What are
/r/CriticalTheory's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/CriticalTheory:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/CriticalTheory:
Academia.edu
SemanticScholar
Baidu
Scribd
Library Genesis
Meduza
Podomatic
Player FM
Open Culture
AnonFiles.com
Vulkan
HTTrack
Bypass Paywalls
Let's Encrypt
Gofile.io
The most popular reviews in /r/CriticalTheory:
Other great anti capitalist feature films with a critique/message:
https://letterboxd.com/film/blood-is-dry/ (This one is a must)
Luis Buñuel’s last three films (1972-77)
They Live
Godard’s Weekend
Tati’s Playtime
There's also bypass paywalls which will work on FF or Chrome. (GitHub link)
Use it on your non-standard browser if you're worried about it's privacy.
I am working on theory of and theorizing about deaf people who are very much outliers to society. The only group of people globally that use a visual, embodied, non-vocal language for discourse. Deaf people are widely threatened by entrenched regimes of "normalcy" both in terms of disability but also linguistic hegemony. There is some very real neo-eugenics undercurrents to the "criticism of sign languages" by groups founded by Alexander Graham Bell but also by the biomedical community's obsession with technological panacea "solutions" to deafness.
Here's some reading if you are curious: https://www.academia.edu/32811870/Confluence_of_research_on_pedagogy_for_deaf_educators_Comprehensive_Exams_1_-_Description_of_the_problem_and_relevant_research
and
and their assessment was that it posed no threat as it mostly made clear the fracturing of real leftist coalition.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86S00588R000300380001-5.PDF
While I agree with what he is saying, I think that what Michelle was more so referring to, was impacting a better society by removing definition and races. That we can't truly come together unless both sides understand that we must be united as one to make this a better country. This video explains this concept very well.
It will also take the privileged race to take more action in breaking down those boundaries, which is the most crucial concept to understand. How do you get a group of preconditioned people to truly understand that they are privileged over other communities, while also trying to convince them of transferring their conceptual hierarchy, wealth, and control of power (a.k.a. their status) to a race that is already deemed inferior?
In other words, how do you convince a bully to realize that they:
a.) are a Bully. & b.) need to stop bullying people period, especially ones that are smaller and weaker.
If you have read The Art of War, then already know the answer to this.
And by science wars do you mean the Sokal book intellectual imposters? I'm not sure of any real academic work that addresses this.
In the discussion between science and philosophy there is a good article about the Spinoza Boyle debate that draws on Deleuze's text What is Philosophy, were Deleuze makes a sustained argument about the different roles of philosophy and science.
Yeah he also killed a guy in a duel and was a fugitive for the last part of his life, like he was painting on the run from the law. He also fell in with this chivalric order in Malta and was allegedly murdered. I bought Andrew Graham-Dixon’s biography of him at the Met bookshop on a whim and was totally hooked, he really did have an insane life.
I remember researching Foucault and subjectivity for one of my essays at uni and this book happened to be a great source on the subject: www.amazon.co.uk/Subjectivity-Theories-Self-Freud-Haraway/dp/0814756514
​
Also if you are having trouble understanding Foucault, I recommend this little gem: www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Foucault-Geoff-Danaher/dp/0761968164
​
I wrote my master thesis on files sharing and didn't really find literature purely on the topic. Not that it doesn't exist but to my knowledge there is no such thing as reference textbook on that. Also there a good amount of publications that have some agenda.
Here is a list of work that were useful in defining the topic, no particular order:
- W. Benjamin: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
- M. CASTELLS, G. CARDOSO : PIRACY CULTURES: How a Growing Portion of the Global Population is Building Media Relationships Through Alternate Channels of Obtaining Content. -> it's a series of article on piracy, if I remember well the intro can give you good theoretical ground, the rest are more ethnography, case study.
- P. Himanen The: Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. -> computer culture, free software, etc. share some common ground with piracy, especially the "freedom of information" thing
- I also drawn freely from Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Boltanski & Chiapello The New Spirit of Capitalism and Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations.
Hopes it helps
This article is an extended discussion of many of the points covered in the first one I shared on this thread discussing King’s integration of critical theory into his ideology and direct action campaigns: http://www.openculture.com/2015/02/how-martin-luther-king-jr-used-hegel-to-overturn-segregation-in-america.html
Have you read this article by Balibar and Macherey? It's about literature, but I found it helpful as a concise way of repositioning classical categories of the aesthetic within the Marxist framework.
Zizek speaks differently to academic and popular audiences. Some of his ideas are too complex to explain without also explaining Lacan, Hegel, and Marx, because he's part of an academic conversation that's been going on for a couple centuries among the world's smartest people. There's just no way you can expect the majority of people to understand that without serious study that involves reading a lot and conversing with experts.
That doesn't mean Zizek doesn't also convey useful and more easily comprehensible ideas to the public. If that's what you're looking for, check out his speech to Occupy Wall Street.
This is what /u/The_DG is talking about when he refers to audiences. Political philosophy has two audiences - other academics and the public. While it's important to speak to the latter, we shouldn't be limited to having conversations Snooki can understand, or we won't get fucking anywhere thinking about anything. Most of Zizek's books are speaking primarily to academic audiences, although you could probably pick up something like <em>The Year of Dreaming Dangerously</em> without much philosophical background.
This is a HUGE topic so it makes sense to narrow it down and define a question first. That said, here's a good historical and conceptual overview of the term.
This work applies Ranciere's dissensus as an analytic lens to disaggregate and name specific instances of asymmetrical power in (deaf) education with regard to the dis/use of aesthetics in pedagogical thinking. It is one of few works that I know of that actually contextualizes the claims made by Ranciere (among others, like Vygotsky) using specific, concrete instances and examples.
Many of the others that have been recommended in this thread are good (I'm a fan of Always Already and Revolutionary Left). I have two additional recommendations that might be good for you:
General Intellect Unit - focus is on cybernetics and technology from a left/marxist perspective. They watch movies and read books/articles and then talk about them from a layperson point of view but still very astute and rigorous in their analyses.
New Books in Critical Theory - interviews of authors that have newly released books relating to critical theory and the humanities. Sometimes really good stuff - often decent. Not sure what's up with the URL currently -- seems to be a bit weird.
Coming out of undergrad, I had little appreciation for the power of Marx's ideas and their influence over critical theory and the libertarian socialists. Sitting in on a good undergrad sociological theory class was very helpful to me. Many of the readings were from: Capitalism and Modern Social Theory An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber and Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory. You should read what came before the "post" stuff first.
Sorry, it's The Critical Tradition, woops.
I wouldn't say it's the end all, be all, but it was what I started with as an undergrad and found it pretty useful as a starting point. It also looks like Amazon has decent suggested books, as well.
You may find this paper useful: https://www.academia.edu/6547331/SKYER_bodies_in_dependence_University_of_Rochester_5th_Annual_Diversity_Conference
Also, I'm not familiar with the Deleuze quote. Can you provide context?
Christian Fuchs Digital Labour and Karl Marx
There are two gigantic lists of "free" literature on /r/academicmarxism, maybe you should look there?
I quite like the argument in this paper about what to finally do about gender and sex differentiation.
It's not entirely about this topic but it shines light on it.
The author essentially argues that gender and sex aren't actually unified concepts whatsoever, but rather a huge series of unrelated characteristics which have been mistakenly lumped together. She uses this as a tool to talk about transgenderism, but I think it's applicable to other topics.
Like if we decided to sort every person on Earth into Type 1 people and Type 2 people and said that: Type 1 people are above 6 feet tall, like the color green, are left handed, and introverted - Type 2 people are shorter than 6 feet tall, like the color blue, are right handed, and are extroverted.
Its kind of obvious why this is illogical.
Instead of talking about traits as being Type 1 or Type 2 it would be better to just remove these groups of unrelated characteristics from each other and talk about them independently from their archetype.
From Marcus Aurelias: "There are thus two reasons why you should be contented with whatever befalls you, firstly, that it was for you that it came about, and it was prescribed for you and stands in a special relationship to you as something that was spun into your destiny from the beginning and issues from the most venerable of causes, and secondly, that for the power which governs the whole, that which comes to each of us individually contributes to its own well-being and perfection and its very continuance. For the perfection of the whole suffers a mutilation if you cut off even the smallest particle from the coherence and continuity of its causes no less than of its parts; and you break it off, so far as you can, whenever you are discontented, and, in a certain sense, you destroy it."
See a more in depth discussion here (p. 160-161), including the Bousquet quote and Deleuze's invocation of it in relation to the stoics: https://www.academia.edu/9816469/An_Ethics_of_the_Event_Deleuze_s_Stoicism
Time in Fashion- https://www.amazon.com/Time-Fashion-Industrial-Antilinear-Temporalities/dp/1350146943
​
I hate to say it but I think a lot of sociologists, philosophers and anthropologists miss the mark when it comes to fashion acting as if its something miscellaneous that sprouted from advanced capitalism etc. I get annoyed with the presumptions underlying their ideas. lol.
Hope you find something.
If A Thousand Plateaus seems daunting (and I'm in the same boat), there's always Claire Parnet's interview with Deleuze.
Skip Fahrenheit 451 and read one of these instead-
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
https://www.amazon.com/Kochland-History-Industries-Corporate-America/dp/1476775389
People read all these dystopian novels with little examination of the ruling class. Dystopian novels are a dime a dozen.
DESCRIPTION: YOU MUST RSVP AT THE LINK ABOVE TO PARTICIPATE. Join the Virtual Philosophy Network www.virtualphilosophynetwork.com for a virtual seminar/reading group. We will be studying Hegel's philosophy of mind/spirit (Geist) by reading the third part of Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences - Philosophy of Mind. This covers Hegel's anthropology, phenomenology, psychology, philosophy of right, aesthetics, philosophy of religion and philosophy of philosophy.
We will start with some supplementary material from the second part of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences - Philosophy of Nature.
Dr. Justin Burke will be leading the discussion. Justin Burke, MA, DPhil, studied philosophy in the United Kingdom at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, and completed his doctoral research on Hegel's aesthetics at the University of Oxford in England. In addition to Hegel, his current philosophical interests include dialectic, aesthetics, critical theory, and existentialism. He is the director of the Institute for Advanced Dialectical Research www.dialecticinstitute.org
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ASSIGNED READING FOR EACH SESSION IS MANDATORY FOR ALL DISCUSSION PARTICIPANTS. IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE MATERIAL YOU ARE WELCOME TO JUST LISTEN.
ASSIGNED READING:
Part 2 of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences: Philosophy of Nature
Introduction PAGES 1-19 IN THE MILLER TRANSLATION - up to but NOT including remark 249
Miller translation of the Philosophy of Nature:
https://www.amazon.com/Hegels-Philosophy-Nature-Encyclopaedia-Philosophical/dp/0199272670
If you want a PDF copy you can Google "z-library". In the books section the book can be found by searching for "Hegel Philosophy of Nature".
If you read Spanish I recommend this text by Carlos Gómez: https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Carlos-Gomez-Sanchez/dp/8497420543/ref=nodl_
I came across a copy of it while at the Freud Museum in Vienna and it is truly one of the best introductions I’ve read.
Haha, it was kind of a tongue in cheek suggestion, since the author (Matthew Kenner) is an extremely online fixture of various leftist twitter groups who also got lit up for stanning some edgelady nazi girl (also on twitter). I won't do the book justice with my own description since I've only read the first chapter (he has his own style and he packs a lot of info and ideas on the page) so here's the amazon link with the blurb.
https://www.amazon.com/Geohell-Imagining-History-Contemporary-World-ebook/dp/B01N0K02CJ
https://twitter.com/cutasterfee?lang=en looks like he pruned a lot of his content, followers, follows, etc. since I last saw. He's an interesting dude and would probably like to talk about his book.
At The Existentialist Cafe is what was recommended to you in askphilosophy and is what I kept finding when doing searches there. It may be worthwhile to find a thinker you are interested in and hone in there.
I like what I’ve read of the Routledge Critical Series thus far. The Sartre one only has a handful of reviews though but it still may be worthwhile.
That looks good too but... $$$$.
Actually the paperback is reasonable considering content and target audience. Although it is only available as kindle book currently lol.
Good luck!
Special Limited Edition Betty Crocker prepackaged Pumpkin Spice mug cake mix that comes with a special gold mixing spoon, available on Amazon. The loneliest dessert in the world, designed to remind you of family, connection and celebration you’re pretty sure you must have had at some point. Plus it comes with something shiny, and you certainly wouldn’t want to miss out on this, would you?
It's been a couple years since I read it, but there are definitely portions of it that deal directly with Ayn Rand later on in the book.
It doesn't exactly address this topic, but David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years links the concept of liberty to ancient Roman jurisprudence dealing with ownership and slavery. That might be close to what you are looking for.
Two books I haven't read, but might also be helpful:
The Shock Doctrine Naomi Klein
A Brief History of Neoliberalism David Harvey
I know you wrote this a few days ago, but I'll chip in anyway, in case you're still interested:
Henry Giroux is a cultural theorist with a particular focus on education and pedagogy - He has written extensively about education and capitalism.
Specifically about neoliberalism: Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Owford: Oxford University Press.
An interesting read might also be the chapter "The Role of Government in Education" by Milton Friedman in his book Capitalism and Freedom. Just to get it from the opposite side of the spectrum.
Furthermore, there is a great case in regards to that in New Orleans after Katrina, where Friedman assisted in orchestrating the shut-down of almost every New Orleans public school in favor of private schools. You'll find a lot of stuff on this I'm sure, but an easy access point could be Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.
The point of view you are presenting sounds interesting. I've always focused more on the privatization process, not so much on the production of consumers per se.
Mari Ruti writes extensively on the ways in which capitalism disciplines love and romance in Penis Envy and Other Bad Feelings, highly recommend
I think Fisher can help you with this.
Capital Realism(2009) by Mark Fisher
There's a lot of recommendations here tracing the ideological underpinnings of the Goldwater or Reagan era, which is 40-80 years ago -- before the internet, before 9/11, before Trump. While there are obvious continuities, I can't help but think that would leave you pretty ill-equipped to understand what is currently driving US conservatives, what internal tensions are in the movement, and so on. Similarly for importing Scruton's or Chesterton's conservative aesthetics to the US context, or persisting in the idea that conservatism is still about the reification of a self-conscious WASPy elite, as is proposed downthread (pick your US conservative news site of choice and search for "elites" if you disagree).
The reality is that US conservatism has bifurcated and fractured, first in the 2016 populist and identitarian takeover that displaced the previous intellectual framework the conservative political apparatus operated under (see: the three-legged stool). Identity Crisis is a good read on the first bifurcation, chapter here. Then, in the resulting intellectual vacuum, a range of right-esoterics from neoreactionaries to integralists have vied for the spotlight, each fairly distinguishable from the 'dead consensus' in their own way. The current conservative moment is trying to navigate both tensions -- who can best intellectualise Trumpism and turn it into something coherent while still being authentically accessible to a populist base (at least one such project, Julius Krein's American Affairs, has after some years of effort determined this to be impossible).
he's a comp-lit guy but i read From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity in college. https://smile.amazon.com/Chivalry-Terrorism-Changing-Nature-Masculinity/dp/0679450351/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=from+chivalry+to+terrorism&qid=1653763476&sprefix=from+chiv%2Caps%2C88&sr=8-1
I'm so new to CT and this sub that I have not posted other than the occasional comment or question. I accidentally ended up listening to James Lindsay on the Joe Rogan show railing against CT and, recognising a straw man when I see one, I did some reading and ended up here pretty quickly which is giving me a broad appreciation of current topics. I work full time but just completing a BA Hons in Classical Studies and now considering the Kings College MA in CT.
I read a very simple primer Introducing Critical Theory: A Graphic Guide and now from that same series I am reading the guide on Continental Philosophy. Because this alone would get me laughed off the forum I have also struck out on Foucault's Discipline & Punish (I note this does not appear on the reading list you posted tho). In addition I have been getting some great intros on a range of subjects via the excellent Plastic Pills podcast/YouTube channel. I am fascinated and horrified in equal parts by the amount of reading required to have any sort of position! Good job I like reading :)
there’s good scholarship being done now on the origins of racism in the Middle Ages, and in fact the inquisition plays a foundational role in the development of the prison, law enforcement technologies, interrogation, etc.
not to defend an cruel and repressive institution, however, but hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims were not in fact murdered by the inquisition. The prevalence of that idea is mostly due to “black legend” Spanish-American War propaganda, anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment, etc.
If you’re interested in reading more about this, I’d recommend this book by RI Moore or this classic by David Nirenberg
Regarding the first part, I think you will find this link to a similar thread from several months ago to be useful. I'd also suggest reading <em>Nihilism and Technology</em>, which presents an interesting critique of technology/social media using Nietzschean categories. (It's a little fast and loose, systematically speaking, but easy and fun to read.) As for the second part, I'm afraid I don't have much to offer. Although it's not without its drawbacks, I'm quite sympathetic to Becker's Denial of Death. Fromm might have something. And while I can't find it now, I seem to recall reading about a study that found people reported feeling greater anxiety about death when faced with a hypothetical scenario in which the world ceased to exist after they died.
"The New Brutalism" by Reyner Banham is a classic (and I believe Banham coined the term Brutalism?)
More recently, this book is great: https://www.amazon.com/Heroic-Concrete-Architecture-New-Boston/dp/1580934242
If you're looking for contemporary architectural theory, there are several go-to journals to look at: Log, Thresholds, Mas Context, Harvard Design Magazine.
Critics of the camp theory always point to Zenz as if he’s the only source of information on this. But in reality you don’t need Zenz. Here’s an amazing investigation by a reputable independent Russian outlet https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/10/01/an-internment-camp-for-10-million-uyghurs
Check out this great investigation by an independent Russian outlet. It doesn’t have numerical data and is written in a way that protects the author, but nevertheless a great look into the everyday life of the city. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/10/01/an-internment-camp-for-10-million-uyghurs
The Why theory podcast by Todd McGowan & Ryan Engley: https://player.fm/series/why-theory/
It serves as an introduction to a wide range of thinkers and concepts though Lacan takes centre stage most of the time. There are episodes about film, dialectics, where to start with x, ...
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Critical-Inquiry-and-Critical-Theory%3A-A-Short-of-Pippin/3b3ab4c67d2091fb4ee6371df8ffe18a249e127e maybe see what you can get out of this roughly turn of the century account of what critical theory is and can do. Could be dense depending on your background, but could have some lovely turns of phrase for you.
Fellow beginner here. If you are not in any academic setting, chats like this or some sort of reading group will do much for you in this pursuit. I've been referred by my professors to this book as a helpful overview of the history of theory and the different branches: https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Theory-Introduction-Literary-Beginnings/dp/1526121794/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2YQEE8QNPNKT9&keywords=beginning+theory&qid=1640367402&sprefix=beginning+theory%2Caps%2C81&sr=8-1
The most important thing, imo, is to get your hands on primary sources and just wrestle with the texts, asking questions and annotating to your satisfaction. I am personally interested in theorists like Foucault and Gadamer, who could be great individuals to focus on as a beginner (at least that's what my professor did with me and my class!). I wish you luck :)
Update: Part III of the book https://www.amazon.com/Internal-Family-Systems-Therapy-Second/dp/1462541461 entails one of the founders of IFS, R. Schwartz, talking about the societal analysis possible via IFS.
>Columbia University Press's multivolume Prison Notebooks is the only complete critical edition of Antonio Gramsci's seminal writings in English.
Is the above just a lie?
https://www.amazon.com/Prison-Notebooks-Volumes-Antonio-Gramsci/dp/023115755X
Here's a very good "exercise in deconstruction" from an Internet friend: http://genius.com/A-b-schmidt-an-exercise-in-deconstruction-william-blakes-the-little-black-boy-annotated.
It's an analysis of William Blake's "The Little Black Boy" that walks through the process of breaking the poem down.
Don't know if thats the one you are thinking of but he was on Doug Lains Dietsoap podcast shortly after the VC essay released and, yes he seemed pretty grounded and normal. Also he said that the reaction he got was pretty much exactly what he expected beforehand.
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/dietsoap/episodes/2013-12-05T08_03_40-08_00
Thanks. Terrence McKenna's stoned ape theory in "Food of the Gods" looks like it might be worth a read, even if not scientifically rigorous or politically insightful. I wonder if there are any genetic anthropology studies using DNA to study and track the development of 5-HT(2A) neuroreceptors in ancient human brains.
>As I have made clear, my intentions are to gain a thorough understanding of the intellectuals and ideas that have led to what we call "the left" today. Awesome! I love thorough. You'll start with Locke, contrasting with Hobbes, of course, unless you are really curious about intellectual history and want to go to Plato, and then-- >it would take a lot of time Ah. There's the hitch. >and what can I do to correct it?
Well mate, first off, slow yourself down. Don't prioritize answers over the search for them. Here's about the closest thing to a quick fix that I feel I can suggest for you, Great Courses' "The Modern Political Tradition," taught by Prof. Lawerence Calhoone -- currently very cheap. It's 36 ~30 minute lectures with readings on the foundations of modern political theory and philosophies.
There certainly is Httrack for OSX fifth from the top on their download page.
https://www.httrack.com/page/2/en/index.html
There's a manual on their website here
https://www.httrack.com/page/2/en/index.html
Take care to check out the "what not to do" page so you don't get in trouble.
Here is an early version of the paper; in its current state it is skewed to be relevant for a course on the Colonial English Novel, but the core theory is the focus. Please let me know what you think, it's very much a work in progress.
It is still in manuscript form at this point, I am hoping to find a publisher soon. I will be uploading a copy to my Academia.edu account soon but it is not there yet. I still need to add a few entries to my bibliography and have not had time yet to do so. I will PM you later when it is posted. Thanks for the interest. If you are curious about reading a similar paper you can access it here:
This one is a Foucaltian genealogy of ADA 1990/2008 which touches on many of the same themes.
I think you mean Class Struggle in the New Testament
The authors of the book (an economist by training and a social and movie critic) tackle the issue of "Influencers" in the 21st century from many points of view: social, political, historical, philosophical and economical (Late (Stage) Capitalism "Spätkapitalismus" after 2008 in a world of digital oligopolies aka rentier capitalism).
I do hope Suhrkamp (German publisher) sells the right to an American/English publisher rather sooner than later.
Try amazon smile to donate to a charity of your choice automatically at no cost to you!
https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Monstrous-Feminine-Feminism-Psychoanalysis-Popular-Fictions/dp/0415052599
^^^I'm ^^^a ^^^bot ^^^and ^^^this ^^^action ^^^was ^^^performed ^^^automatically.
Maybe we need to talk about that then. I was very, very lucky to get the opportunity to study Wittgenstein under the tuition of Michael Morris. Could you start by briefly explaining your current position - your interpretation of how Wittgenstein is relevant to this discussion?
>Science has, rightly, gotten a lot of criticism over the past few decades, mainly because it thought overly highly of itself and needed to be put in its place.
I think this needs to examined more closely. Some scientists have thought overly highly of science and those people need to be put in their place. That's why I mentioned Richard Dawkins, who is the walking embodiment of this problem. It is very important to distinguish between science itself and Dawkinsian scientism. This cannot be done by attacking science. That strategy backfires - it plays straight into the hands of the Dawkinsians. Rather, you have to go for the unexamined assumptions that form the foundation of his worldview. Specifically, that means materialism.
The intellectual tool to do this has been provided. Very few people have noticed.
>Nowadays, I reckon a lot of philosophers including CT people would subscribe to something like scientific instrumentalism.
Well, philosophy isn't a popularity contest, and I am not surprised CT people would be drawn to instrumentalism. For me, instrumentalism is one of the things that needs to be debunked. It's too weak to defend science from its enemies, and unnecesarily so. In other words, if you think you can defend scientific realism, and you don't have an anti-scientific political agenda, what possible use would you have for instrumentalism?
>Finally, The Gender Question is indeed quite taboo these days and around these circles. I myself posted a piece on this sub arguing against the social construction of sex (which appears to have been deleted?)
Quelle surprise.
Well, I obviously don't agree.
I repeat: what I am saying is not historically controversial. France wanted to cripple Germany, and the Treaty of Versailles was impossible to comply with. The war reparations, demanded in gold marks, was a key contributory factor to the hyperinflation.
I am reading THIS BOOK now: https://www.amazon.co.uk/When-Money-Dies-Nightmare-Hyper-inflation/dp/1910400300
Lmfao ok, I just read the book on anti intellectualism. I can tell you why both Jihad Jordan Peterson and the John Birch Society are anti intellectual. Hint: it's the same reason.
I dare you to read this-
https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
Allahu Akbar to you too Jihad Jordan Peterson.
Jordan Peterson is anti Intellectual. Just because he cites fake statistics doesn't mean he is "pro intellectual".
Maybe you should read Hofstadter's book before you make an ass out of yourself again.
There's a new book coming out which might explain some things.
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
Brilliant. Surprised you didn't mention Accelerando (the book by Charles Stross, not the piano study series by Robert Schultz and Tina Faigen), though, at least in passing; not that it would lend credence to any of your arguments, per se, but it's a good read for imagining some unexpected post-capitalistic outcomes.
This YouTube discussion series and a book to accompany.
If you are looking for something relevant and current with the times, I'd suggests looking into Peter Joseph's work. In his most recent book he does a great job going over the history of automation in the context of capitalism and explains how automation could potentially pave the way for a post-scarcity-socialist economic system.
Let's go with Paul Cilliers and Alicia Juarrero.
Look, I'm not trying to lambasted for posting what I think is basically an interesting case study of how constructivist theories of knowledge are getting applied in fields outside of philosophy. I thought other members of the sub might find something cross-disciplinary interesting and so I tried to post it. That's all.
You're correct, seems to be by a different author. Here's the book I was referring to.
I seem to recall it popping up in The Red Pill blogosphere a few years ago.
If you’re interested in Habermas and the Frankfurt School, I loved “The Idea Of Critical Theory” by Raymond Geuss. I wished I had discovered it earlier.
The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School (Modern European Philosophy) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521284228/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_xiejAbMQA3PY3
Thank you for writing this, Robert Beiner's Political Philosophy says exactly this while juxtaposing major theorists of the 20th century with their strengths and weaknesses.
We are all better off when individuals try to construct new theory, even if it fails, for we all learn something in the attempt.
Tom Pepper of the faithful buddhist was very much obsessed with this. For him the socalled "atomistic mind" is the big flaw in most of contemporary thinking. (I agree with him there) Sadly his blog is not there anymore but you can get a kindle collection of his stuff for only 1 dollar.
https://www.amazon.com/Faithful-Buddhist-Tom-Pepper-ebook/dp/B00KXFTNLY
sadly i don't think the full version is up online anywhere, though you can stream all the videos directly from youtube. it was actually exhibited for a month in brighton as part of a mixed media installation. their book black transparency is good as well
Thanks for the sources! I've been considering getting this for awhile since it seems to collect a pretty large amount of autonomist texts-- any thoughts on it? I've also read Bifo's book on mass-murder and part of Lazzarrato's book Signs and Machines.
> Thanks for the sources!
No problem! I have a lot more but I'd have to do some hunting on my old computer - been kind of obsessively hunting down Autonomist/post-Autonomist politico-avant garde stuff for a few years now. It's amazing to me because throughout the 1980s and 1990s it really became an international subculture/counterculture, but there's never really been a big history of it. I hope to be able to cobble together a book on it someday.
As for the Semiotext(e) book on Autonomia, I really like it! It's probably not the best introduction, as its mainly fragments, but it it accomplishes its goal - which is to capture the 'vibe' more than provide an overview. Plus it has some excellent texts by Guattari that I haven't seen anywhere else. Steve Wright's Storming Heaven and George Katsiaficas's The Subversion of Politics are good histories, and when put together spans about 30 years of Autonomist political activity.
What did you think of Bifo's mass-murder book? I haven't read it, mainly because I find his recent turn to pessimism to be kind of off-putting. I really liked *Signs and Machines * though!
one of my old professors, sing chew, wrote a trilogy of books you might be interested in. all three are short and fairly easy reads. i would start with the third in the series, called ecological failures because it summarizes the first two books nicely. there are many other good books and authors as well, but i am most familiar with chew's work, of course.
Huh. Thought Berlant's Cruel Optimism or something by Deleuze would be here. Guess not.
His work is highly cited, should make for some good reference material as well. His book "Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order" seems like a good fit:
http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Over-People-Neoliberalism-Global/dp/1888363827
A couple interesting articles I found among hundreds mentioning neoliberalism:
Market Democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality Noam Chomsky - Z Magazine, November, 1997
Hidden Power and Built Form: The Politics Behind the Architecture - Noam Chomsky
I'd suggest reading through the PoS alongside one or two other highly regarded secondary sources. Hyppolite's <em>Genesis and Structure</em> is an excellent starting place and one of the least controversial secondary texts on Hegel.