Ennui

Ennui OP wrote

I mean how does one relate these big concepts to the everyday? One of the things I dislike about humanism is that it feels like humanists are trying to establish some 'nation of man'. Likewise, with 'radical difference' there's a distinction between recognizing difference emotionally, as something I can relate to and which provides meaning to my life, versus just philosophically (i.e. passively). And so it is with Blackness, this huge, universalizing lens through which we're supposed to recognize each other's differences and uniqueness. One is led to ask, unless they're a boring academic, "What does it matter to me?"

It's the same distinction that I've heard from you, actually, when you say of Deleuze that he has directly affected your everyday interpretations of things, that understanding Deleuze actually changed the world around you.

6

Ennui OP wrote

I've saved M.D.C.'s book to read this summer, so I can't comment on the finer aspects, but I'm curious to see what an emphasis on "radical difference" and "humanism" means practically. What does it mean psychologically, to people infinitely caught up in their own affairs?

5

Ennui wrote

I thought that modern accelerationists were about ‘accelerating’ particular aspects of capitalism that they believe will overtake it, like decentralized currency or free dissemination of intellectual property, rather than the old Marxist “everything gets worse before it gets better” accelationism?

7

Ennui wrote

Humanism is as far away from God as one can get without abandoning the power dynamic of Western moralism. The benefit of humanism is that one maintains the ability to feel superior, probably.

I’ve noticed that many of the most important Western ethical works—most important to a Uni philosophy department, that is—are just humanism under different names. Even the existentialists have yet to throw out their human exceptionalism. Everything ethical sounds exactly like a speech by Camus: boring.

8

Ennui wrote

Eh? I get that Dawkins is a poster boy for vulgar humanism, but it seems to me that it’s roots go deeper than surface level assholes. Does this quote mean to identify vulgar humanism with some progressivism that’s supposedly part of Puritan thought? And are there not a number of humanist-existentialists who criticized the forcible recreation of Christian values in atheist ethics?

6

Ennui wrote

Reply to by !deleted32308

Introduction to Aristotle—pretty good actually. Resistance, Rebellion, and Death (Camus)—fucking awful liberal shite. The Wretched of the Earth (Fanon)—cool but statist and quite influenced by Marx.

7

Ennui wrote

Once again, another plant I'd have no incentive to grow besides novelty. Regardless, one of the things I find interesting about tobacco is the number of strange varieties. In some places the tobacco is so strong it's downright dangerous, and it's used in diluted form in ritualistic purging ceremonies.

3

Ennui wrote

Race is not defined by genetics or even necessarily skin color, as shown by the fluidity of racial dynamics historically. It was and is a form of identification with cultural in-groups and out-groups. As a proof of this fact, take the racial identity of the Irish pre-assimilation into English and American culture; while the Irish were technically a part of the white in-group, they were considered a lesser racial breed than the English white man. Nowadays, however, the Irish white person is readily considered part of the white in-group.

To identify as white is to identify with the oppressing class. To identify as a POC is to be a part of the oppressed class, but also the class that fights against racial oppression. Therefore, the person who doesn't see race is ignoring the cultural dynamic in favor of positing that everyone is equal when oppression still exists, while discounting the cultural identify, for instance, of blackness, which has made real forays against oppression historically.

And this concludes my lecture on why racist white people with no experience of racial oppression racistly believe that people of color are racist for embracing blackness, brown-ness, asian-ness, etc. when such cultural identifications are opposed to the racism that led to the race dynamic in the first place. Race race race race race.

4