Ennui

Ennui wrote

I go to work and school, come home exhausted and fall asleep. I wake up at midnight having realized my fatal error. I complete a few assignments; the words look fuzzy, and the screen is too bright. I stay up until my next class because if I go back to bed then I'll never make it to school. I am exhausted from staying up all night, I fall asleep when I get home, and the cycle repeats anew.

I'm so fucking hungry.

7

Ennui wrote

I feel like post-leftism has to do with rejecting the overall spectacle of leftism, not just the mentality of sacrificing yourself to society by working for the 'common good'. For instance, post-leftism might also include a critique of utopian idealization by leftists and anarchists. It may oppose deluded varieties of anarchism that still qualify as non-workerist, such as the crowd that thinks automation should replace all labor.

While 'post-workerism' is linked to these things, the extent of the philosophy is not immediately obvious from the term.

13

Ennui wrote

Not conservative, but otherwise no political obligations other than acceptance of my beliefs. Their life plan can't be in the opposite vein as mine. Attraction is an odd one, since it clearly matters, but I'm not a sexual person. Really the biggest thing is that we don't constantly get into fights and are quick to let go of our anger when we do. I hate being angry.

5

Ennui wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Finish this sentence by ziq

...systemic brutality, in an ever revolving circle with no insight into human nature.

alt: ...human nature, and the proof is systemic brutality.

2

Ennui wrote

(pigs = 1.1 million cars) < 1 billion cars on planet Earth. 13.6% (69 million tonnes CO2-equivalent) of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 were agricultural. All feral pigs together release 4.9 million tonnes CO2 according to the article.

Conclusion: Feral pigs are anti-civ anarchists destroying profits for the agricultural sector, which in Australia alone releases 14 times the CO2 equivalent as all feral pigs combined.

Alternatively, there's something like 12.5 million cops in the world. Say each cop produces 5 tons CO2 emissions (I don't know if that's realistic or not). 12.5 x 5 = 62.5 million tons CO2. Therefore, killing all cops would would be 12.7x more effective than killing all feral pigs. Don't check my numbers, please and thank you.

7

Ennui wrote

If your specific brand of communism is just those palatable examples of primitive communism, then you hardly have reason to pick fights with Ziq for opposing Marxist accelerationism other than semantics.

If your only rationale for why they shouldn't diss democracy is that in just those palatable examples of its use wherein everyone actually agrees to the rules of the game and there isn't a minority being unwillingly crushed underfoot, democracy isn't totally authority forming, then you're once again arguing semantics.

But with respect to democracy and communism, there are two problematic positions:

  1. You are the communist who believes in production just enough to make everyone comfortable, cushy, healthy, educated, and so on. That is, you believe in the plausibility of a utopia wherein everyone's desires are the correct, minimally invasive ones, so that the problems of capitalism don't arise.
  2. You are a toxic democracy enthusiast. You believe in stepping on toes in the name of 'getting things done'. You fly to the aid of reformism and partial victories instead of authentically anarchist positions. You build implicit hierarchies by calling yourself an 'organizer', while everyone around you is a 'comrade' devoted to the common good, a perverse social contract.

Achieving the goals of (1) is an impossibility. You will never organize people (of their own free will) successfully enough. You will fail to make a dent in the industrial capitalist machine. By the time the machine is old and rusted, it will be too late. And lastly, to achieve (1) you would have to forsake the anarchist critique of production and commit evils against nature in the name of a human good. (2) is gross and ineffective. It's not a way to live.

I'm not saying that you are (1) or (2), but I am saying that if you aren't, then your critique is a way of blunting the message to achieve a minor clarity. You shouldn't feel like you have to treat every broad offensive against diet-anarchism (the middling space for libsocs whose anarchism is defined by their leftism) as an offensive against your putting to a vote whether we should go to the pub or the park.

11

Ennui wrote

Most of the stuff by the Invisible Committee. It was nice as a history lesson (I had no prior interaction with the revolts/struggles they focused on), but it had virtually no influence on me.

If I were forced to read Kropotkin again, I would regret it now.

A good half of the existentialists. Especially the white ones.

5

Ennui wrote

Made butternut squash soup with squash from the garden. Es schmeckt mir sehr gut, if I'm using that right.

I'm going to go have to overclock my German skills in a few weeks in preparation for the coming semester. The amount of miscellaneous words I have forgotten in so little time is worrying. I forgot to put the umlaut in 'tschüss' the other day.

3

Ennui OP wrote

I had my first intro to Deleuze the other day from a podcast contrasting the war machine and the state, and when I was posting this, I really was thinking u/Tequila_Wolf is going to critique analytic philosophy on those grounds.

If you had to name something from the analytic tradition that you reasonably enjoyed or felt was useful, what would it be?

4

Ennui OP wrote

Alright, that's it. Start saying 'Quine'.

Here's something precise. 'Analytic' refers mostly to the method, which depends on rigorous and constant clarification and is often systematized in abstract logic. Analytic philosophy is very popular in Western academia. Some branches of philosophy that are commonly analytic are mathematical philosophy, epistemology, logic, and philosophy of language. However, the implicit bias is that some philosophers, no matter how systematized they may be, are not considered analytic philosophers (i.e. analytic philosophy often refers to the realm of acceptable philosophy).

Contrast it with philosophers like Hegel, who manages to say so much you're left wondering if he said anything at all.

5

Ennui wrote

Honestly I can’t think of any. I can tell you what I do have, though: confirmation bias. I’ve pretty much convinced myself that anarchism is relevant and an option in any philosophical setting and given any interpretation of the nature of life, which is the only way I can call myself an anarchist despite lacking concrete opinions on most subjects.

This is also how I ignorantly shovel centuries of liberal philosophy (required by my university studies) down my throat with minor indigestion.

5