One of the most wishy-washy, bourgeois philosophy out there. Bitch I know I exist, now how is that going to help us get rid of capitalism.
One of the most wishy-washy, bourgeois philosophy out there. Bitch I know I exist, now how is that going to help us get rid of capitalism.
If your philosophy reading list is based on whether it has immediate utility for overthrowing capitalism, it's going to be a very short list indeed
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."
the only comm who completely ignores their tagline
:yes-comm:
You know being proudly ignorant is extremely :LIB:
as a person with a philosophy minor, reading philosophy does enrich us but I'm not living some increased inner life over anybody else, if anything the philosophy i've read has just introduced way more uncertainty and doubt
true
i just thought about abelard and heloise for the first time in a long time
why did i have to know about abelard and heloise :kermit-pain:
sitting and reading word jibberish to own the bourgeoisie.
The fact that you call it gibberish and managed to misspell it as well says more about you than about philosophy, lmao
big brain dictionary reader here, learning words from hearing them in real life? whats that?
Maybe you should couple that with reading a book or two
how am I being proudly ignorant? Also, Sartre was one of the biggest critics of foucault and structuralism. I'll have you guess whose ideas developed into actually coherent theories today. Hint: not the one who was directly influenced by a nazi.
So what were the basis of his critiques? What assumptions did he make that were erroneous? How would you refute them? There's value in reading what you don't agree with, even if your ultimate goal is to understand why. This is all beside the point that your original critique was that it existentialism doesn't help you overthrow capitalism here and now. Guess what, neither does Foucault.
Is this post really that hard to understand? Do you think I have not thoroughly read Sartre and others to come to the conclusion that existentialism is stupid? I don't need to go through exactly why liberalism is stupid every single time I call someone a lib, right? And you somehow decided to twist my words into "overthrow capitalism here and now" which is just plain ridiculous, what is going to overthrow capitalism here and now? I engage with philosophy to improve the world and myself, where overthrowing capitalism is a primary goal. I don't know what you find is wrong with that.
If your critique wasn't so powerfully lazy, I might have come to a different conclusion about your depth of knowledge about the topic.
it isn't meant to be a nuanced critique. Simply a statement that existentialism is stupid and not worth your time to read.
Cool, valuable contribution to the discourse
Removed by mod
Have you not read his introduction to the wretched of the earth? Dude clearly had a politics
Sartre had good politics, but his philosophy is really unimpressive.
I actually agree on that. Heidegger (POS Nazi that he is), Kierkegaard, the later Derrida are all way better at the philosophy.
deleted by creator
But Hegel is 99% drivel.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
My issue is not criticizing Existentialism but the extreme laziness with which its being done. Lot of really galaxybrained anti-intellectualism in this thread.
I also understand what you're saying, but honestly, the list of philosophical works that have immediate application for overthrowing capitalism is pretty short. I love Foucault, for instance (shocker), but you're not going to be equipped to make a revolution after reading him.
deleted by creator
Isn't that the general thrust of US leftist academic philosophy during the Cold War? "Capitalism is bad but overthrowing it requires careful thought and ideological explanation because if we hastily act we could make a mistake."
EDIT: That was a genuine question based on Parenti's assertions.