7th January 2013
Quote reblogged from To a dusty shelf we aspire with 685 notes
The less you eat, drink and read books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save - the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor dust will devour - your capital. The less you are, the more you have; the less you express your own life, the greater is your alienated life - the greater is the store of your estranged being.
9th July 2012
Post with 3 notes
And there was one from his wife, Jenny, that said she would “lay down [her] head as a sacrifice to [her] naughty boy…”
I don’t know why, but I find that to be the funniest line in regards to Marx.
6th May 2012
Link reblogged from DROP OUT. HANG OUT. SPACE OUT. with 7 notes
The rhetorical problem here is that Marx has such moral authority in some circles that even misuses of his theories are often saluted as devastating blows. If you want to accuse object-oriented philosophy of “commodity fetishism,” this means that you’re not just taking an economic position (I’ve said nothing about economics, after all), but that you’re claiming that not just all value, but all reality is created by human labor. It’s a sort of Berkeleyan Marxism that I wouldn’t advise as a promising avenue for the future of the Left.
I keep on meaning to make posts about the really good posts that Harman or Bryant make, but you always seem to beat me to it. Oh well, this is a really good post.
9th February 2012
Link reblogged from Letters To My Country with 43 notes
I appear to have struck a nerve with bbcity, whose judicious use of caps lock afflicts his prose with a most profound and delicate flavor in his well-argued, 1-paragraph essay responding to my previous post about Ayn Rand:
OBJECTIVISM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER DIALECTICAL…
I’m taking up a minor response to this because (1) it’s just horrible and (2) bbcity is someone I follow on here, and is one of the few people that I’ve seen on tumblr that is both brilliant when it comes to philosophy generally (she’s way beyond me when it comes either to philosophical clarity in her writing, or in philosophical understanding generally, I’ll totally admit that), and she’s one of the few people I’ve seen that does good work in actually ‘thinking’ Nietzsche, and saving him from the terrors he’s subjected to on social networking sites (e.g. admiring quotes from those that just discovered Zarathustra, or whatever, and think themselves to be some Ubermench in vanity or something). That second point said, this is a travesty to any decent interpretation of Nietzsche. Any. Seriously.
Disclaimer: I’m not all that familiar with Nietzsche really. I read The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, and most of Zarathustra, along with a bunch of extra material on him, but I’m by no means an expert on his thought, nor even particularly a good reference for it.
That said, the only connection between Rand and Nietzsche is horrible interpretations of both that try to join them together. That, and possibly the horrible Nietzsche appropriations that Rand herself writes.
Nietzsche was in no way a philosopher of the individual in the same way that Rand was, Nietzsche would have been disgusted with Rand’s objectivism, and the two philosophies are diametrically opposed. Also, the rant about Nietzsche and ‘invalids’ totally misses the point: he’s not talking about physically handicapped people, but those that are morally ‘invalid’ - that is, those that fly under the banner of the ‘slave morality’ presented within Christianity. And are you seriously using that old and terrible reading of Nietzsche that sees his use of ‘power’ as literal physical power over another? That’s just so… illegitimate.
And trying to match up Marx and Rand? Seriously? There is no way that Rand was a dialectical materialist, in any way. That’s just preposterous.
My suggestion to you is to try and go back and read up on your Marx and Nietzsche (and, dare I say it, even your Rand), because if this is the stuff that passes for actual philosophic rigor here, then I just don’t know what to do with myself. Because this is sad.
No, this isn’t a full refutation, but from the misgendering in the first sentence, to the ending conclusion of the structural homology between dialectical materialism and Randian objectivism is just terrible, and I don’t have the full energy to refute this in the way it
Also, the term ‘Rand’s Galtian Superman’ just makes me want to throw up.