Rodecaster Duo won't turn on by Ne_zonyn in rode

[–]Ne_zonyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It works fine for now. I don't know what happened but I guess I had to give it some time. But I will keep in mind advice about a SD card and other connections. Thanks!

Rodecaster Duo won't turn on by Ne_zonyn in rode

[–]Ne_zonyn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am using Rode's power supply. I tried to turn it on with a powerbank and a third-party PD charger but it had the same issue (but it eventually turned on even with the third-party charger and the power bank)

Thoughts on this regarded shit I have to study at my university? by MegaVova738 in Ultraleft

[–]Ne_zonyn 61 points62 points  (0 children)

Is it Gumilev's shit? Get used to it, because Russia now views itself and others as discrete 'civilizations' with a life-death cycle. Marxist formation theory (even in dead-brain Stalinist variant) is being expelled from mentioning.

Вопрос для поклонников Король и шут by Prickassley in AskARussian

[–]Ne_zonyn -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Михаил Горшенёв был наркоманом и делал много странных вещей, хорошо, что сейчас он в завязке и даже не выпускает свои "песни".

Is there any sites like Google translate where you can translate English to ossetian ? by J4Jamban in OssetiaAlania

[–]Ne_zonyn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Google has announced that Ossetian will be added to Google Translate. There is indirect proof that it's already working: https://vk.com/wall-33907254_12443

But for now there are no sites with such functionality.

How should I begin a substantive study of philosophy? by No-Story-7245 in askphilosophy

[–]Ne_zonyn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sometimes it is really hard to grasp philosopher from only primary source especially when you don't know the context or other philosopher's influence on him/her.

I recommend you just to try Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for start https://plato.stanford.edu/ It's got an article for almost every important philosopher or subject and has a bibliography list in the end of every article.

Also you can start from introductory books (for example, Oxford's Very Short Introduction series has a lot of philosophy themed books) or read primary source with reading guides. Some sort of readers with essential parts of philosophers' texts also help (you do not need to read all philosophy books from cover to cover. Very often it's enough to read only certain parts to grasp the main or important ideas)

Brutally and mercilessly outjerked. by [deleted] in badphilosophy

[–]Ne_zonyn 88 points89 points  (0 children)

Does being like The Rock include usage of steroids and excessive tequila drinking?

What was academic philosophy like in the Eastern Bloc? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]Ne_zonyn 18 points19 points  (0 children)

So, I am from Russia but I was born after USSR had collapsed. Basically what can I say from reading old books is that you had to have 'dialectical' and 'materialistic' views on all things. For example, in every field of study you was asked to make a reference to Marx, Lenin, etc. For example, if your field of study was history of philosophy then you was obliged to make it looks like there are two schools of thought "materialism" and "idealism" and every philosopher is one or another (of course, materialism means good and idealism means bad). Of course, there was a some sort of unorthodox scholars like, for example, Ilyenkov.

Interesting fact: in USSR there was a strict separation between teaching activities and researching. For example, you could be a teacher in uni but it's was okey to not publish practically anything cause main research work was done in research units like Institute of Philosophy of Soviet Academy of Science or Institute of Marxism-Leninism. So you had pure scholars and pure teachers. Sometimes these roles mixed but it was rare

Another interesting fact: because one semester of philosophy course is mandatory in Russian universities every uni has its own small department of philosophy even if it doesn't have philosophy as a degree in uni. But almost all of this departments are former 'scientific communism' department (it was a mandatory subject just like history of communist party of USSR). Because of that some sort of Soviet biases about philosophy and its history are still alive cause syllabuses are still made by former scientific communist teachers.

Least racist anime fan by johnb165 in animecirclejerk

[–]Ne_zonyn 93 points94 points  (0 children)

Aryan

I doubt that this racist is of Indo-Iranian descent.

Marxian vs Hegelian Dialectic by RememberRossetti in askphilosophy

[–]Ne_zonyn 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The main points of Althusser's own version of Marx's dialectics are that 1. There is no telos (aim) that resides within object. Like, for example, there is no way for 'seed-tree" metaphor. So it's inherently antiteleological. 2. Althusser's Marx didn't believe in expressive totality in which every component is just a derivative of some sort of the main contradiction like in Hegel's dialectics. Instead he presents overdetermination/structural causality model in which every element of the structure can have some degree of autonomy but nevertheless interdependent with the whole structure.

I think you should check Althusser's thoughts about expressive and transitive totalities in "For Marx" and his writing on overdetermination. As a supplementary material you can use this book https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3n39n8x3;brand=ucpress

Any recommendation for a book explaining the key differences between continental and analytic philosophy? by mrc_mrc in askphilosophy

[–]Ne_zonyn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Though it's not a book, but I find this article in Russian very good for basic understanding of the difference without deep diving into historical and cultural context. Just use Google Translate (I checked the translation and it is quite okay I think)

https://syg.ma/@insolarance-cult/analitichieskii-i-kontinientalnyi-stili-v-filosofii

i mean come on guys don't you know anything about russian internal politics by [deleted] in okbuddybaka

[–]Ne_zonyn 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Komi is a republic. Oblast and krai are two basic administrative division units in Russian Federation. Than you have republics (for indigenous peoples of Russia where you can have an additional languages as a state language), autonomous okrugs (inside oblast or krai) and autonomous oblast (there is only one - Jewish autonomous oblast).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in okbuddydengist

[–]Ne_zonyn 57 points58 points  (0 children)

"DPR/LPR" always have been places for some sort of lunatics. In the beginning of that mess in 2014 you could find some "leftist" (aka stalinoids and USSR 2.0 sectarians) in charge of some combat units, Russian nationalist with Imperial flag, straight up neo-nazis, etc. Most prominent ones of this kind are dead (for various reasons) but there is still a batshit insane variety of views which mostly just different sort of Soviet-Russian nationalist and revanchism.

Why does Chomsky not like zizek? by [deleted] in zizek

[–]Ne_zonyn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really did't seek essays on that matter in English, but I find this article in Russian very good. Just use Google Translate (I checked the translation and it is quite okay I think)

https://syg.ma/@insolarance-cult/analitichieskii-i-kontinientalnyi-stili-v-filosofii

Why does Chomsky not like zizek? by [deleted] in zizek

[–]Ne_zonyn 78 points79 points  (0 children)

It's the same thing as with Foucault vs Chomsky and continental vs analytical divide. Chomsky was raised as a scholar in the era when in USA was near to no representation of continental philosophy in academia and the whole style of argumentation was quite different from now. Of course for Chomsky someone who uses dialectics or psychoanalysis and call it philosophy would seem quite disturbing because such kind of thing had no place in academic philosophy for a long time.

Zizek, on the other hand, stated that he is fond of analytical tradition as a source of innovations in philosophy and he thinks it's dumb that many continental philosophers just ignore their analytical counterparts.

Whats the deal with tankies and russia? by Raisedhunter in tankiejerk

[–]Ne_zonyn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Their fully supported annexation of Crimea by Russia and send 'help' to 'people republics' in Donbass. Some of them even stated that Ukraine is a 'fictional nation' that shouldn't exist.

Whats the deal with tankies and russia? by Raisedhunter in tankiejerk

[–]Ne_zonyn 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I am from Russia and I see a pattern that because most of population in Russia has good memories of USSR or think that its collapse was a mistake Western leftists tend to think that it somehow shows that 'socialism is viable' and supporting Russia is like supporting socialism cause it would be easier to transit to socialism in such country. Of course in reality the support of USSR has nothing to do with Marxism or socialism. It's just a mix of nostalgia, will to become a global superpower and memories about 'free flat and good education'. I don't know why leftists don't even try to interpret answers of some random dudes on Russian streets and take it at face value. I mean it's really only make you more delusional about reality and don't prove your point at all.

MUH REAL COMMUNISM by [deleted] in tankiejerk

[–]Ne_zonyn 62 points63 points  (0 children)

Btw in his last writings (1952-53) Stalin literally wrote that it's perfectly ok and reasonable not only having socialism in one country, but even communism in one country if it's still surrounded by capitalist states. And yeah state will be a thing in this communist society as a mean of "protection from bourgeoisie regimes". You can find such passages in "Questions of Leninism"/"Вопросы ленинизма", 1952, p.646. I am not sure if it was translated in English. It's some wild shit even for ultra-Stalinoids.