Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

kittybecca wrote (edited )

More brilliant, never-before-heard wisdom from the man who posed the groundbreaking philosophical question, "If trans people are really rebelling against gender then how come they're reinforcing it?" and iconoclastically stated, "If trans people were really revolutionary they wouldn't participate in the capitalist system by taking hormones." I can definitely see how combining Marxist philosophy with psychoanalysis could lead one to the conclusion that nation-states are bad. Truly the most relevant thinker of our time.

1

throwaway wrote

This guy seems to be a complete idiot, but abandoning nation-states is pretty fundamental for moving towards global anarcho-communism (if anyone actually believes that's possible, given the state of things and the amount of ignorant sycophants). Care to explain why you think that's a bad idea?

1

kittybecca wrote

Of course it's a good idea and of course it's fundamental. That's kind of what I was getting at, though - what he's saying there is obvious, and no one who listens to him will disagree with it.

Granted, his opinions on trans issues are terrible and wrong, but they're equally basic/obvious questions.

5

RosaReborn wrote

I remember him being a big fan of bureaucracy which generally goes hand-in-hand with a state concept. Sure you don't need a state for a bureaucracy and it could be global instead of just a nation, but maybe he is learning that his old notions had some fundamental flaws.

Also this bit here. Philosophy types, or really just anthropocentric people in general, get so bogged down in "the spirit of humanity" and "universal truths" that they forget the concrete facts that humans exist in a larger system and take almost all of it for granted. This realization here is a good step, but his writing still seems climate change and exploitation of natural resources are more of a nuisance than a foundation for possible change.

Phenomena like global warming make us aware that, with all the universality of our theoretical and practical activity, we are at a certain basic level just another living species on the planet Earth. Our survival depends on certain natural parameters which we automatically take for granted. The lesson of global warming is that the freedom of the humankind was possible only against the background of the stable natural parameters of the life on earth (temperature, the composition of the air, sufficient water and energy supply, etc.). Humans can “do what they want” only insofar as they remain marginal enough not to seriously perturb the parameters of life on earth.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

he is learning that his old notions

this is the sense I get. Has a long way to go yet tho.

5

urg3t0ki11r151ng wrote

Good god, what the fuck. Solar radation management, deliberately polluting the atmosphere with aerosols to prevent sunlight from reaching the ground, reminds me of that Simpsons mini-series where Mr Burns wanted to blot out the sun. If I remember right, Burns got shot in that episode...

5

RosaReborn wrote

Yeah there's been talk about that recently in futurist communities. It is ridiculous.

Literally reducing the amount of sunlight we receive, causing unknowable damage, is more feasible for these people than any change in the status quo

5

mofongo wrote

I have the impression they want a 1:1 recreation of the Matrix.

1

LostYonder wrote

My dog's farts are more enlightening than anything Zizek vomits out of his putrid, postmodern devoured mind...