Zizek: seems like a nob

[Pickman's model]

For Kant there is a layer of meaning/sense/intelligibility that is given to things in themselves which is necessarily beyond our comprehension. For Hegel/Marx the meaningulness of "things in themselves" is a consequence of a subject/object dichotomy that has at its roots the alienation of the subject from its own self-possession, and which is therefore capable of being reclaimed at a higher stage of understanding.

it seems to me that you're talking a bit of bollocks, treating kant as though he's a degenerate marxist - which imo flies somewhat in the face of the chronology of the situation. in addition, despite your insistence on methodology you've not adduced any evidence to support your position.

 

[revol68]

This thread is the fucking pits, I'm stuck agreeing with articul8 ffs

 

[articul8]

 

[articul8]

it seems to me that you're talking a bit of bollocks, treating kant as though he's a degenerate marxist - which imo flies somewhat in the face of the chronology of the situation. in addition, despite your insistence on methodology you've not adduced any evidence to support your position.

Not at all. Kant's contribution is a major advance. I'm not sure what you think would count as "evidence" here?

 

[revol68]

it seems to me that you're talking a bit of bollocks, treating kant as though he's a degenerate marxist - which imo flies somewhat in the face of the chronology of the situation. in addition, despite your insistence on methodology you've not adduced any evidence to support your position.

are you really that stupid?

articul8 was clearly saying that much of "Marxist" theory had degenerated in such a manner that it didn't so much surpass Hegel as to revert back to Kant. He wasn't saying Kant was a degenerate marxist, only a fuckwit or a tedious wanker desperate to make another inane facetious snipe could read as that.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not at all. Kant's contribution is a major advance. I'm not sure what you think would count as "evidence" here?

some reference to methedology would have been nice.

 

[love detective]

Without Kant no Hegel. Hegel is not UnKantian or Anti-Kantian but post-Kantian.

well that's my point - you said that 'those who held Marx to be the last word in philosophical modernity, and who regarded Hegel and the whole idealist tradition as outdated and superceded, actually missed what was most important in Marx and were left with a philosophy which returned to an earlier, Kantian epistemological problematic.'

then when asked what was the most important in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those who returned to an earlier kantian epistemology as they missed out on the what was most important in Marx, yet when asked what this most important thing was you give a standard kantian epistemology

maybe i've not picked up on the context in which this is being discussed as its looks boring as shite - but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in marx or not, they end up at the same place, your kantian epistemological. As whether they degenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your words, are the same. As what you described as the most important part of marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway. So both routes lead to the same thing, except one of these routes you see as positive and the other deginerate

 

[articul8]

some reference to methedology would have been nice.

I'm referring to philosophical method - beginning with the idea that sense is created through an active subject's relation to the world without positing some unknowable externality.

 

[revol68]

some reference to methedology would have been nice.

Is that what you're smoking?

 

[revol68]

Hegel added history.

Don't you bitches read the The Theses on Feuerbach?

 

[Knotted]

Also why is it seen as a failing of Zizeks that people from varying shades of the left can take something from his writings? David Harvey works with even less abstract stuff yet is respected by everyone from social democrats to anarchists.

David Harvey is an educator - he helps the understanding of Marx. He offers clarity. Zizek is trying to be novel. People follow Zizek. Zizek has a fan club. David Harvey just has people who appreciate his efforts. Zizek is a philosopher. Harvey is an economist - and as an economist the theorising is determined to an extent by the subject matter.

 

[articul8]

well that's my point - you said that 'those who held Marx to be the last word in philosophical modernity, and who regarded Hegel and the whole idealist tradition as outdated and superceded, actually missed what was most important in Marx and were left with a philosophy which returned to an earlier, Kantian epistemological problematic.'

then when asked what was the most important in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those who returned to an earlier kantian epistemology as they missed out on the what was most important in Marx, yet when asked what this most important thing was you give a standard kantian epistemology

maybe i've not picked up on the context in which this is being discussed as its looks boring as shite - but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in marx or not, they end up at the same place, your kantian epistemological - as whether they degenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things, in your words, are the same

No - Hegel showed that when something appeared "unknowable" or inherently external/objective, what was at stake was a fundamental alienation/disavowal of something previously intimately known to/by the subject. Kant leaves open the idea of a knowing subject in a universe that it can never get to know adequately. Hegel posits objectivity as always already given to the subject and therefore potentially recoverable.

 

[love detective]

articul8 was clearly saying that much of "Marxist" theory had degenerated in such a manner that it didn't so much surpass Hegel as to revert back to Kant.

Yet when asked what was the most important point of Marx that these degenerates had missed out on he points to something that could have been lifted straight out of Critique of Pure Reason

Degener8 articul8

 

[love detective]

No - Hegel showed that when something appeared "unknowable" or inherently external/objective, what was at stake was a fundamental alienation/disavowal of something previously intimately known to/by the subject. Kant leaves open the idea of a knowing subject in a universe that it can never get to know adequately. Hegel posits objectivity as always already given to the subject and therefore potentially recoverable.

that's all very nice, but doesn't bear in relation to the point being made

 

[Pickman's model]

are you really that stupid?

articul8 was clearly saying that much of "Marxist" theory had degenerated in such a manner that it didn't so much surpass Hegel as to revert back to Kant. He wasn't saying Kant was a degenerate marxist, only a fuckwit or a tedious wanker desperate to make another inane facetious snipe could read as that.

you seem to think that there's an evolution, that 'if kant, then hegel; if hegel, then marx'. that this was a necessary and teleological series of events. but it wasn't. and it's a nonsense to say that degenerate marxism, whatever that may be, reverts back down the path of influence from marx to kant skipping hegel. perhaps you don't like the way i phrased myself. but your agreeing with articul8 seems to me agreeing with a fool: not that it's to me any surprise that you'd harness yourself to a foolish argument.

 

[Pickman's model]

Is that what you're smoking?

most people i know who bring up marx's methodology would have mentioned something like his theory of history. they wouldn't have gone into some blather like articul8 did.

i see you mention history, it's a pity articul8 hasn't had the same nous.

 

[articul8]

It does - It's the crucial gap that let in the dismissal of philosophy - once you accept that there is some other realm of influence beyond what the subject can know directly, then you've opened the way to the idea that there are material forces that can have determinate effects on our sense of what is meaningful which operates on and not through the subject. Crude base/structure determinism ahoy!! I don't blame Kant for this - what he did understand was a massive breakthrough. Hegel just closed the door on the arseholes. They are still knocking on the door.

 

[revol68]

you seem to think that there's an evolution, that 'if kant, then hegel; if hegel, then marx'. that this was a necessary and teleological series of events. but it wasn't. and it's a nonsense to say that degenerate marxism, whatever that may be, reverts back down the path of influence from marx to kant skipping hegel. perhaps you don't like the way i phrased myself. but your agreeing with articul8 seems to me agreeing with a fool: not that it's to me any surprise that you'd harness yourself to a foolish argument.

well actually quite a fewof the 2nd International theorists did explicitly reject Hegel and talked of Kantian Marxism. Either way it's quite obvious what he meant by Marxism degenerating back to a pre Hegel Kantian position.

 

[Pickman's model]

Jesus christ it's like arguing with someone from 1934.

 

[revol68]

It does - It's the crucial gap that let in the dismissal of philosophy - once you accept that there is some other realm of influence beyond what the subject can know directly, then you've opened the way to the idea that there are material forces that can have determinate effects on our sense of what is meaningful which operates on and not through the subject. Crude base/structure determinism ahoy!! I don't blame Kant for this - what he did understand was a massive breakthrough. Hegel just closed the door on the arseholes. They are still knocking on the door.

Aye but you don't want to go full Hegelian, you need a dose of THE REAL, to stop yourself going FULL PHILDWYER.

Which brings me onto the point Knotted says about Zizek trying to be"novel", cos Zizek has never claimed anything as such, instead he see's himself as reading Hegel, Marx and Lacan through each other. Something that is quite interesting and allows for a defence of subjectivity against the crude materialism and post structuralist death of the author.

 

[Knotted]

well actually quite a fewof the 2nd International theorists did explicitly reject Hegel and talked of Kantian Marxism. Either way it's quite obvious what he meant by Marxism degenerating back to a pre Hegel Kantian position.

Not only is it not obvious, it's ambiguous. Different people take different things from Kant and Hegel, they see different bits as important, they interpret them differently. It is 100% unobvious what a8 meant - even if you know Kant and Hegel. This is why philosophical sloganeering is a bit daft - only people with a very similar backgrounds and interests will even understand you.

 

[love detective]

Aye but you don't want to go full Hegelian, you need a dose of THE REAL, to stop yourself going FULL PHILDWYER.

Which brings me onto the point Knotted says about Zizek trying to be"novel", cos Zizek has never claimed anything as such, instead he see's himself as reading Hegel, Marx and Lacan through each other. Something that is quite interesting and allows for a defence of subjectivity against the crude materialism and post structuralist death of the author.

once again it comes back to the interesting insight from zizek that people can do stuff - where would we be without him

 

[Pickman's model]

well actually quite a fewof the 2nd International theorists did explicitly reject Hegel and talked of Kantian Marxism. Either way it's quite obvious what he meant by Marxism degenerating back to a pre Hegel Kantian position.

only to the cognescenti: and i suppose that contrary to zizek, the kantian marxists of whom you talk weren't trying to be novel. they were trying to draw more meaning out of marx by doing what zizek does with lacan and hegel, with kant. but degenerate has, as i suppose you and articul8 know, rather negative connotations: it suggests to me that you think you know better than other people what is and what is not 'marxism'. it suggests to me that you see yourself as a definer of an orthodoxy in the subject.

 

[articul8]

I wasn't the one telling people that theory/philosophy was just a manner of confusing the workers. I'm opposed to attempts to shut down debate in the name of these debates being irrelevant to the class, a distraction from the struggle etc etc. Beyond that, let 1000 flowers bloom

 

[Pickman's model]

I wasn't the one telling people that theory/philosophy was just a manner of confusing the workers. I'm opposed to attempts to shut down debate in the name of these debates being irrelevant to the class, a distraction from the struggle etc etc. Beyond that, let 1000 flowers bloom

good for you

 

[Knotted]

Who were the Kantian Marxists? I can name two - Eduard Bernstein and Galvano Della Volpe.

 

[Pickman's model]

Who were the Kantian Marxists? I can name two - Eduard Bernstein and Galvano Della Volpe.

the one d. 1932, the other d. 1968.

who are the contemporary degenerates? name names

 

[revol68]

Not only is it not obvious, it's ambiguous. Different people take different things from Kant and Hegel, they see different bits as important, they interpret them differently. It is 100% unobvious what a8 meant - even if you know Kant and Hegel. This is why philosophical sloganeering is a bit daft - only people with a very similar backgrounds and interests will even understand you.

That is true within any subject, genre etc Sure you bust out marxist leninist terminology all the time under the assumption that those engaging with you have some grasp or shared understanding.

What an inane point to make.

Perhaps we should get back to Zizek and how you hold that he has no real concept of class struggle and replaces it instead with disembodied ideology and a general concern with "oppression".

I don't have any of my Zizek books with me at my ma's but I'm back home in Belfast tomo night so I'll provide some quotes to show that Zizek has a pretty good grasp on Marx, value, commodity fetishism and class struggle, certainly a much better one than yourself.

 

[revol68]

Who were the Kantian Marxists? I can name two - Eduard Bernstein and Galvano Della Volpe.

Korsch names some in Marxism and Philosophy, I'll have to hunt it out.

 

[articul8]

who are the contemporary degenerates? name names

Knotted for one