Recent comments in /f/Philosophy

Tequilx_Wolf wrote (edited )

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.

8

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.

7

OdiousOutlaw wrote

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.

6

kin wrote

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

7

ziq OP wrote

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.

7

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.

4

ruin OP wrote

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.

3

ruin wrote

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.

4

ruin wrote

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.

4

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.

3

ruin OP wrote

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.

4