.951680]

>>951675
I'm afraid!

[Anonymous No.951687]

>>951593

He really was not.

[Anonymous No.951696]

>>951687
Yer wrong.

[Anonymous No.951697]

>>951696

OK.

[Anonymous No.951698]

>>951697
Yeeeeeaaaah. Won that argument.

[Anonymous No.951703]

Russell frowns on all the posts in this thread.

[Anonymous No.951710]

>>951703
Ya...Vatever Russell....I made you cry like unt little bitchen ven yu tried to write real philosophikraft.

[Anonymous No.951712]

>>951710

You didn't make me cry, you made little children cry when you were a teacher and abused them. Back to your hut!

[Anonymous No.951713]

It's been downhill since Plato.

[Anonymous No.951722]

The Analytic school, making no real cultural impact for over half a century.

[Anonymous No.951724]

>>951713

>implying the theory of forms makes any kind of sense at all

[Anonymous No.951725]

>>951722

Because the correct measure for philosophical achievement is cultural impact.

[Anonymous No.951726]

>>951713

NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING? JUST ASK PLATO

THEIST EDITION:

NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING? JUST ASK AQUINAS

[Anonymous No.951730]

>>951722

Physics, making no real cultural impact for ever.

[Anonymous No.951735]

>>951725
Actually, it is.

[Anonymous No.951736]

>>951722
Law of non-contradiction is for fags.

[Anonymous No.951737]

>>951725
In before the guy who originally posted this text

[Anonymous No.951752]

>>951736
It is for fags, fags who waste time with false dichotomy, who don't know a thing about Difference, internal or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.951759]

>>951737

fukken saved

[Anonymous No.951763]

>>951752
And Dialectics!

[Anonymous No.951771]

>>951763
What is that pic, I don't even...

[Anonymous No.951776]

>>951606
Oh god, this was always my main issue with marxism. Just because you are materialists doesn't mean you are any more scientific than other non-idealists/theists.

[Anonymous No.951781]

>>951737
>>951759
fukken samefag

[Anonymous No.951782]

>>951776

But history is deterministic! Because...I said so!

[Anonymous No.951786]

>>951776
For sure. That was a bit of a joke. I really don't trust Marxists who insist on calling themselves scientists. What's the point? Debate: Scientist, philosopher, theoretician, etc. ???? This is all Althussar's fault.

[Anonymous No.951830]

Marxism unintentionally set the worker's movement back 100 years. I suppose you can't really blame Marx, he didn't know he was going to become the holy prophet of the ussr. But that whole "the revolution is historically inevitable " thing became a dogma that socialism did not need.

[Anonymous No.951836]

>>951830
I agree with this, but I disagree with the Alienation inherent in calling it a 'workers movement', either way all I am doing now is showing that Leftists can't agree ever...sad, but true is it not?

[Anonymous No.951854]

>>951836

I don't even know why I still consider myself a socialist. Dead movement is dead. Maybe the whole goal was unrealistic in the first place? "Hey guys, let's consciously move from one economic model to a completely different one." Feudalism didn't die out that way, Merchants just got more powerful.

[Anonymous No.951882]

>>951854
I really have moved away from the -ism paradigm. Now I completely focus on one political issue (prison abolition)..Marxist texts are still pretty important to me and the development of semiotics is part of a larger, aesthetic and truly psychological project which I think is important but not really part of my politics.

[Anonymous No.951885]

>>951854
I really sympathize with this, but consider the alternative...which is resignation in the face of systemic cruelty and exploitation. I think you're right that the goal may have been overambitious (you can't change the economic structure by willing it) but we can resist the more brutal mechanisms of capitalism while at the same time struggling for a better world. This is actually the conclusion Adorno ended up at, we may not actually achieve redemption, but we should act and think as if we can.

[Anonymous No.951887]

>>951885
Almost comes down to a Camus-like Absurdism, then?

[Anonymous No.951892]

>>951887
Sort of. Feels very Sisyphean for sure. But within the terrain of actions one takes there will be real moments of achievement, real moments of solidarity and dignity amongst the false.

[Anonymous No.951894]

>>951885

>which is resignation in the face of systemic cruelty and exploitation
"Resignation" can be a positive thing.
In a world gone mad, cultivating apatheia and apoliteia is the only way to "ride the tiger".

[Anonymous No.951899]

>>951894
Agree to disagree, I'm gonna take a different course.

[Anonymous No.951900]

>>951892
To me, this was the primary appeal of socialism in the first place, it is a mode of action, of feeling and aesthetics for the world which transgresses the disaffectation of life in general, it is idealistic, but i don't see what is wrong with ideals. Some people with an unwarranted sense of superiority, may accuse idealism of having no praxis, but it does have a praxis, if only on the individual level....

[Anonymous No.951905]

>>951900
Amen. And hopefully social as well. But at least it helps me get out of bed in the morning without wanting to blow the top of my head off.

[Anonymous No.951912]

>>951882
>(prison abolition)

Seriously? Why? How?

[Anonymous No.951934]

>>951912
I'm not that guy but I've considered this in the past too, honestly though most people in prison definitely need to be there, barring America where something like 60% are in there because of selling weed.
I'd imagine its some kind of mental hospital instead, carter's wife said a similar thing on the daily show awhile back.

[Anonymous No.951943]

>>951912
That question would require a lengthy response, which I can't commit to atm. Suffice to say I live in the United States of America, home of the most expansive and corrupt prison system in the world. Prisons are entirely ineffective for any of their primary functions (including the maintenance of social order, in fact the prison system creates disorder)..Like I said entire books could be written on why. Why do I focus on this one issue? Because in the USA the police and prisons are the most palpable figures in capitalist exploitation.

[Anonymous No.951944]

>>951934
Well yeah, I live in the USA like I said. But, I will say confining the Most violent offenders does not have to take the form of the Prison. The prison system in many people's mind exist for the function of confining dangers to society, this is almost totally not the case in practice. The most dangerous elements who are being housed in prisons could be confined in other ways, without creating this prison system whose sole purpose now is to maintain an increasing budget each year and to make huge profits.

[Anonymous No.951947]

>>950480

a challenger appears

[Anonymous No.951949]

>>951944

So you still want to incarcerate people, just not call it "prison"?

[Anonymous No.952787]

>>951947
Fight! dooo dooo dooo doo doo doo doo!

HAAADDUUKKEENNN!

[Anonymous No.952801]

>>952787
Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!

[Anonymous No.952810]

>>952801
Sonic Boom!

[Anonymous No.952828]

>>952801

[Anonymous No.953798]

Socialism lives. It is the people who end.

[Anonymous No.954147]

>>951949
Hey I'm back I don't wish to incarcerate people in any way resembling prison as a construct or a material reality. It's hard to explain but if you're around, I'm game. Also bump.

[Anonymous No.954162]

>>954147

I'm here. Please explain. I understand why you'd be against the prison system in its current incarnation (The Economist had a story a couple of days ago about three dudes who got 8 years for keeping lobsters in plastic boxes instead of cardboard ones), but to be against prison completely? What would you do with murderers for example?

[Anonymous No.954224]

>>954162
Honestly what I would do with Murderers exhibits one of my major problems with prison as it is. Murder is a subjective thing, and I reject the notion of incarerating someone who commited a single murder (e.g. not a serial killer or mass murder) for the rest of their lives. There is a notion that keeping murderers incarcerated is a matter of public safety. I don't see enough justification that this is always the case. The alternative I most strongly propose would be a long the lines of a behavioral health institution. The progress of the patient in this case would have some relevance on release date. There is, for instance, a prison in India which houses almost exclusively murderers and rapists, the inmates are housed in such a way that they are able to go out into society and be productive (have families, a job, etc.) And it has been remarkably successful. I honestly wish I could cite an article on this but the name of the place eludes me. I fundamentally disagree with the prison, because, if you take note of how it developed, it has always been a tool of power mostly for economic reasons (Michel Foucault wrote 2 wonderful books on the development of institutions, Madness and Civilization and Discipline and Punish, and what these books do is clear up the narrative that Prison is in the public's best interest.) I do understand, that perhaps there will be a need to indefinitely incarcerate certain people, but the number would be so few that this system of public safety would in no way resemble a 'prison'.

[Anonymous No.954249]

>>954224
>Murder is a subjective thing
It REALLY is not.

And what of those that cannot be rehabilitated? There are also many countries that follow a system similar to what you propose: rehabilitation and not punishment. My country (Sweden) for example. A prison is a prison, whether you prepare the inmate for life in society or not, though.

[Anonymous No.954264]

>>954249
What i meant by saying murder is subjective is that a murderer is not always going to reoffend. Also, I would like to hear more about sweden's prison system. In the USA the prison system is a leviathan, and increases crime rates intentionally in order to flourish. I'm not simply referring to a prison system which reforms. I would say that the number of people incarcerated in my vision would be less than a tenth percentile of what exists today. Their would be very few people completely confined at all. To me a prison is a very specific construct, and when I advocate the abolition of prisons, I advocate doing away with the construct completely both materially and culturally.

[Anonymous No.954354]

>>954264
>What i meant by saying murder is subjective is that a murderer is not always going to reoffend.

That's (obviously and trivially) true. Your rhetoric is obscuring your message, anon.

Here in Sweden the incarceration rate is extremely low, with measures like ankle bracelets used relatively heavily. Prisons basically focus on rehabilitation/education/etc. and aren't very harsh. Most inmates can get day passes to go outside frequently for example. A "life" term is 20 years I think, and that's usually the maximum. A quick search tells me the recidivism rate is about half of that of the US, but still it seems high to me (35%), making your re-offense argument pretty meh.

Still, what about mass murderers for example? Surely some people need to be confined for society to be able to function at all.

[Anonymous No.954428]

>>954354

The murderers do what we all want to - let them play, providing I don't get hurt personally.

This is a literal expression of my sincere beliefs.

[Anonymous No.954497]

>>954354
To me, in the case of mass-murder, I am uncertain (these ideas are best developed in praxis, as for now I am an advocate of these basic ideas) The same with serial child rapists, I am currently in the process of facing this void of humanity in order to flesh out my comprehension of what prison abolition actually means. If you want to hear my most radical concept , I honestly think that Public execution for these most extreme offenders would be preferable than maintaining the prison system. The prison system, and law enforcement agencies bank their existence on peoples' fear of the worst kind of offenders, and yet the result is the prison system incarcerating by a very large margin non-violent drug offenders. They exploit the fear which is relevant to only a very small group of completely anti-social people, in order to maintain an expansive, repressive system.

[Anonymous No.954504]

>>954354
Also, do you mean the reoffense rate of Murderers or prisoners in general? Incarceration and a felony record makes it incredibly difficult for an ex-offender to effectively reassimilate into society (I'm really speaking of the US, I wouldn't know the situation in Sweden but I will definitely look into it more in the future.)

[Anonymous No.954511]

>>954497

Preventing this kind of slippery slope has a much easier solution, you know. Make unions illegal. TA DA! No more prison officers and police unions to lobby for harsher shit, problem solved. Also don't privatize prisons, but that's an obvious one. The incarceration of non-violent offenders is only true in a relatively small number of western countries. You can't generalize to all prisons from the fact that Americans are retarded.

[Anonymous No.954519]

YOUR FEAR IS MANIFEST WHEN YOU PREACH AGONY. WITH EVERY SPLUTTERING THEORY YOU PREACH AN ARGUMENT FOR YOUR CHILDREN'S SUFFERING.

[Anonymous No.954592]

>>954511
Well really I do only advocate the abolition of the American prison, specifically. Like I said this is an idea in progress, I have a very visceral and aesthetic disdain for all prisons. I am still determining whether it is possible to do away with all government, but like I said, I have taken this one issue to heart. Also, it is not only the police unions which benefit from manufactured crime rates, the entire system of government, besides the many ancillary agencies which I am not even fully aware of yet, benefits from the repressive nature of a massive prison system.

[Anonymous No.956065]

>>954497
Not sure about public execution but I do agree with capital punishment for figures that are guaranteed to reoffend. I used to have a really kneejerk liberal opinion of the penal system, but in the case of, say, a serial killer it actually seems better for the social body and for the criminal that they are murdered by the state. I think its more fucked up to incarcerate them for their entire lives...

[Anonymous No.956170]

>>956065
Yes I think it would be much better, for serial killers/rapists, to be executed. Better for everyone in general. The public part is pretty important though, Public executions are of a type of punishment which does not allow society to ''not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing" this alienated thinking is a big part of the reason why prisons are flourishing so goddamn much.

[Anonymous No.956346]

>>956170
Fair enough. Okay, I yam convinced. Public killing ftw.

[Anonymous No.956363]

Looks like this thread went from Adorno to Foucault.

[Anonymous No.956367]

>>956363
imokaywiththis.jpg

[Anonymous No.956370]

>>956363
Yuppers.

[Anonymous No.957956]

>>950685
I concur, althusser was a galloping gaping asshole, he even admitted that he was bluffing and winging it for most of his career. Though I do have to give him props for reconstructing Marx's writings into a hard structuralism to deny free will, then using it as an excuse when he murdered his wife.

Adorno though was amazing. Even the stuff that was a bit mental was always interesting. Definately my favourite of the Frankfurt school (unless you count Walter Benjamin, that guy rocked).

[Anonymous No.957975]

Dumbledore doesn't afraid of anything!

[Anonymous No.958057]

>>957956
I agree. I like you. You're interests are relevant to my interests. Commies of /lit/ unite.

[Anonymous No.958129]

american are funky and stupid. they should stick to their "economics", sophistry supported with entry level maths.

[Anonymous No.958179]

>>958129
This is a very interesting statement. I realized that I agreed after I read it several times.

[Anonymous No.958220]

So KAWAII!!!!

[Anonymous No.958257]

>Greatest Western philosopher ever.

Are you supposing that there're other than 'western' philosophers? Also I'm disappoint /lit/ - somebody mentioned Plato after like 30 posts.

[Anonymous No.958292]

>>950685
I thought althusser didn't remember killing his wife or something, like he had a psychotic episode or something like that. I always thought stuff about ideology was interesting, but never read too much on it.

[Anonymous No.958298]

>>958292
Oh man that post sucked. Too many "or somethings" also

thought *his stuff about ideology was interesting

[Anonymous No.959908]

>>958298
philosophate,

[Anonymous No.959917]

>>958257
What abot Lao Tzu?

[Anonymous No.959950]

poopy sex

[Anonymous No.959968]

>>958292
i, for one, hate Galtung, Adorno, Horkheimer and, especially and most of all, Lacan and Althusser. Writing about realms of mind and consciousness is idle banter for, much unlike the property relations, they are beyond the "precission of a natural science". Every Marxist should know that.

[Anonymous No.959978]

>>959968
preccdccison

[Anonymous No.959984]

>>959968
Favorite marxist: Raoul Vaneigem. To be fair, Lacan became influential on post-marxism only insofar as he related to Marx's concept of Alienation. Lacan tried to show, I suppose, the psychoanalytic impact of capitalist alienation, which gave it a broader scope. Post-marxists turned this to criticize the media and city planning from a Marxist perspective, which I think follows cohesively, if not completely logically, from Marx's original theory as expressed in the Manuscripts of 1844. Marx could not have anticipated Capitalist alienation in mass-media, but I imagine he would have had something to say about it if he were around to see it develop.

[Anonymous No.959981]

>>950479

ａｓ_pREVＩＯｕSlｙ mENＴiｏＮｅｄ, tｈＥＳe ＭESSsａGｅＳ wＩＬl_ｃoNＴINue ＵntｉL_Ｙｏu_ＰｅＲＭＡｎeNＴly ＳtOP attaＣkＩnｇ_Aｎｄ FｕＣKiNG_wiｔＨ Ｗｗw.ａＮoｎ3DSＴalｋ.SE_(ｒＥｍＯｖｅ_ＴHＥ 3DＳ), ｒEmｏvＥ_Ａｌl_ＩLＬEｇａl_ｃlONes Ｏf ｉＴ ａnD ｌｉＥs ａBoｕt it AＮＤ DＯnaTＥ Ａt lｅASt a MＩｌｌIOn usD_Tｏ ｓＹSoP ＡS_cｏＭPｅNＳＡＴiON Ｆor_Tｈｅ_MAＳsivE_dAＭａGE yｏU ｒEｔａｒdｓ_ｈＡｖｅ_ＣａｕSEＤ.
huaezaeqf xwxodcf fsohbas jibmrcbmrviuwa u

[Anonymous No.960045]

Favorite Marxist: Karl Marx.

[Anonymous No.960046]

>>959984
>Raoul Vaneigem.
>marxist

marx's in-grave-rotation-velocity just increased by 1200 rpms. the sex polemics of 1968 gave eurocommunism and incredibly bad name.
my convinced communist grandmother once claimed it was, together with rock music, a conspiracy of the cia and the kgb.

>Capitalist alienation in mass-media, but I imagine he would have had something to say about it if he were around to see it develop.

i think he woud have remained hegelian if he saw the state of the european working class of 2010, together with their posh action films, pop music and soap operas. if we are to trust engel's "the state of the working classes in england", their state back than was only slightly worse than dante's ninth circle hell.

without pop culture life in the eastern block was boring and bland. my bet is that all those western academics and novelists try to cash on frigid intellectuals' aloofness. that's why they shovel liquid shit on happiness and entertainment. it makes you feel superior like you're the new stoicist emperor just without the formal title.

[Anonymous No.960059]

>>960046
You are kind of sounding superior, in your bashing of superiority. Do you belong to an industrial labor union? I for one, think it would be a grand oversight to discount the effect of media or the implications of capitalist spectacle. Vaneigem is not the polemicist you think he is. The alienated class created by capitalist conditions, cannot be held to the proletarian paradigm set forth by marx, to think so is ignoring history, which is incredibly counter-intuitive.

[Anonymous No.960114]

>>960059
what i hate most is the inflationary use of sensible terms such as "capitalist". i would presume you are either a teenager with wikipedia or a very bad student by the way you throw these terms around.

the "spectacle" - what is the "spectacle"? first and foremost it is the latin word for entertainment. theatre, races and gladiator games were the main spectacles know to a roman citizen and all theses forms were delivered in circular buildings, hences "circus". should we ban "circuses"? shall man live by bread alone? the soviet man refused to. do you think the soviet society was any better than the capitalist one? or will you claim it was another kind of "spectacle"? (the spectacle being something vague that needs to be banished to achieve buddhist enlightenment)

worst of all is when people call real socialism "monopoly capitalism". it wasn't monopoly capitalism. it was a tyranny, maybe a noble's republic, but not capitalism. there is no capitalism left in the west either. your system is too different from what marx termed "capitalism" in the 1840s to be reduced to capital accumulation.

the reduction wasn't justified, back in the day, either. thats why marx claimed not being marxist!

[Anonymous No.960154]

>>960114
Well, there is the issue of consensus in defining these terms. I use the term ''capitalist'' a bit loosely for sure, but to make this an argument of semantics is tiring and pointless. The term ''Spectacle" cannot be simplified to its basic definition, and it describes an idea which was described in Society of the Spectacle, and I suspect that you know this. The ''spectacle'' in this sense, is not simply any form of popular entertainment, it is instead descriptive of a specific alliance/symbiotic relationship between entertainment, commodity and power (in this case state power or corporate power which are interchangeable, really). The action of the spectacle is summed up (kind of) by Debord in the first sentence :In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation. He goes on to describe the effect of this action, and how it ultimately relates to Marxist theory of Alienation. I don't really know what else to say about it, if you are truly interested, you could read the text for yourself. http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/4
Personally, I don't understand your problem with this. Is it not in line with Marx? I would not imagine that it was, but Vaneigem and Debord were developing a new marxian praxis, something may have been sacrificed in the process.

[Anonymous No.960159]

I find derrida very funny and deep. Fluid meanings, just you think of it! Fluid meanings, binary meanings,... ftw!

[Anonymous No.960165]

>>957956
>althusser...even admitted that he was bluffing and winging it for most of his career

weren't they all? and wasn't that the whole point of the cultural marxist exercise, to be the most constant trolls to their unsuspecting institutions?

anywhere they're read they decrease the signal/noise ratio over 9000. entrepots of entropy, unpredictable tricksters that drive the Cold War CIA and KGB to schizophrenia

/b/ thinks in it's sentient collective mediocrity it is unique but they're only among the multitude of bastards sired directly by the priests of pomo.

[Anonymous No.960170]

>>960114
Personally, I am not a socialist, nor of any political faction. Post-marxism for me is useful, semiotically in developing or manifesting my concepts of desire. I make use of it, and I hold affinity for Marxist political practices only insofar as they share some of my aims, but I could never become a partisan of any kind. Socialism was tyrrany, to be sure. The strategic enemy is fascism, not the overt kind in a uniform, but the banality of fascism, that casts its tyrranical palor over the face of every person in society. It is at once an internal struggle and an external call to action. At any rate, I say all this to inform you you will not be having a great time skewering a socialist, communist, anarchist or whatever.

[Anonymous No.960238]

I love you guise.

[Anonymous No.960316]

Lovers of wisdom, meet the wisdom of God made man.

Game, set, match.

[Anonymous No.960323]

>>960316
Marx and Christ together at last.

[Anonymous No.960355]

Henri Bergson
/thread

[Anonymous No.960800]

>>960154
Wether you take Debord, Adorno, Reich, Marcuse or Fromm it is all the same: first they attack popular culture and they never forget to add their "ergo let's fuck" on top. Let's fuck in antispectacular manner, let's fuck independently of the capitalist culture, let's fuck independently from the dictates of consumerism.
but what do they want to achieve? do they want to return men to the state they were in the dusty age before radio? is that their new marxist project? "fuck proletarian democracy, who needs the fucking means of production, let's ban jazz and lady gaga instead, she's annoying, also let's fuck."
the only kind of people that could swallow their tl;drs must be entirely oblivious of every society but their own. What is their kingdom of heavens without the spectacle/consumerism/industrial culture? a world of pubs and folk? a world of obligatory may marches?
Turkmenbashi forbade all electronic and western music in his country, along with corporate medicine in an attempt to revive "authentic Turkmen culture". Would Adorno have been proud? Debord? Vaneighem? What do they suggest to ban the obnoxious demons of the current working class?
>>960323
>Marx and Christ together at last.
Komm Che Guevara, "Jesus mit einer Knarre"
>>960170
the banality of fascism is the enemy? the one hanged in jerusalem under the eyes of hannah arendt? who are your fascisms, young man, and how are you planning to fight them?

[Anonymous No.960818]

>>960800
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.960823]

>>960355
what essays by henri bergson?

[Anonymous No.960935]

bourdieu FTW!

[Anonymous No.961008]

>>960800
I think you are taking a rather superficial glance at the Situationists. They are not the same as perhaps the dilettantes who took up their slogans as a way to bridge the gap between Marx and ''let's fuck''. Popular culture would not be done away with, only, it must be taken seriously and examined for its relation to power, it is a given window into the power structure but also a manifestation of it presented as something quite different and perceived to be something completely detached from power. Once media is understood as a powerful tool of alienation, it can then be reappropriated for anti-authoritarian purposes. It will simply change form, there is no guarantee as to how or what the product will be, as it will necessarily take the form of a shift in perception, as ubiquitous as media has been in forming cognition patterns. In fact, one of the objects would be to make entertainment of higher quality. That is certainly not so disagreeable.

[Anonymous No.961017]

>>960800
Fascism takes forms both overt and banal. Of course the overt manifestations of it are the easiest to fight, but a victory in this context is nothing compared to a strategic dismantling of fascism in its banal sense, in the continuous exchange of humiliations and aggressive attitudes which comprise the economy of everyday life. The subtle fascism of the bourgeoisie. The fascism, most of all within, that at the moment of liberation holds back in fear.

[Anonymous No.961026]

>>960823
An intro to metaphysics and The Creative Evolution are the ones which I enjoyed the most.

[Anonymous No.961065]

>>961017
>>961008
>not sure if trolling

[Anonymous No.961093]

>>961065
What is that petty little remark supposed to convey? That you fail to comprehend it, and so you think it must be a troll?

[Anonymous No.961243]

>>961093
try harder.
>>961008
your abstractions make no sense to any sensible person alive. aside from samefags, maybe. say conretely what you are pissed about and what you want.
>>961017
>fascism
what about subtle bourgeois falangism, cagoulardism and ustašism? personally, my most detested enemy is subtle and banal bourgeois focoism. i fight it on all fronts.

[Anonymous No.961252]

>>961243
I had not made any abstractions, the goal of semiotics is not to restate an argument, but to give expression to new forms of desire. On /lit/ and you are criticizing me for not being standard enough in expression. Pissed specifically because of how people seem to be happier when being controlled, or within a spectrum of control, than they are when liberated. That liberation urge seems always to be reassimilated into culture at every turn. Pissed at the almost complete indoctrination of nearly everyone I meet.

[Anonymous No.961262]

>>961243
I will be unable to deter you from resisting a very simple premise, making a semantic argument where none is necessary. If your goal is to persuade or dissuade you are barking up the wrong tree. You will be incapable of addressing ''irrationality'' in my argument, as there is no relevance for that in my arguement. I am sorry your dreams have died. I am sorry you are most comfortable when not living.

[Anonymous No.961271]

>>961252
ofwhatuseisanalyticswithoutacomprehensivesemioticdiscourse.ogg

[Anonymous No.961282]

>>961271
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Are you mad because you don't know what semiotics are? I have not seen a .jpg or whatever for whatever you are talking about so it's weird because you seem to think it is a meme or something.

[Anonymous No.961284]

>>961252
and what does it all have to do with "popular culture"? who is the great satan? just radio and hollywood? do you really thing there was no such thing as the popular opinion in, say, the ancient city of Ur?

being the enlightment minister of the fourth world reich soviet state, how would you spread forth the enlightenment through the masses? through agitprop and censorship?

[Anonymous No.961297]

>>961262
so you don't even want to be understood? is that your personal lacanian rebellion, anon?

[Anonymous No.961298]

>>961282

Lurk moar. >>951737

[Anonymous No.961302]

>>961297
great stuff, made me laugh out loud.

THat being said, dont get all full of yourself...

[Anonymous No.961313]

this thread is full of fags.

[Anonymous No.961315]

>>961284
It is not so much about making arbitrary adjustments to popular forms of entertainment, but exposing mass media for what it is (spectacle in the service of power) Commercialism is not only a concern for me politically, but also because it increases banality in art. One of the effects of the capitalist ''spectacle'' is massproduced, poor quality entertainment. This is actually part of its ability to create alienation. There is no ''great satan'' comments like that are addressing a strawman. The project for now, I guess is to do something similar to what the Surrealists did for art. No, this isn't the toughguy Manarchist smashing windows kind of political action. I am just saying that art can be created as a challange to the piss-poor quality of capitalist spectacle. I consider a truly thought-provoking novel to be a victory in this regard, because such a novel would challenge the banality of spectacle media (such as Twilight, which is interestingly a nice piece of patriarchal propaghanda neatly commodified).

[Anonymous No.961327]

>>961298
I still don't comprehend what this is trying to say.
>>961297
I do not see why people so readily scoff at a personal lacanian rebellion. Can you tell me why this is something worthy of derision? I don't engage in the popular partisanship, and yes I am trying to figure things out for myself. I don't follow these sentimental commie narratives any more than I follow patriotism or conspicuous consumerism. It is personal, I am in process, and I don't see anyone making a statement of personal beliefs, only throwing half-baked criticisms at mine.

[Anonymous No.961334]

>>961327
>I still don't comprehend what this is trying to say.

How ironic.

[Anonymous No.961335]

>>961334
How is it ironic? What is ''confused'' about the text? Is the picture suggesting it is confused? Is this supposed to be funny to anyone?

[Anonymous No.961340]

>>961315
>One of the effects of the capitalist ''spectacle'' is massproduced, poor quality entertainment.

Nobody forces anyone to produce such entertainment, and nobody forces anyone to consume it. It is produces because people want it. For those that don't want it, there are alternatives. Everybody's happy. Except you, because you feel the need to force your tastes on others, because you are a fascist pig. What was your point again?

[Anonymous No.961361]

>>961340
You are really living with a sense of delusion, and you do nothing but argue with straw men. I never suggested that people were ''forced'' to take part. And the idea that ''they make it because thats what people wants'' is really ignorant, producers of media would never say that they produce things ''because it is what people want'' they usually make it because it is what advertisement needs. The idea of course is that these things exist only because of public demand, but media does not operate on a supply and demand paradigm. The supply constantly increases, it changes when something becomes unpopular sure, but this doesn't mean that the media has become progressively more suited to peoples' taste. Also, you seem to think that public desire and taste is generally homogenous and that dissent is an abherration.

[Anonymous No.961368]

it's not me posting. here are alot of people who sound like me. because anons are not afraid of losing face they tend to be inconsiderate and obnoxious. i'll be back to reading my One Day in the Life of Ivan Dennisovich, this mass-produced piece of fascist propaganda. All art is fascist propaganda. Right now Ivan is reflecting on how you mustn't put your frozen valenki near the oven because they will get wet. Also soon he will be leaving the camp for his faithful wife and two grown up daughters while the funny latvian still has 1/4th of a century to serve. twilight couldn't be more fascist power structurist propaganda than that.

[Anonymous No.961370]

>>961361
BUT ANYWAY like I said, once again the only person ITT who has made a statement of personal belief is left to defend it against a lot of strawmen arguments. NOONE else says a thing about what they believe, unless their beliefs are completely formed in the negative in which case, they are failing at life. Seriously, what is the use? You people need to get thoughts of your own, it's much easier to criticize others than to think for yourself. I personally do not see what pleasure you derive from this. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.961376]

>>961368
y u mad anon? more importantly, did you think this was funny? that is sad.

[Anonymous No.961384]

>>961361
>producers of media would never say that they produce things ''because it is what people want''

wat. They do it all the time. Perhaps some empiricism would pierce your delusion.

>media does not operate on a supply and demand paradigm.

wat. Troll or just incredibly moronic?

>lso, you seem to think that public desire and taste is generally homogenous

wat. Troll or primary school level reading comprehension? I really can't tell.

[Anonymous No.961385]

>>961340
> nobody forces anyone to consume it.
who forced the people to buy indulgence at the dawn of the reformation? who forced them to burn witches? of course popular culture has a tremendous influence on the masses, just, much unlike Adornofag, i don't think it's that bad. if you compare pop-culture-fed westerners with the rest of the world you will discover that the former are more funloving, tolerant and nice

[Anonymous No.961390]

>>961384
>ad hominem
>ad hominem
>begging the question
So you hang out with media executives and suck them off while they shout "I MAKE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT" ''empricism'' indeed, that isn't just a catch phrase. You do seem to think that public desire is homogenous, and that the homogenous media reflects accurately the desire of the people. BUT FOR FUCKS SAKE what do you believe? What drives you to contradict someone with my beliefs? What do you believe about the media? Do you think of politics, or art or anything? Stop relying on getting your self-worth from failed attempts at denigrating strangers. Stand up for your own beliefs! think for yourself.

[Anonymous No.961403]

>>961390
Media executives don't produce things to try to appeal to everyone, they produce things that they hope will appeal to a certain audience or group hoping to "give them what they want/like" entertainment wise.

[Anonymous No.961408]

>>961403
Yes their only goal is to please the people, pure an simple...seriously wtf.

[Anonymous No.961409]

>>961390

1. Your English is clearly not good enough to have a proper argument on this level. You clearly don't have the ability to understand what your opposition is saying.
2. That's not what an ad hominem is.
3. That's not what begging the question is.
4. ???
5. Profit!

Saging this shit because it's getting too ridiculous even for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.961411]

>>961408

Yes, it is. Pleasing people -> increased viewership -> higher advertising rates -> MOAR MONIES

[Anonymous No.961413]

The principle dictates that he should be shown all his needs as capable of-fulfilment, but that those needs should be so predetermined that he feels himself to be the eternal consumer, the object of the culture industry. Not only does it make him believe that the deception it practices is satisfaction, but it goes further and implies that, whatever the state of affairs, he must put up with what is offered. The escape from everyday drudgery which the whole culture industry promises may be compared to the daughter’s abduction in the cartoon: the father is holding the ladder in the dark. The paradise offered by the culture industry is the same old drudgery. Both escape and elopement are pre-designed to lead back to the starting point. Pleasure promotes the resignation which it ought to help to forget.

[Anonymous No.961417]

>>961409
Running away after making it perfectly clear that you don't know what you are talking about and using baseless accusations to make yourself seem like you do. ''your english comprhenshun hurr durr i am smarterrr" This is how you sound. You have yet to make any claims of your own, or any real statement of what you think, you have just made poor ad hominem arguments, attacked straw men and yes begged the question. You don't know what those mean, you just hope to god that people won't notice.

[Anonymous No.961423]

>>961411
You obviously don't realize that in ''pleasing people'' a lot of the work goes into manufacturing taste on a massive cultural level, informing tastes, defining demographics. The media does not create a product like other industries, it refines the consumer to the point where they accept the product. I mean, this stuff is really basic, you can read about it in adbusters or something. I really dont get it are you people advocating Mass media or what? What are you advocating? Why do people itt define themselves totally in the negative. this is not a discussion its a fucking kangaroo court.

[Anonymous No.961429]

>>961408
You really give the media companies way too much credit. People willingly eat up what they produce because they like it. Saying the entertainment industry has almost control over the consumer ignores all those heavily hyped big budget flops over the years.

[Anonymous No.961448]

>>961429
Well I don't really see it as completely effective, but I do take notice of how in my culture it seems the media/advertising/whatever industry defines you in terms of marketing demographics, and in order to have a much easier shot at selling to a marketing demographic, products and television shows and ads are created to at once impose an identity on the demographic, and then market towards that imposed identity. Axe body spray at once tells you to be extroverted, and then sells you a product which assists you in being extoverted, while also subtly playing off your insecurities. The really creepy part comes, when I see people disengaged from media, not shopping, but expressing sentiments and feelings about their identity that reflect the media's manufactured identity for their demographic.

[Anonymous No.961453]

The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him. Kant’s formalism still expected a contribution from the individual, who was thought to relate the varied experiences of the senses to fundamental concepts; but industry robs the individual of his function. Its prime service to the customer is to do his schematising for him.

Kant said that there was a secret mechanism in the soul which prepared direct intuitions in such a way that they could be fitted into the system of pure reason. But today that secret has been deciphered. While the mechanism is to all appearances planned by those who serve up the data of experience, that is, by the culture industry, it is in fact forced upon the latter by the power of society, which remains irrational, however we may try to rationalise it; and this inescapable force is processed by commercial agencies so that they give an artificial impression of being in command.

[Anonymous No.961455]

>>961448
Honestly, you are kind of right, I do give people a lot of credit by suggesting media has this effect. On certain days, I say to myself that people are just worthless scum, and they deserve the massproduced bullshit that they get.

[Anonymous No.961458]

what a shitfest!
i like lady gaga more than soviet and nazi state cultures. long live capitalist consumerism. hail ford!

[Anonymous No.961460]

>>961423
> I really dont get it are you people advocating Mass media or what? What are you advocating?

I am advocating you fucking off and letting people do whatever the fuck they want. You want positive advocation? Fuck you this is the 21st century. There are no values to advocate.

[Anonymous No.961461]

>>961448

The ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politics. Marked differentiations such as those of A and B films, or of stories in magazines in different price ranges, depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organising, and labelling consumers. Something is provided for all so that none may escape; the distinctions are emphasised and extended. The public is catered for with a hierarchical range of mass-produced products of varying quality, thus advancing the rule of complete quantification. Everybody must behave (as if spontaneously) in accordance with his previously determined and indexed level, and choose the category of mass product turned out for his type. Consumers appear as statistics on research organisation charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique is that used for any type of propaganda.

[Anonymous No.961462]

>>961458
have fun with those false dichotomies, bro.

[Anonymous No.961469]

>>961460
so you're a nihilist? before you answer, just think about what you said meant. people will do whatever they want. That is exactly what i'm advocating, for myself. I never advocated an imposition of new media, an elite academic vanguard or anything. I simply said what I believed and out came the wolves. If you really believed what you just said, you would not have been so quick to negate what I was saying.

[Anonymous No.961476]

Lars von Trier produces the very epitome of fascist cinema. His Manderlay and Dogville propagate vilest sexism, racism and fascism and should hence be banned. i don't know any non-fascist authors in capitalism tho but Eisenstein did the right thing, too bad he died so young.

[Anonymous No.961478]

ok wat

[Anonymous No.961481]

>>961461
Politics already went to hell. People now seem to think that certain ideas are "packaged" together and if you believe A you mush almost believe B and C. By driving a wedge between the parties things are even more easily separated.

A third party will never win in the US because they are too stupid to realize that many of them will have to combine to oppose the other two, and would rather have their pride possesses their "own" party then to comprise a few of their values and join with another.

[Anonymous No.961482]

>>961476
This is really interesting, I've only seen AntiChrist by Lars Von Trier, and I did get a certain sense of sexism from this movie, but then again it was complex. I would like to hear more about this.

[Anonymous No.961487]

If one were so inclined as to put the system of the culture-industry in a grand, world-historical perspective, then it would be defined as the planned exploitation of the age-old divide between human beings and their culture. The double character of progress, which constantly developed the potential of freedom simultaneously with the reality of oppression, has created a situation where the various peoples are ever more completely suborned into the control of nature and social organization, yet are at the same time incapable of understanding how culture goes beyond such integration, due to the compulsion which culture inflicts on them. What is human in culture – what is nearest of all, which represents their own affair against the world – has become alien to human beings. They make common cause with the world against themselves, and what is most alienated of all – the ubiquity of goods, their own reconfiguration into appendages of machinery – turns into the deceptive image of nearness.

[Anonymous No.961492]

>>961482
try watching the plays of Berthold Brecht! in his "good person from sezuan" he propagates neoliberalism before neoliberalism even appeared! Or take Mayakovski: his bedbug is most certainly fascist.

[Anonymous No.961505]

>>961492
I see the possibilities here, and truly the process of alienation is so advanced that you might be correct in saying these things. I haven't really read anything by these people. Except the Three Penny Opera, which is really , as you say, neoliberalism par excellence.

[Anonymous No.961522]

>>961482
>He thinks sexism is anything at all that portrays a woman as being evil.

The fact that you call that sexism implies that you somehow read Von Trier's message to mean that because that guy's fucked up wife is evil, by extension, all women are evil. I think you just showed us your cards, bud.

And shut the fuck up with the knee jerk sexism. God damn.

[Anonymous No.961525]

>>961461
The problem is, what's the alternative? It seems to me that societies who don't have this problem were ones who suffered from scarcity (any pre-industrial society I can think of) or who had a centrally managed economy that left consumers unhappy with their choices.

Also, have you ever worked in marketing? Those categories are marketing depts' best guess at a consumer breakdown that will let them maximize quantity sold while holding down costly variability. They aren't intended to push people into those categories. I'll agree that does seem to happen, but marketers generally do not see themselves as social engineers. None of the ones I've known, anyway, who were at very large consumer products companies (P&G, J&J, etc.).

[Anonymous No.961534]

The culture industry sanctimoniously claims to follow its consumers and to deliver what they want. But while it reflexively denigrates every thought of its own autonomy and proclaims its victims as judges, its veiled high-handedness outbids all the excesses of autonomous art. It is not so much that the culture industry adapts to the reactions of its customers, as that it feigns these latter. It rehearses them, by behaving as if it itself was a customer. One could almost suspect, the entire “adjustment” [in English in original], which it claims to obey, is ideology; that the more human beings try, through exaggerated equality, through the oath of fealty to social powerlessness, to participate in power and to drive out equality, the more they attempt to make themselves resemble others and the whole. “The music listens for the listeners,” and the film practices on the scale of a trust the despicable trick of adults, who, when speaking down to a child, fall over the gift with the language which suits only them, and then present the usually dubious gift with precisely the expression of lip-smacking joy, that is supposed to be elicited. The culture industry is tailored according to mimetic regression, to the manipulation of suppressed imitation-impulses. Therein it avails itself of the method, of anticipating its own imitation by its viewers, and sealing the consensus that it wishes to establish, by making it appear as if it already existed.

[Anonymous No.961537]

>>961505
And i'm not even talking about the excess of fascist alienation in the plays of Georg Büchner. Wojzeck is as if Hitler wrote a play and i am not even talking about the Death of Danton with it's sexist propaganda.

[Anonymous No.961541]

the problem is not with adorno but with him being forced upon dumb minds as you see ITT

[Anonymous No.961544]

>>961522
Hey I was saying that I didn't really see the sexism in this film. It was complex, as i said, because in reality AntiChrist was also a truly feminist film as well. It was a film about sexism (the man was a total sexism) and that's why the sexism was there. I was really just prompting the other person to explain their position on this.

[Anonymous No.961549]

Art cinema is fascism
Pop cinema is fascism
News is fascism
Books is fascism
ban fascism.

[Anonymous No.961555]

>>961544
I meant that the man, portrayed by willem defoe, was incredibly sexist and condescending to his wife. his wife becomes empowered by the supernatural, and the film exposes a darkly feminine origin story (where satan creates the earth i think) whic I found to be ultimately very feminist and anti-patriarchal. I thought it was a radically feminist film. Okay?

[Anonymous No.961558]

i liked how many women there were at once it was funky

[Anonymous No.961559]

>>961537
You know I see what you are trying to do all this time, but even though you joke about this stuff, I can honestly see the possibility that these seemingly contradictory statements are true. Do you get it? It's called dialectical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.961563]

>>961558
christ yeah that part was so creepy. AntiChrist was a really great movie imo.

[Anonymous No.961573]

>>961563
wat? not faascist at all much unlike twilight? adorno scowls at you, anon. you arent elitist enough.

[Anonymous No.961574]

he fairy-tale dreams which call so eagerly for the child in the adult, are nothing but regression, organized by total enlightenment, and where they tap the audience on the shoulder most intimately, they betray them most thoroughly. Immediacy, the community produced by films, is tantamount to the mediation without a remainder, which degrades human beings and everything human so completely to things, that their contrast to things, indeed even the bane [Bann] of reification itself, cannot be perceived anymore. Film has succeeded in transforming subjects into social functions so indiscriminately, that those who are entirely in its grasp, unaware of any conflicts, enjoy their own dehumanization as human, as the happiness of warmth. The total context of the culture industry, which leaves nothing out, is one with total social delusion. That is why it so easily dispatches counter-arguments.

[Anonymous No.961583]

>>961573
try harder, please.

[Anonymous No.961584]

don't force your silly tl;dr onto us, who mustn't study this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.961592]

>>961584
Who is forcing you to do anything? I am enjoying it. You can kindly piss off.

[Anonymous No.961649]

>>961592
well, masturbate on his books in your basement, жид, but leave us in peace

[Anonymous No.961667]

>>961649
Silly shit, this is a message board, what else would you be wasting your time on?

[Anonymous No.961695]

>>961667
пиздуй, давай, пацанчик!

[Anonymous No.961717]

>>961695
If you want me to know what you said, you shouldn't use moonspeak.

[or !Rrxa7zePwI No.961756]

>>951663
that's more like the martian tongue.

>What is their kingdom of heavens without the spectacle/consumerism/industrial culture? a world of pubs and folk? a world of obligatory may marches?

reading this stuff wrongly. the idea is to live more intelligently as an actor amidst the culture industry. be aware of the process, so that you can have a space of judgment on your own.

revolution through media criticism is obviously not going to work literally.

[Anonymous No.961759]

that's more like the martian tongue.

>What is their kingdom of heavens without the spectacle/consumerism/industrial culture? a world of pubs and folk? a world of obligatory may marches?

reading this stuff wrongly.
revolution through media criticism is obviously not going to work literally. the idea is to live more intelligently as an actor amidst the culture industry. be aware of the process, so that you can have a space of judgment on your own.

[Anonymous No.961931]

>>950480
Okay. This one is for the heroic Debordphile who has been arguing on this thread apparently all last night.

Here's my beef. I was a fanatical Situationist for about two years and did a close reading of all of Debord's texts, followed the history, read all the available biographies and even got a copy of the old Lettrist journal in French and tried to read it. In short, I sympathize.

But really, the Situationists were the Marxist hippies of Europe. Though the spectacle is a useful idea (ripped off and improved in the simulacrum by Baudrillard) they were more interested in Surrealist-style pissing contests and drinking then they were in promulgating revolution.

Case in point: Debord had kicked out all the other members of the international for various minor infractions and disagreement so that when May '68 happened, THERE WERE ONLY TWO OF THEM IN PARIS, three members, one on vacation, who refused to come home cause he was having too much fun on his time off.

Second point: The praxis of their ideas (like turning the various sections of the city into the 'happy' district, the 'sad' district, etc.) would have been the biggest fascist clusterfuck you could imagine. Who exactly would be deciding what parts of the city are what? The party Sorry I mean, Debord.

[Anonymous No.961967]

>>961717

[Anonymous No.961968]

merleau ponty is better

[Anonymous No.961988]

>>961968
Don't...know...if...trolling.

[OP No.962007]

I posted this drunk like four days ago. I luv you guyz so much.

[Anonymous No.962037]

>>962007
ee ur gay

[Anonymous No.962041]

>>961988

i liek karl popper he is the best ever

[Anonymous No.962043]

>>962007
Can you post the piece from Adorno on fireworks? I'm interested.

[OP No.962051]

>>962043
For sure. I'll have to do it later this afternoon cause I gotta run right now. It's in the middle of his 'Aesthetic Theory', I'll post it as soon as I get home.

[Anonymous No.962082]

The only great philosopher.

[OP No.962222]

"The phenomenon of fireworks is prototypical for artworks, though because of its fleetingness and status as empty entertainment it has scarcely been acknowledged by theoretical consideration; only Valery pursued ideas that are at least related. Fireworks by apparation [insert greek term here]: they are empirically yet are liberated from the burden of the empirical, which is an obligation of duration; they are a sign from heaven yet artifactual, an ominous warning, a script that flashes up, vanishes, and indeed cannot be read for its meaning. The segregation of the aesthetic sphere by mean of the complete afunctionality of what is thoroughly ephemeral is no formal definition of aesthetics. It is not through a higher perfection that artworks separate from the fallibly existent but by becoming actual, like fireworks, incandescently in an expressive appearance." (Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, pg. 81)

Link: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o46WtblHiqsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Adorno+%
22Aesthetic+Theory%22+pdf&ots=t6LTnO_zg3&sig=pm-1w3z9W28kVZltmohw5Kz8oUc#v=onepage&q=Fir
eworks&f=false

[Anonymous No.962841]

bum
i like this thread
pin it down. it has many intelligent words in it.

[Anonymous No.962965]

200th anniversary bump.

[Anonymous No.963231]

>>961931
I hope you are still here. I have to admit, that I agree with you almost entirely about this. I can't say that I fully agree that psychogeography would absolutely result in a clusterfuck, I think the point is to kind of avoid that, but a lot of the more weird aspects of it would create special problems for sure. I think the reason I still promote the situationists, is that, I feel like so much was left unfulfilled. I am an artist first, ever before my political leanings. I quite enjoy surrealist pissing-contests, and the liberation of self which they provide. In the end, I would have liked for Situationism to have flourished, but instead we have it chopped up and sitting on the shelf of academia. Obviously, the Situationists weren't tough-guy bomb throwers, but still for their ideas to be drained of all blood, by academics like Deleuze for instance, really saddens me. The praxis, ultimately is to not be bored, because boredom has reached the point of hyperpathology as a result of spectacle and the economic realities of the west. Anyway, I'm sorry if we missed eachother, I was out doing drugs ; )