a film i immediately thought of with many parallels is barry lyndon, under the lens of bataille i’d say it’s a pretty apt illustration of everything mentioned here
I have trouble understanding "Theory of Potlach" chapter from "The Accursed Share", can anybody help? He seems to argue that gift giving is in some sense paradoxical, while through giving one acquires power over others. Than he goes on to say that the giver actually acquires rank or social prestige, so the act of giving is not as disinterested (or anti-utilitarian) as it may seem, but than again, the general movement of life is nevertheless accomplished (despite of what individual thinks or intents). I'm pretty confused, what is he getting at in this chapter?
One of the functions of the collective act of expenditure (i.e, the festival, potlach) is to prevent hoarding and material accumulation that might give rise to the forms of exchange that could potentially decode the flows of the band or tribe. Thus the potlach offsets those intensities that would allow the group produce a strongman capable of dominating them. I think diving into Mauss or Clastres is helpful here.
Ok, basically this is Nietzschian will to power manifesting itself in an urge to overwaste as a means of expenditure. The «big idea» is that it has to do with Marx, politics and so on. Thanks 👌👍
Is this really the opposite of Stirner tho? I don't think ir is. For Stirner, the definition of the sacred is something we are separated from, something which I am not, which I hold no power or right over but am instead subjected to, it's something I am distanced from. Here the Dionysian sacred seems to me to be the opposite, it's an intimate sacredness of everything. I am sacred, as my flesh is sacred, I am God in my baseness. In both cases, as Stirner clearly states, the "I" does not refer to a higher metaphysical construct or the conscious individual self or the soul, but to the base, chaotic, self-devouring creative nothing. I don't know enough about Bataille to equate them, but I don't see any fundamental opposition here.
Honestly fellas, I find Marxism repulsive (not that I find capitalism much better) and I think in many ways I'm very different than you fellas ideologically, but I love your content. From your readings to your brilliant episode on UFOs, it's a perfect blend of more academic philosophy and high weirdness. Keep up the great work.
Same I'm pretty neo reactionary but these guys are great. I do like Bataille and Deleuze having said that. They both definitely touch on some very profound subjects I even agree with some. I maybe an atheist but if anything I'm a religious atheist as humans are fundamentally quite religious.
TH-cam desperately needs great Bataille content-thanks for the wonderful contribution!
agree ! :)
a film i immediately thought of with many parallels is barry lyndon, under the lens of bataille i’d say it’s a pretty apt illustration of everything mentioned here
Please more Bataille videos
anymore bataille videos coming!? loved this
We have notable Bataille translator Stuart Kendall coming next month
I'd love to see an episode dedicated to cinema 🤗
Rene Girard please
Love this niche small producers i am myself a freelancer and also need some theory but in a familiar yet podcast
Sorry but I'm subscribing and these shirts are great
I have trouble understanding "Theory of Potlach" chapter from "The Accursed Share", can anybody help? He seems to argue that gift giving is in some sense paradoxical, while through giving one acquires power over others. Than he goes on to say that the giver actually acquires rank or social prestige, so the act of giving is not as disinterested (or anti-utilitarian) as it may seem, but than again, the general movement of life is nevertheless accomplished (despite of what individual thinks or intents). I'm pretty confused, what is he getting at in this chapter?
One of the functions of the collective act of expenditure (i.e, the festival, potlach) is to prevent hoarding and material accumulation that might give rise to the forms of exchange that could potentially decode the flows of the band or tribe. Thus the potlach offsets those intensities that would allow the group produce a strongman capable of dominating them. I think diving into Mauss or Clastres is helpful here.
@@AcidHorizon thanks!
Bataillle shows the nature of opression of the utilitarian ethos
Ok, basically this is Nietzschian will to power manifesting itself in an urge to overwaste as a means of expenditure. The «big idea» is that it has to do with Marx, politics and so on. Thanks 👌👍
Great channel
Is this really the opposite of Stirner tho? I don't think ir is. For Stirner, the definition of the sacred is something we are separated from, something which I am not, which I hold no power or right over but am instead subjected to, it's something I am distanced from. Here the Dionysian sacred seems to me to be the opposite, it's an intimate sacredness of everything. I am sacred, as my flesh is sacred, I am God in my baseness. In both cases, as Stirner clearly states, the "I" does not refer to a higher metaphysical construct or the conscious individual self or the soul, but to the base, chaotic, self-devouring creative nothing. I don't know enough about Bataille to equate them, but I don't see any fundamental opposition here.
Bataille is Keynesianism for occultists
cool fucking channel dude. thank you
Honestly fellas, I find Marxism repulsive (not that I find capitalism much better) and I think in many ways I'm very different than you fellas ideologically, but I love your content. From your readings to your brilliant episode on UFOs, it's a perfect blend of more academic philosophy and high weirdness. Keep up the great work.
Same I'm pretty neo reactionary but these guys are great. I do like Bataille and Deleuze having said that. They both definitely touch on some very profound subjects I even agree with some. I maybe an atheist but if anything I'm a religious atheist as humans are fundamentally quite religious.
@@spritualelitist665 why are you nrx
@@wolfie8890 cuz it makes him feel special and intellectually elite.
@@jayt7178 thats what i notice with many nrx people and landians who skip deleuze
@@wolfie8890 How can you be a Landian if you haven't read Deleuze? That's like being a Hegelian without knowing Kant.
X.I.O.M.