Recent comments in /f/Philosophy
Tequilx_Wolf wrote (edited )
Reply to Anarchism as a synthesis of normative ethical theories? Looking for resources from philosophy nerds <3 by tuesday
People who get taught analytic philosophy get taught only normative ethics, which imo is not compatible with anarchism.
Post-left critique rejects morality but not ethics, and the distinction is roughly between normative and non-normative ethics, including Stirner's critique of transcendent value frameworks forced upon people, and Nietzche's critique of resentment (see this post by u/Sails) and slave morality, towards a transvaluation of all values for a life-affirming ethic.
This extra bit may or may not be useful, but:
If you're familiar with analytic philosophy you might be familiar with how much of its dominant forms assumes/requires an epistemological/metaphysical ground - something like Descartean foundationalism or Kant's transcendental idealism. Deleuze for example shows how those aren't actually adequate grounds at all and builds a meta-critique that allows for groundlessness. If you're curious about it, you might get something out of reading section 1.5 on D&G in this text, which introduces that critique and expresses normative frameworks to be a 'State thought', and how that critique affects how we relate to subjecthood and rationality. Or you can skip to section 1.6 and 1.7 which says a bit about what non-normativity means in a Deleuzian framework.
There's also a cool chapter called Immanent Ethics and Forms of Representation by Elisabet Vasileva in Deleuze and Anarchism that relates with this question in an interesting way, but I'm not sure how much Deleuze you have to read before it's easy to grasp.
I'm happy to try speak more specifically if you give me something to work with, for now I've just introduced the alternative to normative ethics.
ziq OP wrote
Reply to comment by !deleted28397 in Anarcho-syndicalist attempts to gatekeep philosophy, boredom ensues by ziq
Sure, plus morality isn't decided by the individual.
ziq OP wrote
Reply to comment by OdiousOutlaw in Anarcho-syndicalist attempts to gatekeep philosophy, boredom ensues by ziq
It was accidentally merged into the expertise vs authority wiki for a while because it was integrated into that essay in the LBC book. I seperated it into its own wiki when I noticed the mistake the other day. You either read it there or in its original form as a raddle post.
OdiousOutlaw wrote
Reply to comment by ziq in Anarcho-syndicalist attempts to gatekeep philosophy, boredom ensues by ziq
Then I probably read it when I decided to make my account and read pretty much everything on the wiki.
ziq OP wrote
What is it with laymen and making up random ass distinctions between ethics and morality all the damn time
"Laymen." Demonstrating further how academics think they're enshrined with authority because they've read other academics self-perpetuating dogma and now parrot it endlessly and thoughlessly as if it's the word of god.
ziq OP wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by OdiousOutlaw in Anarcho-syndicalist attempts to gatekeep philosophy, boredom ensues by ziq
This isn't a new essay, I wrote it in 2018. I just put it on theanarchistlibrary and patreon for the first time.
OdiousOutlaw wrote
Reply to comment by ziq in Anarcho-syndicalist attempts to gatekeep philosophy, boredom ensues by ziq
I just read the essay; no real problem with it, though I feel like I've read similar ideas before. Maybe there was another discussion here that you've participated in that involved ethics and you've made your position before. I dunno, I haven't read many texts related to ethics or morality.
Anyway, the anarcho-marxist-leninists don't get that language is malleable and that rules pertaining to words and definitions are more like guidelines ; redefining words is a common practice, you ever notice how slang exists? What good is their academic elitism if they can't even use your definitions to criticize your essay? This mode of thinking where you're forced to abide solely by your own definition of things is an inflexible one, and bleeds into an inability to make a worthwhile critique. Even if people don't give a shit about their own contradictory beliefs for the most part, it's far more effective than a Christian going to a Pagan and saying "bruh, you're a fucking heathen" and expecting anyone who isn't already a Christian, or at least anti-Pagan, to agree. It doesn't persuade anyone and that's what these types are all about, so what the fuck is this other than circle jerking?
Yeah, I know I'm doing the same thing, but I'm aware of it and pointing it out, so from a MORAL standpoint, I'm somehow better.
d4rk wrote
Reply to comment by ziq in Anarcho-syndicalist attempts to gatekeep philosophy, boredom ensues by ziq
I read it, it was kinda on point. However I think that it is a contradiction within the text they're citing. That is the factor of universality. Made something about that some time ago. That was honestly the first solid read I had of your work since forever, thank you :>
kin wrote
Reply to comment by ziq in Anarcho-syndicalist attempts to gatekeep philosophy, boredom ensues by ziq
Imagine being a big philosophy nerd and you are pissed bc someone is not using the accepted definitions nor is writing an academic paper full of empty citations.
Don't worry, one of the things I like in your efforts is how you try to simplify big words. Sometimes we don't need a social science major to talk about this stuff. And some of them are just reacting bc is written by ziq
ziq OP wrote
Reply to comment by ziq in Anarcho-syndicalist attempts to gatekeep philosophy, boredom ensues by ziq
It's very true that I'm "illiterate" in academic philosophy. What that has to do with my choice to be ethical but not moral, I have no idea. All the reds are telling me my essay is 'incorrect' , 'flawed' and 'nonsense', but not one of them has explained why, except to gesture vaguely to other undefined ideas that mine apparently conflict with.
ziq OP wrote
Started here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/AnarchismZ/comments/n0dg0l/morality_vs_ethics_by_ziq/
I think I understand the point the author is trying to make but it’s obvious they are completely unfamiliar with and illiterate regarding the philosophy of ethics—it’s so bad it isn’t even wrong. It reads, ironically, more or less like self-righteous posturing nonsense and while some meaning can be wrenched out of this piece it isn’t worth the trouble.
You just described a general trend in post-left literature. Talk about topics you don't understand, redefining words on a whim to suit your purpose, presenting old ideas as original, while posturing incredibly hard.
The only postie with interesting ethical views I can think of is Gillis, though why he insists on identifying this way when he disagrees with the rest of the current so much and gets sent death threats over it baffles me. And he still manages to put both feet in his mouth at the silliest times.
In light of the spam over the past 24 hours people in this sub should probably be made aware of who the author is and why they're (in)famous.
ruin OP wrote
Reply to comment by !deleted23972 in Updates 4/5/21 Readings — QUIVER by ruin
The Hartman piece is a fine read. It’s a pretty typical historical race/gender politics piece, but well written and to the point.
The other text I shared with a few friends and no one could stomach it. I don’t associate with many women who enjoy being portrayed as triumphantly overcoming the rule of the tyrannical patriarchy every time they speak in the company of men. Nor do they want or need to read polemics to that end.
_caspar_ OP wrote
Reply to comment by ruin in Elemental Black Metal by _caspar_
thanks. the Hideous Gnosis collection is an interesting read.
ruin wrote
Reply to Elemental Black Metal by _caspar_
This is great. I also prefer the music of Liturgy to the philosophy, but I’m all for more metal philosophers.
ruin wrote
Reply to A Method to the Madness: The Revolutionary Marxist Method of Deleuze and Guattari - Andrew Culp by Hibiscus_Syrup
Thanks for sharing the dng. I’ll def give it a read since it’s Andrew that set up quiver.
I’ll post an update on that once the audio is up. Last session was a bit of a mess discussing anti work. I don’t get the folks who are sort of post left/post structuralist but also super into idpol and materialist at the same time.
Supposed to be reading on anticolonialism this week, but nothings posted. Should be a lively discussion.
ruin wrote
Reply to comment by deeppurplehazedream in Spinoza and "Anti-Oedipus." On Desiring One's Own Suppression by topa
This piece is quite a bit different. Boétie is focused more on voluntary political subjugation through norms, religion, and violence. It’s a pretty straightforward sociopolitical critique.
This text is an examination of the relation of desire and action using Spinoza’s ideas on body, thought, philosophy and consciousness paired with deleuze’s interpretation. It addresses the individual subject and spreads out from there. Heavier on the pure philosophy and psychology as you’d expect from that pairing.
deeppurplehazedream wrote
I wonder if this is along the same lines as Étienne de la Boétie’s "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude" (1549) which I was just reading about in Ruth Kinna's “The Government of No One”?
Hibiscus_Syrup wrote (edited )
Reply to I Am Not A Man, I Am Dynamite! — Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anarchist Tradition by subrosa
Nice to have on the library.
ruin OP wrote
Reply to comment by !deleted23972 in Updates — QUIVER Week 2 by ruin
I try not to think about it...
Honestly, I’m really curious where it goes, if anywhere at all. Like, will the experience of the project live up to the aesthetic of the project.
I guess either way it’s cool to have such a large international turnout for a discussion.
ruin OP wrote
Reply to Updates — QUIVER Week 2 by ruin
Next Monday’s readings are on anti work and worth a look for anarchists. Links and downloads are available on the website (link in the body).
Would be great to have more folks with un-academic takes join in and speak up. It’s lonely out there.
MHC wrote
Reply to Your thoughts on the Idealism vs. Materialism as it relates to Anarchism? by PerfectSociety
Idealism is dangerous. It sucks you into organizations, whose leaders will exploit you. Just slap "Saint" in front of the name of any antisocial enterprise. Anything can be whitewashed with a few words. The idealistic are therefore gullible!
ruin wrote
Reply to Announcing a new collaborative project QUIVER, “an attack on how philosophy now picks over Deleuze’s corpus like a doctor performing an autopsy – Its purpose is to liberate concepts.” by pencil
Thanks for posting. I’ve just begun digging into Deleuze and the timing couldn’t be better.
naocat wrote
Reply to comment by Tequilx_Wolf in Anarchism as a synthesis of normative ethical theories? Looking for resources from philosophy nerds <3 by tuesday
Not OP but this is a great response. Reading discussion like this helps me feel more rounded.