/edu/ - Education

>>11321
His response of course, I'll let the board decide who is correct here:

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/a-belated-response-to-rv-or-why-the-law-of-value-must-hold/

>>5488
>can't read hegel without kant
>can't read kant without hume and descartes
>can't REALLY read hume and descartes without going back to the greeks
<the greeks are fucking boring

Fuck me running why is philosophy such an incestuous field

>>11324
you literally do not need to read kant so ignore all that

>>11324
All this is false, you should start with whatever catches your attention and then go on from that. You will most probably have to revisit philosophers you've already read anyway.

>>11324
this >>11327
Just read whatever catches your eye,then if you get interested in what is written you will have a way easier time reading other philosophers related to the one you're reading,then when you feel like you've already read "enough" and feel good about yourself,you can read more specific philosophers that maybe wouldn't interest you by using up the goodwill you gain previously.

this seems interesting, bump

it’s full of the most boring, repetitive academic philosophizing
you don’t wanna read it

>>11243
and by “boring” i mean like in a destructive, circlejerk-y sense. like a church sermon or something like that

>>11244
that can't be true for every single article in every single edition. Every time I check an issue's contents, there's some interesting-sounding stuff in there. pics related, it's the April 2022 issue.

As always Amerifats expect you to have a credit card. God damn and I was about to pay for a subscription for these old farts. Anyone got PDFs?

>>11081
It also helps to revisit your notes every few days. Your memory works like this half life graph. Your memory of what you read goes down like the graph here. But every time you revisit your notes, your memory goes back to hundred. The way I usually do it is I revisit what my notes the next day, then three days later, then a week later, then a month. It only takes a few minutes to revise.

>made a thread on "how to read theory"
this mf is not reading at all

>>11089
>>made a thread on "how to read theory"
>this mf is not reading at all
mans illiterate

There's nothing specific about reading theory, refer to the other study thread: >>6382

>>11082
Memory is strengthened by recall, not by re-acquisition.

>>11213
>uuhhhh shid thred dont reply
<in the process of saying this, he replies

what did he mean by this?

>>11210

nope

>>11205
bro he's not nostradamus

>>11221
it's a shit thread
what do you want me to say

>>11205
Jairus Banaji's Theory as History

>>10856
No, what entices me about fascism is the promise of obscene enjoyment, leftist movement feel like one has to renounce something instead of being given something. Now that i word it like this maybe appropriating fascism is not the answer.
> but are there any really good reasons to know your enemy in depth?
Knowledge itself is a good reason but this thread was started with the idea of finding stuff to appropriate because of recent rightist cadres appropriating leftist ideas.

>>10859
ah the zizek critique
i mean punk can still offer obscene enjoyment, plus any kind of non-elitist extremism as well

but obscene enjoyment is shitty so fuck it, plus there's normal enjoyment that is good enough
>Knowledge itself is a good reason but this thread was started with the idea of finding stuff to appropriate because of recent rightist cadres appropriating leftist ideas.
ah, in that case i guess they were strengthening their side with some reason lol. I do think that patsoc stuff is an important link in the chain which bridges between "leftist" in the general sense and which comprises much academic views and rests on a sort of post-modern pluralism, and dialectical materialism. Maybe studying Lasalle would be useful. I think the important thing is to know them to critique them though, since they're not particularly strong or drawing people besides the usual "you're special white man, show the world your power, be an alpha male".

I'd be critical too because any time you accept even a tactic of an enemy, its colored with their specific position. Knowing that the right is about obscene enjoyment (plus knowing their justifications for it too: it's tied in to a belief in competition and willpower/victory/struggle giving sanction to enjoy others suffering and transgress all boundaries) will only help us to explicitly formulate ourselves as for moral, socially conscious enjoyment, collective building, etc. It's important to think about the kind of enjoyment we are offering, but we can't just mirror the right. So thats why i was suggesting the best we could do by mirroring is using it to funnel people who are looking for fascism or whatever into leftism. But ultimately too it's about class and status, and it seems silly to want to attract class enemies to convert them rather than attract allies to team up with, so it was a dumb idea ig.

>>10929
you know what, also it's interesting not only that the right on the surface is against obscene enjoyment, while really its based on it, this could just be projection, but the method of obscene enjoyment is a transgression of boundaries and a freedom to do what you will if it pleases you, and this is a point of unity between left and right (i say left here not including communism). Pointing out the nature and history of the idea of the sanctity of will and the transgression of boundaries is necessary to prove that nazism is not free of liberalism, it's based on a radical fulfillment of liberal ideals in the same way that e.g. anarcho-communism is. There's both a unity with their direct ideological enemies, and a unity with the ideological past (modernity, liberalism, democracy, relativism, etc.) that they hope to break with.

This is really important at least for showing the correctness of communism and dialectical materialism against these deviations in order to break free of liberalism on the ideological level (to say nothing of the economic level - cause right wing economics as far as ive ever seen only even shows itself as a patch to the capitalist system, if not just letting capitalism run wild).

One thing I always come back to, even though it's silly cause i'm not a christian, but i'm reminded of St. Augustine's quote "first love god, then do as you please" and Crowley's "do what thou wilt will be the whole of the law". It's a sinister inversion because it's not upending the idea, its removing the obligation to act with love, that's all. Purely formally, it's liberating.

But anyways I guess it's not that simple as exposing the obscene enjoyment, since on the face of it these people are supposed to be ascetic hardasses who love pain and struggle and character-building hardship, and fantasies of torture and rape only come through the cracks but can't be "proven" based on theory. Which is why I guess it's also important to empower fucking common sense against people trying to fearmonger against psychoanalysis or reading things subtextually or doing an analysis of culture compared to doctrine, where the whole is the sum of its parts, or to put that better, cannot be abstracted away from its concrete realization.

Also I'm such a lazy ass lol it's one thing to say "we need to know this in order to show x is like y" Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>10929
I guess you're right, we need to address leftism's unappealing message but promising obscene enjoyment doesn't need to be the answer.
>>10930
No rightism and obscene enjoyment steams what I'd like to say is the rightist syntagma: the belief that some people are worth more than others and that those that are worth more have rights over those who are worth less, men over women, white over black, rich over poor etc. So rightists are not hypocrites because for example the christian right uphold marriage yet elects Trump even if he's an adulterer, they actually love that a rich white man doing X and then telling the people bellow him to not do it is the very core of rightism,.
So it's not really a promise of obscene enjoyment as much as it is a promise of fulfilling one's right over other as long one submits to their superior's right. Tho the desire for violence still exists within everyone's id seems other factors are what make people lean left or right but also explain why fascism seems so enticing.

So I heard that Guenon is the new meme rightist all the /pol/yps are into right now.
I found this post >>>/leftypol/1017391
>Basically Guenon (Who was a pen-pal of Evola) fell into the very literal 'reactionary' [Not in the sense its commonly thrown around] sphere of ideology where they basically think that everything since the English Civil War, The reformation and the French Revolution was / has been / will be a definitive downward slide for humanity on account of the process of society becoming more 'demotic', The replacement of Kings who [At least in their minds, this is up for debate] ruled for life and had a vested interest in the upkeeping of the state with bougies who just buy elections via advertising, and the collapse or corruption, either real or perceived of religious institutions (I.E hyper-universalist protty Christianity, and Vatican 2.0 / Reform Catholicism etc),

>The belief is that in Feudal Occidental society (church) formed one of the 'three estates' along with the (Peasantry / Free-city Proto-Proles) and (Nobles + Merchants), It's deformation and the replacing of Catholic spirituality with church as a social club or a political pulpit has basically thrown off and damaged European civilisation in their eyes,

>To correct this in Rene and Evola's minds they needed to basically 're-discover' european spirituality and they believed they could do this by delving into the numerous Occult and esoteric splinters from mainstream religion that had formed through the late 18th. 19th and early 20th century (Evola believed in 'Magic' and borrowed plenty of the), Along with studying schools like Sufi Islam and Vajrayana Buddhism that they perceived as having kept the basic 'spiritual truth' of religion Christianity had lost

>A lot of later writers in this field of thought also link back to the concept of the societal Socius, And how the change from the Socius most basic for the upkeep of the system, which under feudalism was the Monarch or arguably Terra itself, has now been replaced by capital as a concept described by Marx.

But what else can you guys tell me about him?

I haven't managed to read it yet, but apparently Ha-Joon Chang's "Kicking Away the Ladder" is quite good. He's not a marxist since it's pretty much illegal to be one in South Korea, but he seems to be pretty legit as far as the historical information goes.

>>11050
>>11062
Also you might want to check out John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which though it is not a great book, sheds some light into the actual experiences of the agents that enforce IMF policies.