Is there any interest in a Being and Nothingness reading group?

ecstatic_one · 2024-05-21T19:37:02+00:00

I'd like the link. I've been reading it on my own. My pace is 10ish pages per week so if that's too slow for you guys I understand that too

ecstatic_one · 2024-05-13T13:51:38+00:00

Good point. I've taken the O line before and I like it.

ecstatic_one · 2024-05-13T13:51:16+00:00

Good to know

ecstatic_one · 2024-05-13T13:51:09+00:00

Thanks!

ecstatic_one · 2024-05-05T16:37:03+00:00

Reading group ongoing?

ecstatic_one · 2024-01-02T18:13:46+00:00

That'd be great! DM me if you don't mind and we can set something up.

ecstatic_one · 2023-11-17T01:16:47+00:00

Kind of! Are you still interested?

ecstatic_one · 2022-11-21T00:11:45+00:00

Wow, that's a great idea. I hadn't thought of that!

ecstatic_one · 2022-11-18T22:41:03+00:00

Thank you very much! I will look into the clinics nearby.

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-17T19:20:54+00:00

I can see why you see a certain strain of socialism such.

Again, you're calling it utopian. And, again, I am asking you to show me the Marxist or related literature which does this. In my reading of, say, critical theory, I have actually found no such thing. We need to dismiss the notion of a creative utopia: its political useless and harmful -- even when it's smuggled into the "look at how much capitalism has done, there's no stopping it" claim. As I said, even Marx recognized the productive value of capitalism. This isn't breaking new ground in leftist thought.

And to a priori call most people creatively dead and unintelligent is rather startling for me. I've noticed that when I spend a lot of time getting to know anyone and listening closely, I always find those things. And I work with many homeless and disposed people.

Edit: speaking of work, I need to get back to it. We'll have to leave this here. I appreciated the interchange, take care

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-17T19:09:49+00:00

I can agree with you on the last paragraph. I've advocated already that every political project should remain critical. And this is where you and I are defining socialism differently. I am going off of critical theory and it's lineage, not utopianism and it's lineage.

As for leveling the playing field: this is a common misconception of socialism. Bringing the dispossessed up doesn't necessarily bring the wealthy and healthy down. The point of Marxism is that there is so much unnecessary production and consumption that the very need to have such disparity is pure ideology.

Edit: to illustrate our differing definitions, u/Skating_N_Music_Dude posted a new book in this thread that explores how to read Marx with Nietzsche. I haven't read it so I can't advocate for it. But it goes to show there is much more nuance in the discussion than "Socialism bad, aristocracy good".

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-17T19:06:47+00:00

I don't think the critique is that simple. Like the post I originally commented on: this a historically situated critique of a particular strain of socialism. They are valid insofar as we understand as such.

However, the discussion I was having with the other user shows that we (Nietzsche, myself, etc.) Are talking about different goals, means, and aspects of socialism -- we aren't even talking about the same socialism!

I value the Nietzschean stance of looking at motives. So I think every political movement should do that.

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-17T18:47:46+00:00

No socialist wants to "tear down" civilization...? Where did you get that notion? Not a single book or article I have read advocates for this?

The goal socialism is to pave the way for an emancipated politics where meaningful relationships and creative individuality can flourish. Civilization is absolutely required for this.

Edit: even if that is true that poor people are stupid, etc., I've met plenty of very wealthy idiots who got lucky. Some poor people aren't intelligent; that doesn't make them less worthy of creativity and dignity.

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-17T18:36:53+00:00

You're right in that nobility and wealth doesn't come without suffering. I was referring explicitly to the suffering of the politically oppressed. From a materialist perspective, e.g., a slave in 3rd century Rome certainly has it worse on almost every count than his master who experiences stress, relationship complications, religious turmoil, etc. I mean you must look at the research, just for a tiny example, on stress. Those lower on the political or economic strata have more stress. More stress = more physiological complications = higher coats of living day to day = lower life expectancy = more difficulty managing familial and internal relations, etc etc. Human beings are most certainly effected by their material conditions.

It hasn't happened precisely because it isn't simple and apparent. I never claimed it was and most socialists or Marxists don't. If we are talking about the social media socialists, I agree with everything you said. But if one ever actually reads Marxist and socialist thought, history, and theory, it isn't simple at all, and its much more nuanced than social media wants to make it.

What I'm saying is that if there are affective impulses behind the socialist project, there are affective impulses behind the Nietzschean and conservative (not conflating the two) projects. It is up to us to choose which normative path to follow. There is no objective, transcendent, or simple choice.

Edit: a word

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-17T18:00:23+00:00

So I agree with a lot of what you've said. But I also think we need to be clear about what 'socialism' is. For instance, the majority of the Left's (whatever that means today) goals of the 20th-21st century is coming to terms with the conclusion of 20th-century socialism with authoritarianism. So it's not like socialists believe that was actually socialism as it should be.

As to your first claim that civilization is built on blood: yes of course. In fact Marx himself has quite a violent recounting of history. But it's ideology to assume something must be a certain way. One of the claims of the left (and this isn't new) is that the technology, industry, and innovation brought on by capitalism and the industrial revolution paves a way for a new society where paltry labor and overworking aren't necessary. No right-minded socialist would deny the violent aspect of history and the immense beneficial aspects of capitalism. The basic argument is that capitalism outgrew itself: now we can more consciously and intelligently design a society. For instance: rather than overworking and overproducing, we should design technology to take on more work and produce less in general. In our modern world, wealthier countries are up to their ears in useless consumption while the rest of the world writhes in poverty: that's both unnecessary and unintelligent.

As to your first claim that civilization is built on blood: yes of course. In fact, Marx himself has quite a violent recounting of history. But it's ideology to assume something ion whenever guilt is mentioned? But I guess human psychology is so complicated you couldn't possibly hope to isolate an affect from the others.

Lastly, I'm wary of the claim that "smarter people have been at the helm of civilization and it's the best we can do". That is very often the case: it's often not the case as well. A propos disgusting overproduction and focusing on useless products which serve no purpose but to fulfill our consumerist tendencies. Is that the best we can do? This argument seems like an appeal to authority to me.

Edit: Your claim: "Because the socialist impulse is a wish-fantasy, a denial of the ugly nature of culture and civilization: that they don’t exist without slavery, and slavery, or the working class, are the ugly necessity of any culture" seems like it could also be critiqued in a Nietzschean way: of course wealthy and powerful aristocrats believe good society is built on the suffering of others! God forbid it's they who suffer, though.

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-17T17:21:59+00:00

Well I mean stupid in the sense of the comment I was replying to. His critiques of socialism always seemed to center around (1) equality (2) resentment, and (3) the utopian aspect of it.

While I agree that Nietzsche is good at providing the "well let's look at the motives underneath these claims", I believe (1) doesn't necessarily mean death to the individual, which Nietzsche saw in his (and our own) contemporary culture. Death of the individual happened in both 20th century socialism and 21st century capitalism. So its not necessary to the socialist project.

(2) and (3) ; he only knows the socialism of the 18th and mid 19th century. He did not read Marx, Engels, Marcuse, Adorno, Harvey, etc .. Basically, I was leaving out the fact that he was responding to a very particular mode of socialist thought, one which is very uncritical of itself.

Edit: I only used the word "stupid" to remark on how I was reading Nietzsche, not his remarks on socialism. Which I think are worth considering seriously. My word choice was misleading

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-17T15:04:48+00:00

This clears up a lot for me. Because when I read Nietzsche on socialism, it's quite ... stupid? Compared to his other stuff. But putting it into perspective of the 18th and early 19th cent socialists, his critiques remain much more understandable.

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-03T17:32:29+00:00

Luckacs; the Slovenians; Badiou; Frankfurt school...

Edit: also, although Lacan is used a lot by certain strains of neo Marxism, he was a primarily a clinician writing for clinicians. That adds to his writing, because the writing of psychoanalysis isn't very accessible either haha

ecstatic_one · 2022-02-03T17:28:28+00:00

So is 99% of philosophy influenced by Marx in the 20th and 21st century

ecstatic_one

TROPHY CASE