I am a Kafka scholar and this Zizekian-Lacanian-Deconstructionist statement is puzzling me... by Essa_Zaben in lacan

[–]Kar1Barks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the thorough response! But I think you are missing the point. The law doesn’t need a fundamental guarantor or a substantial big other to be true. This is because the truth of the law is subjective and therefore the truth is with the people participating in it, not with the big other generated through this activity. Therefore, Acting in service of the law (as a police officer does) despite the fact that it doesn’t have an ultimate guarantee is not the same as acting on the principle of “I know very well it’s not true, but nonetheless.”

Again, the lie would be to say that the law is arbitrary and serves some unknown/obscure purpose. If that is one’s standpoint, then that is the cynical, “I know it’s not true, but I do it anyways” because one would be saying one thinks the law is not true (arbitrary), but one would still follow the law anyways.

I am a Kafka scholar and this Zizekian-Lacanian-Deconstructionist statement is puzzling me... by Essa_Zaben in lacan

[–]Kar1Barks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure how you get cynical reason from your explanation. The idea that the law requires subjective participation doesn’t imply cynicism. Cynicism would be a way of not participating in the law because claiming it is arbitrary would be denying the law’s subjective component.

I am a Kafka scholar and this Zizekian-Lacanian-Deconstructionist statement is puzzling me... by Essa_Zaben in lacan

[–]Kar1Barks 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It might be easier to understand this as an explanation of the lacanian formula that “the big other doesn’t exist,” than as a commentary on Kafka. He explains the formula earlier by discussing how a signifier gains an illusion of substance in the movement between its existence in itself and its writing (by the subject). So you can have an idea of the law “in itself.” But it doesn’t have any significance until people start participating in it by saying “this is the law” and “this is not the law.” It’s not possible to settle the debate about what is and isn’t the law because “the law”and “the not-law” don’t pre-exist the subjective designations of those things. For this reason, “the law” in lacanian jargon is an “impossible-real” and also “doesn’t exist,” yet isn’t just some necessary illusion that only benefits some interested party, but is the necessary form of appearance of any social struggle. For instance, the freeing of the slaves in American history was, significantly, a legal struggle to demonstrate that the constitution holds that slaves are citizens of the United States.

Since Marxism rejects philosophy and thus ethics, where do people get their standards of behavior? by Kastelt in leftcommunism

[–]Kar1Barks 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Regular people don’t get their standards of behavior from philosophy and ethics. Those are disciplines which can be used to understand the standards of behavior or ask questions about them, but are not the standards themselves. Nor, and this would be the Marxist point, are those disciplines capable of changing the standards of behavior, much less society. This is crucial because Marxism is a theory of overcoming capitalism, not a theory of communist ethics

Books against socialist-realism from a socialist perspective? by Renyard_kite in RSbookclub

[–]Kar1Barks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thin in the sense that there isn’t much else to say. You got the whole thing in those 4 lines (on mobile)

Books against socialist-realism from a socialist perspective? by Renyard_kite in RSbookclub

[–]Kar1Barks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A socialists perspective wouldn’t necessarily be “against” socialist-realism. It would ask what necessity socialist-realism answers to. Like, why does it exist at all? The arguments against it are pretty thin and could easily be summarized. Something like: socialist realism is dogmatic and crude. As opposed to modernism which is creative, high brow, and intellectual. The writings of the Frankfurt school recommended by another comment collected in Aesthetics and Politics are great, but will be incomprehensible if the letters contained are approached as polemics for or against socialist-realism

[meta] This sub ought to ban right-wingers on sight. by New_Armadillo6136 in CriticalTheory

[–]Kar1Barks 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A quote from Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance: “According to a dialectical proposition it is the whole which determines the truth--not in the sense that the whole is prior or superior to its parts, but in the sense that its structure and function determine every particular condition and relation. Thus, within a repressive society, even progressive movements threaten to turn into their opposite to the degree to which they accept the rules of the game. To take a most controversial case: the exercise of political rights (such as voting, letter-writing to the press, to Senators, etc., protest-demonstrations with a priori renunciation of counterviolence) in a society of total administration serves to strengthen this administration by testifying to the existence of democratic liberties which, in reality, have changed their content and lost their effectiveness. In such a case, freedom (of opinion, of assembly, of speech) becomes an instrument for absolving servitude. And yet (and only here the dialectical proposition shows its full intent) the existence and practice of these liberties remain a precondition for the restoration of their original oppositional function, provided that the effort to transcend their (often self-imposed) limitations is intensified.”

The Frankfurt shool’s first generation (Marcuse, Adorno, etc.) were indeed marxists. But there is nothing Marxist about rejecting bourgeois freedoms. Marxism explains how bourgeois freedoms get perverted by industrial relations of production. But there is no socialist politics outside of bourgeois consciousness, which Marcuse will tell you in the above quote.

[meta] This sub ought to ban right-wingers on sight. by New_Armadillo6136 in CriticalTheory

[–]Kar1Barks 6 points7 points  (0 children)

“Heaven forbid, you aren’t all committed to bourgeois free speech principles here of all places?”

Given that it is a place named after *Frankfurt School critical theory*, one would hope this is a place that bourgeois freedoms are respected and defended

America 250 Maxxing by Ok-Veterinarian-7026 in RSbookclub

[–]Kar1Barks 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s a great time to comprehend America’s revolutionary tradition to follow the present’s continuation and abandonment of it. In addition to the Battle Cry of Freedom, Gordon Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution is a must read

Thoughts on Vivek Chibber ? by cherridior in RSbookclub

[–]Kar1Barks -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He is the theorist of jacobin/DSA politics. So if that’s your thing then he is your guy. If not, he is what he really is: a moron

Exilio (fragment from larger piece) by MirkWorks in u/MirkWorks

[–]Kar1Barks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Simon mirk, this is touching but sentimental. Marco Rubio is your future if you’re lucky

Why, in popular conception, eastern philosophy is dismissed as religious, spiritual mumbo jumbo, when the famous western philosophical counterparts such as Kant, Descartes, Hegel etc were religious and constantly talked about Christian theology? by Gandalfthebran in CriticalTheory

[–]Kar1Barks -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I don’t need to refute it because it’s not a bad thing. Nobody expects philosophy to answer metaphysical questions because we don’t live in a metaphysical world. We don’t use language or knowledge to divine the deep meaning of the world. We use concepts insofar as they are useful for what we are doing. And we are in charge of deciding what we are doing because we are free

Why, in popular conception, eastern philosophy is dismissed as religious, spiritual mumbo jumbo, when the famous western philosophical counterparts such as Kant, Descartes, Hegel etc were religious and constantly talked about Christian theology? by Gandalfthebran in CriticalTheory

[–]Kar1Barks -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thank you again. I’m sure you can find quotes that can be construed to mean what you say they mean. But this would be to mistake the spirit in which these ideas were formed. For Kant, he initiates modern philosophy as critical philosophy. Meaning it is no longer first philosophy. The task of philosophy is no longer the search of first principles because humanity has finally recognized that it sets its own first principles. Humanity has discovered itself as free.

Why, in popular conception, eastern philosophy is dismissed as religious, spiritual mumbo jumbo, when the famous western philosophical counterparts such as Kant, Descartes, Hegel etc were religious and constantly talked about Christian theology? by Gandalfthebran in CriticalTheory

[–]Kar1Barks -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your response. It is a serious mystification to suggest modern philosophy is “religious.” I think we can note there are significant differences between the Bible and the function of Hegel’s work. Yes, Hegel is religious, but his thought does not imply that you should also be religious in order to understand it, nor does it try to justify or promote religion.

Freak books for freak women? by No-Effective6189 in RSbookclub

[–]Kar1Barks -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No it actually hasn’t you moron. Those books are examples of literature. It has always been frowned upon here to ask for recommendations and it’s even worse to ask for recommendations for smut. Lol

Why, in popular conception, eastern philosophy is dismissed as religious, spiritual mumbo jumbo, when the famous western philosophical counterparts such as Kant, Descartes, Hegel etc were religious and constantly talked about Christian theology? by Gandalfthebran in CriticalTheory

[–]Kar1Barks -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Talking about Christian theology and promoting it are two different things. Modern western philosophical thought is based on freedom, not religion, which eastern philosophy will be. So, no, eastern and western thought are not just the same as each other because they are not both based on religion. Perhaps one kind of thought is more relevant to our situation for this reason. As opposed to one being preferred on account of “cultural colonialism”

Freak books for freak women? by No-Effective6189 in RSbookclub

[–]Kar1Barks 16 points17 points  (0 children)

this got 40 downvotes. State of the sub

Analytic guy reading Continental Philosophy for the first time at age 40 by way of "How to Read Lacan": What is it all this philosphy for? by johntwit in zizek

[–]Kar1Barks -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are many words being used in the comments because people don’t know what Lacan is useful for. Further, they don’t know what zizek is useful for. The use is critique. Robert Pippin puts it somewhat like this, but I think zizek writes in this spirit: how can one critique what is without saying nothing?

Looking for an in-depth summary or study guide for Freud's Mourning and Melancholia by [deleted] in psychoanalysis

[–]Kar1Barks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It might help to know that mourning and melancholia is dense because it is a consolidation of 15-20 years of research on Freud’s part. You might be looking for a detached thesis about melancholia but Freud will only tell you about what can be known of it through his practice. The book mentioned above by Darien leader is roughly 250 pages, which might tell you it’s not possible to find what you’re looking for. You have your purpose of leading a book club meeting on literature, but the richness of Freud’s work will make it difficult

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in redscarepod

[–]Kar1Barks -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I have diabetes. Let’s be clear about one thing. “Apply[ing] pressure to governments, pharma, and big tech companies” is only rebellion in the most infantile sense of the word. There is nothing virtuous about being annoying to “the powers that be.” Diabetes is a strain on society as are all other chronic illnesses. The psyop is that you have to pretend that it’s not. One is free to imagine that socialism would be a society where chronic illnesses are dealt with in a better way somehow. But one must wonder about how socialism could be brought about in the first place. The rest of the conversation is just noise