They thought about it! I tried to get them to think more about object/subject distinction and how M/S dynamics emerge out of it, and get away from "personifying" the roles, although there was she interesting discussion about how if the "bottom" rejects the "top" then the bottom becomes the "master," which is fraught but it wasn't me talking about Hegel at some people who didn't care, they were looking stuff up and asking about it. So productive, I would say! I had to do a little course correction when Marx came up, but honestly once it became apparent I had actually read Marx and had opinions about him vs. Hegel, that part of it kind of petered out
That's cool they took an interest in it and brought up the concept of the bottom becoming the master by rejecting it. That's a veey dialectical idea I think many would struggle with, at least when put in abstracted philosophical terms of like the negation of the negation or the unity of opposites. I'm curious about your critique of the bottom becoming the master? You called it fraught.
Sorry I was more referring to "personifying" the roles is fraught. Like, the master and the slave aren't people. Some insights may be made by putting yourself in one or the other role and switching between them, but I don't think we can really understand how these theories are internally consistent parts of a larger analytical framework by making them less abstract. It also might open the door to some personal bias sneaking into the method, as I draw conclusions based on "my experience as master and/or slave". We can't remove our selves from our thinking, but we can use caution. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree
![[NSFW sex/suicide] Hegels master/slave dialectic](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/dmqmZDFtJh.jpg){kind=link}
What did they think about it?
They thought about it! I tried to get them to think more about object/subject distinction and how M/S dynamics emerge out of it, and get away from "personifying" the roles, although there was she interesting discussion about how if the "bottom" rejects the "top" then the bottom becomes the "master," which is fraught but it wasn't me talking about Hegel at some people who didn't care, they were looking stuff up and asking about it. So productive, I would say! I had to do a little course correction when Marx came up, but honestly once it became apparent I had actually read Marx and had opinions about him vs. Hegel, that part of it kind of petered out
That's cool they took an interest in it and brought up the concept of the bottom becoming the master by rejecting it. That's a veey dialectical idea I think many would struggle with, at least when put in abstracted philosophical terms of like the negation of the negation or the unity of opposites. I'm curious about your critique of the bottom becoming the master? You called it fraught.
Sorry I was more referring to "personifying" the roles is fraught. Like, the master and the slave aren't people. Some insights may be made by putting yourself in one or the other role and switching between them, but I don't think we can really understand how these theories are internally consistent parts of a larger analytical framework by making them less abstract. It also might open the door to some personal bias sneaking into the method, as I draw conclusions based on "my experience as master and/or slave". We can't remove our selves from our thinking, but we can use caution. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree
No I see your point, I agree that personifying it into individuals is problematic theoretically and practically.