So I’ve bought a lot of srs bks l8ly and figured I’d need some light reading. Today it arrived. Philip K. Dick and Philosophy: Do Androids Have Kindred Spirits?
Unfortunately I have two more exams left and don’t finish university until the 16th, but once I do I can get stuck into such magically titled articles as “Matt Damon Is a Vast Sinister Conspiracy.”
Aces.

So I’ve bought a lot of srs bks l8ly and figured I’d need some light reading. Today it arrived. Philip K. Dick and Philosophy: Do Androids Have Kindred Spirits?

Unfortunately I have two more exams left and don’t finish university until the 16th, but once I do I can get stuck into such magically titled articles as “Matt Damon Is a Vast Sinister Conspiracy.”

Aces.

Posted at 1:41 PM - May 01, 2013.
"One could say therefore that the historical personality of an individual philosopher is also given by the active relationship which exists between him and the cultural environment he is proposing to modify. The environment reacts back on the philosopher and imposes on him a continual process of self-criticism. It is his ‘teacher’. This is why one of the most important demands that the modern intelligentsias have made in the political field has been that of the so-called ‘freedom of thought and of the expression of thought’ (‘freedom of the press’, ‘freedom of association’). For the relationship between master and disciple in the general sense referred to above is the only realised where this political condition exists, and only then do we get the ‘historical’ realisation of a new type of philosopher, whom we could call a ‘democratic philosopher’ in the sense that he is a philosopher convinced that his personality is not limited to himself as a physical individual but is an active social relationship of modification of the cultural environment. When the ‘thinker’ is content with his own thought, ‘subjectively’ free, that is abstractly free, he nowadays becomes a joke. The unity of science and life is precisely an active unity, in which alone liberty of thought can be realised; it is a master-pupil relationship, one between the philosopher and the cultural environment in which he has to work and from which he can draw the necessary problems for formulation and resolution. In other words, it is the relationship between philosophy and history."

Antonio Gramsci, Q10,II§44

Posted at 1:31 AM - February 09, 2013.
"It is essential to destroy the widespread prejudice that philosophy is a strange and difficult thing just because it is the specific intellectual activity of a particular category of specialists or of professional and systematic philosophers. It must first be shown that all men are “philosophers”, by defining the limits and characteristics of the “spontaneous philosophy” which is proper to everybody. This philosophy is contained in: 1. language itself, which is a totality of determined notions and concepts and not just of words grammatically devoid of content; 2. “common sense” and “good sense”; 3. popular religion and, therefore, also in the entire system of beliefs, superstitions, opinions, ways of seeing things and of acting, which surface collectively under the
name of “folklore”."
—GRAMSCI, Antonio. Notebook 11, paragraph 12 (Some preliminary notes of reference)
Posted at 3:05 AM - January 12, 2013. source.
teaandthorazine:

“Engels, you’re being obtuse.”

teaandthorazine:

“Engels, you’re being obtuse.”

Posted at 3:19 AM - September 02, 2012. source.
Posted at 3:59 PM - July 02, 2012. source.
"It is not titles that honour men, but men that honour titles."
—Niccolo Machiavelli (via philosophy-quotes)
Posted at 1:58 PM - June 27, 2012. source.
Some demand change, some demand hope, Zizek just wants things to carry on forever.  FOREVER.

Some demand change, some demand hope, Zizek just wants things to carry on forever.  FOREVER.

Posted at 9:39 PM - June 06, 2012. source.
stickyembraces:

When your partner suggests that what you perceive as ‘objective reality’ is ontologically constituted by our symbolic activity, do not lose your temper or just flat out dismiss him. Pretend to listen to him, with an understanding but not condescending smile on your face, and then carefully suggest the possibility that he is using a false homology between discursive ‘production’ and material production and give him a copy of ‘Das Kapital’ for his next birthday.

stickyembraces:

When your partner suggests that what you perceive as ‘objective reality’ is ontologically constituted by our symbolic activity, do not lose your temper or just flat out dismiss him. Pretend to listen to him, with an understanding but not condescending smile on your face, and then carefully suggest the possibility that he is using a false homology between discursive ‘production’ and material production and give him a copy of ‘Das Kapital’ for his next birthday.

Posted at 1:44 PM - June 06, 2012. source.
"Dialectical thinking is related to vulgar in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion. Dialectics does not deny the syllogism, but teaches us to combine syllogisms in such a way as to bring our understanding closer to the eternally changing reality."
—Leon Trotsky, The ABC of Materialist Dialectics (1939)
Posted at 2:41 AM - April 01, 2012. source.
"The materialist doctrine that men are the product of circumstances and education, that changed men are therefore the products of other circumstances and of a different education, forgets that circumstances are in fact changed by men and that the educator must himself be educated."
—Karl Marx: Theses on Feurbach (via a-higher-level)
Posted at 10:41 PM - March 26, 2012. source.

akagoldfish:

Or how about the neoliberal iteration, McDonald’s Peace Theory. I’m pretty sure that theory’s been busted a few times already (doesn’t Georgia have McDonald’s? how about Lebanon circa 2006?), but the Fridemanites are still pushing it.

How does this shit actually make it to print!?

(Source: philosophy-of-praxis)

Posted at 6:56 PM - March 17, 2012. source.

Democratic peace theory - the idea that democratic nation-states won’t go to war because the people would vote against governments that would do that.  Nobody really likes wars, nobody wants to send their family off to die in war.  If every state is a democracy they wouldn’t go to war with each other because no government would risk their electoral career on it.

Reality - some of the most thorough liberal democratic states go to war under the claim that they’re spreading democracy.  Economic interests are very apparent.  Media cultures opinion towards accepting and normalising war.  Representative democratic systems lead to monolithic party structures who initiate war and still get elected for second/third terms.

Bourgie political philosophers - do not use their brain (singular was a typo but I’m happy with how that comes off).  Just talk about shit and hope it sticks.

Posted at 5:16 PM - March 17, 2012.
Posted at 2:24 PM - March 10, 2012. source.
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of the dead generations weights like a nightmare on the brain of the living."
—Karx Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, 1852 (via augustuscarmichael)
Posted at 2:09 PM - March 04, 2012. source.
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."
—Karl Marx (via bitcheskeepstealingmyurls)
Posted at 1:44 PM - March 04, 2012. source.
1 of 2 next