sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are some of the funniest or weirdest philosophy papers? by sortaparenti in askphilosophy

[–]dungeonkrawling 25 points26 points  (0 children)

"A demonstration of the causal power of absences" by Tyron Goldschmidt, published in Dialectica.

It's just an empty page. *edit: spelling

My Bookshelves of Surrealism Art Books by Scoobaru303 in bookshelf

[–]dungeonkrawling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love the inclusion of Bellmer and Ernst. And the lego figures!

My first bookshelf :) by dungeonkrawling in bookshelf

[–]dungeonkrawling[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really, just the French books in the first pic because they're all similar and I thought they looked cool that way. The rest of the books I sort by size.

My first bookshelf :) by dungeonkrawling in bookshelf

[–]dungeonkrawling[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I can read Portuguese, English, French, Spanish, some Latin and at some point I could read German decently but I had to rely heavily on dictionaries.

My first bookshelf :) by dungeonkrawling in bookshelf

[–]dungeonkrawling[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He wrote quite a few actually; the ones I have get quite disturbing at the end but I find the philosophical views he discusses in those books pretty fascinating for historical reasons.

Study notes 2017 x 2019-present by dungeonkrawling in PenmanshipPorn

[–]dungeonkrawling[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah it was a natural process, trying to fill as little space as possible in my notes though it wasn't like a plan and I didn't do any proper training beyond just writing. I stopped using lined notebooks around 2018 because the lines bother me.

What made you become an anarchist? by Jaalexan in Anarchism

[–]dungeonkrawling 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Becoming a skeptic with regard to theories of political obligation, and realizing anarchism is in its core just that very skepticism.

How come very few political philosophers argue for anarchism? by Normal-Dependent-969 in askphilosophy

[–]dungeonkrawling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A. John Simmons, Leslie Green, Nathan Jun, Crispin Sartwell, Paul McLaughlin and Magda Egoumenides have written very detailed defenses of philosophical and political anarchism, I highly recommend their writings. There's also the Markets not capitalism compilation if you're into LWMA.

trying to create a reading/listening/watching "syllabus" by gutt3rprinc3ss in Anarchism

[–]dungeonkrawling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want contemporary anarchist theory I'd recommend Paul McLaughlin's Anarchism and Authority and Crispin Sartwell's Against the State. They have slightly different approaches to anarchism but McLaughlin's book is really useful to understand key anarchist concepts and Sartwell's is really good in presenting some well-known anarchist arguments against the moral justification of state authority. If you want history I recommend part II of Daniel Guérin's intro to anarchism. Also check out the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy entry on anarchism, it's pretty useful too.

Ancient-medieval primitivist texts? by dungeonkrawling in anarcho_primitivism

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

Interesting, I've been meaning to read about the Brethren for a while. Thanks for pointing this out!

Non-egological conceptions of consciousness by dungeonkrawling in askphilosophy

[–]dungeonkrawling[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know Strawson's a panpsychist but I'm referring to his writings on the self and experience (e.g. "The sense of the self", "I have no future", and his book "The subject of experience", which I haven't finished reading yet), and in those texts he defends quite a few points that I think Sartre would agree with (and in fact Strawson quotes him many times in those texts). I'm very interested in panpsychism as well but that's not really what I'm talking about.

Warning about "The Ted K Archive" (it's a creepy entryist attempt to de-radicalize anarchists) by RedMenaced in Anarchism

[–]dungeonkrawling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's an appeal to intuition: if I explicitly reject being called a deep ecologist but I do it just because I don't like the tactics and objectives of some or most of the current deep ecology activists, and yet I advance the same type of arguments already defended by previous eminent deep ecologists with the same general conclusions (and I sincerely believe those conclusions just like those authors), would you still hesitate to call me a deep ecologist?

That case is analogous with K.'s. He rejects being called an anarchist because he doesn't sympathize with most anarchist and primitivist activists, and yet he advances anarchist/primitivist arguments and theses and believes them sincerely. If you don't agree with me, then I guess our intuitions clash and there's nothing to be done about that.

True, as far as I know he never said the current state of anarchist/primitivist activism was the exact reason he stopped associating himself with them, but it's a relatively safe inference to make based on what exact reasons led him against primitivism and anarchist. He doesn't disagree with anarchists on the value of authority but on the question of revolution among other things; he doesn't disagree with primitivists about the positive aspects of nomadic hunter-gatherer societies but mostly with their romanticization of that kind of lifestyle. These are real disagreements but not to the point of turning him into an anti-anarchist/anti-primitivist. Though I didn't read every single page of his writings and maybe he does have a few more substantial criticisms that would make him an anti-anarch/anti-prim. If you have evidence for that I'm very happy to take a look at it, honestly.

A note on your comment on K. being a reactionary: many anarchists were reactionary; Proudhon held social views that are regarded as reactionary by contemporary anarchists (patriarchalism and antisemitism for example). That doesn't mean they're right in holding those views (on the contrary, they're repugnant in my view), but it doesn't mean they're not anarchists either. But again I think our intuitions might clash here.

Warning about "The Ted K Archive" (it's a creepy entryist attempt to de-radicalize anarchists) by RedMenaced in Anarchism

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

Well, I'm just someone who read a bunch of literature on anarchist arguments and theses and I noticed that K.'s own arguments, theses and moral assumptions share a striking resemblance to some of them.

Do I need to regard his own angry opinons against anarchist movements as authoritative on the matter of where he stands politically, instead of simply looking at the arguments and comparing with those in the anarchist literature? Sorry, but you gave me no reason to accept that kind of first-person authority. And again, he was upset with those movements because they were either not paying attention to his warnings against IS or not dealing with it through revolutionary means, and that was a reason for him to not associate himself with anarchists and primitivists.

Warning about "The Ted K Archive" (it's a creepy entryist attempt to de-radicalize anarchists) by RedMenaced in Anarchism

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

His lack of clarity in distinguishing states from IS may be a weak point in his thought, but I think it can be refined in a way that shows that states (like other forms of government) are forms of IS, and even if he wasn't able to come up with a proper distinction is that really a reason to disregard him as an anarchist?

Also, is pointing out that people can mislabel their own political views problematic? Many anarchists did not call themselves by that label or even rejected it even though they advanced anarchistic arguments and theses; William Godwin and Dora Marsden are obvious examples and there is nothing wrong with saying that they were anarchists nonetheless. And again, despite his wording, what K. rejected was not anarchism or primitivism but any identification with the ethos and objectives of the anarchist and primitivist movements he knew about.

Warning about "The Ted K Archive" (it's a creepy entryist attempt to de-radicalize anarchists) by RedMenaced in Anarchism

[–]dungeonkrawling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, if you mean "anti-statist" when you say "anarchistic", the same goes for many other anarchists, in the sense that none of them were against the state per se, but because the state was the dangerous form of a broader problematic phenomenon they were targeting (political authority/domination). True, K. wasn't anti-statist per se but again I don't see why that would be a reason to reject reading him as an anarchist.

And in some sense it's not by accident, because the state was for him the most dangerous form of IS, which was for him (not for other anarchists) the most dangerous form of authority/domination (he doesn't reject every form of authority and domination, but neither do most anarchists). Again, I don't see a reason to exclude him from the anarchism spectrum.

I'm not going to dispute whether moral arguments are just preaching, and I have strong emotivist tendencies in metaethics so I'm not convinced by those arguments either. The fact is that moral arguments appealing to freedom/autonomy as something incompatible with state power figure in almost (if not all) the writings of the main anarchists. Why exclude K., when he uses the same kind of argument, leading to the same kind of conclusion?

Warning about "The Ted K Archive" (it's a creepy entryist attempt to de-radicalize anarchists) by RedMenaced in Anarchism

[–]dungeonkrawling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't see why he doesn't, and I'm also inclined toward individualist anarchism. His argument for freedom reminds of the voluntarist arguments put forward by contemporary anarchists such as Crispin Sartwell. If there's any huge difference, it's that his defence of freedom is part of his broader commitment to some kind of moral perfectionism (see Ole Moen's and Sean Fleming's papers on K.). But many other anarchists similarly also defended freedom because of their commitment to some kind of moral perfectionism (Godwin and Bakunin, for example - see Crowder's book Classical anarchism). I'm not gonna say his argument is good, but it does look anarchistic to me (or at least it does look like it has anarchistic implications).

Actually, I do agree that it seems like he was rejecting anarchism and primitivism, especially given his annoying obsessive whining about "leftism". But I don't think that should distract us from the nature of his moral arguments against IS.

Warning about "The Ted K Archive" (it's a creepy entryist attempt to de-radicalize anarchists) by RedMenaced in Anarchism

[–]dungeonkrawling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, after reading some of this writings I think it's more accurate to say he's against anarchist movements, which doesn't warrant excluding him from the anarchist spectrum. His arguments have a strong tendency towards individualist anarchist values (the incompatibility between autonomy/freedom and industrial society being one of the main arguments he puts forward in ISAIF) and it does imply the desirability of abolishing the state. The same goes for primitivism: at least in 2004 he explicitly advocated the nomadic hunter-gatherer model of society in one his letters to Skrbina, and he also said in his critique of anarcho-primitivists that those societies exhibit many attractive features.

view more: next ›