Maybe I just don’t have a good understanding of Egoism, but I don’t see what we have left when we leave Postmodernism and psychology behind. The core tenet of Postmodernism is the rejection of grand narratives for the self to play a role in, so to abandon this in service of the self to me sounds like submitting to something outside of the self which directs your life. I was under the impression that Stirner strongly implied that those things outside your Self are all spooks to be abandoned… I’ve circled back into postmodernism.
Deleuze is anyhow interesting, maybe the only interesting postmo and maybe because he collaborated with Marxist Guattari; Anti-Oedipus is a gem in disguise (disguise of Freudism and postmodern wacko wording): it does address a very materialist issue of how Capitalism is just a decoding (corrupting, accidental cultural-revolutionary) force and that, as such, produces also something as idiotic as Postmodernism itself (D. may not have understood that but he understood the underlying basics to a large extent) and how it always reaches out to "fascism", i.e. reactionarism, paranoid ultra-conservative polarity, which they evidence as actually powerless in the long run, although they don't fully understand/explain why. My take here is that it is because Capitalism emerges from Landownerism (Patriarchy, Warlordism, "Territorial" Ancien Regime) and as such they share the "love" for private property, hence the paranoid reactionary polarity can solve nothing at all: it's utterly powerless as D&G do manage to understand and (very cipheredly "explain" to the careful reader). However what they never explain is what remains when that cultural struggle between the decoding "mafia", corrupting, "schizophrenic" polarity and its reactionary or paranoid pseudo-antagonist is exhausted. In order to understand that one has to reach out to Primitivism, a very underated philosophy that holds that we're to a large extent still hunter-gatherers and that our hardly erasable "primitive communist" (but also "primitive libertarian" and "primitive scientific") instincts prevail in the end when cultural decoding is finished. In the end we're Paleolithic people dumped into the concrete jungle and deprived by Capitalism from the Patriarchal-Landownerist "morals" that reactionaries love that much, we only retain one ethics: that of the primitive hunter-gatherer and that leads us to libertarian communism or something close enough within political realism such as radical democratic socialism.
I thought PoMo died a quiet death within academic circles a few decades ago, perhaps around the time it broke into mainstream pop in the form of the Matrix movies. I'm not sure I ever understood much of it. Not sure if that means it was way too clever for me to wrap my little brain around, or just another emperors new clothes scam. I tried get Slavo to explain his beloved Lacan and Deleuze to me, but he just talked gibberish and showered me in spit, whereas when I tried to find out about Post-Modernist Marxism from JP, that great defender of free speech, he ended up cycling between moral outrage and uncontrollable sobbing. All I could determine is that he really needs a good sandwich, or maybe a cream cheese and salad bagel would cheer him up. Now they're trying figure out what post-post modernism or maybe meta-modernism is, perhaps a bit like post-modernism with some meaning reinserted - something like an Aetheist Tabernacle Choir. Anyway, I think I'll just stick to thinking ambiguously, moving through this world - or illusion thereof - whilst gleaning whatever lessons I can from people and things I encounter, all the while obsessing far too much on the yoni-ling dialectic.
Not only postmodernism but the almighty dollar has failed at the time of this writing: if you want to afford a Picasso you need gold and capital for the trade - or so many dollars it isn’t even funny.
People will take their last breaths looking for what they can blame their grief on I mean really our consciousness is able to exist anywhere and however it wants so whether we choose to dwell on existing human constructs the conscious mind has created or pursue the creation of ones that yet don't exist nothing can possibly be wrong no matter how flawed we see an idea or how tragic we see a specific event it will always be a necessary occurrence of what happened or what will happen in the natural flow of the universe. Everything that is, has been and everything that has been, is. what is the difference between a man who lived and died in a communist environment or a man who lived and died under a capitalist one or even a man who lived and died in a cave at the dawn of man. what is it exactly everyone is looking for? the meaning of life? the key to ultimate happiness? knowledge on how to build the perfect society for our needs? is consciousness a separate entity entirely and only using our monkey derived bodies because evolution provided a great vessel to do so or does it all naturally work together in synchronized harmony? so so so many questions that many have and will dedicate their lives answering. well I believe every single event in the history of everything has been perfect, a simple reaction to a prior that's why the past cannot be altered, I think the rest of existence will continue being perfect up until the end of it and there will an end because every beginning must have one. all we can really do as humans is keep stacking our biases on top of one another and keep setting up goals for improvement for the "better" of mankind maybe it is the individuals ego at work or perhaps its our conscious answering to a higher awareness that understand the natural order of things, we're such an anomaly aren't we, designed to care but not to be cared about.
... Anyone is free to claim whatever relating it with dialetics or any other theory however that is not necessarely consistent even with the restrictions of the theory. Anyone could make any binary and claim it related to dialetics, but it is never valid outside of the context of the movement being analysed. Then that description of superiority of either one side of the contradictions is straight out false, what dialetics says is that the contradictions will resolve into some form of synthesis, which as on the interpretation of darwinism, just means the synthesis is what can exist at some given moment or will be possible to exist
interesting criticism of identitarism, but that description of dialetics is really not fair neither to the theory or to history. Theory is not magic, and applying any theory while with bad representations of reality will bring problems; it is true that on the period from the first and second internationals there was a problem with chauvinism, however chauvinism being a problem on its own which may inform bad conclusions with dilectical thought is not a problem of the theory of dialetics. So the production of those binaries from dialetics arises from its intended study of the changes in reality and can only ever be understood from the context of the especiffic moves that are being considered, ...
Seriously I thought it was a great essay - but you need to work on the sound quality. Overall I agree that post-modernism offered plenty of interesting insights, it's not all that original or useful. We need to be much more focused on ending colonial and capitalist oppression, developing more equitable societies, preventing environmental disaster and preventing the outbreak of WW3 (if its not too late already).
Postmodernism isn't a thing that can "fail." It's just where the world is right now because of modern technology and global awareness, and because Modernity failed. The only way to restore a modernist sensibility is to provide the objective truth with an invicible grand narrative that we all agree with. If you don't have the objective truth, because such a thing is impossible to grasp individually, then you've achieved the seminal post-modern consciousness that we are all in the dark, aside from the enlightening will towards kindness in the face of a certain degree of inscrutability in life. There's no genuine way to return to the flat-earth, or geocentric cosmologies that supported faith in ancient kingdoms. You can try to force it, but all the while you'll know that it will only last until people regain the freedom to think about reality again. But actually, the current world does have a grand narrative. It's what you call PostModernity, but the future may call it something else, because there are recurring contours to this age, which include awareness of the quarkiness of quantum dynamics, a longing for mystical intuition, and tentative willingness to increase the sphere of inclusion and diversity, as well as a paradoxical and complimentary desire to form broader concrete groups, like how people of European descent are dissolving their concern for being "Saxon" into being more simply and broadly "White."
To begin with because it's an Idealism and not a feet-on-ground Realist/Materialist type of philosophy. Wishful thinking almost invariably fails, and there can't be any doubt as of why. Let's get REAL, people.
Egoism is neither materialist nor idealist. Maybe I dont need to care about what will work and just live the way i want either way. I dont really care about humanity.
@@recurringparadox - Maybe but that's not the issue with Postmodernism, the issue of Postmodernism is the return to Hegelian-Platonic idealist (and conservative) dialectics and ending in almost pure wishful thinking. What matters the less is if they are egoist, altruist or something in between, what matters is if their theory is grounded on Reality (it's not).
Post modernism is inherently materialistic, it rejects looking at people's and society ideas and conception of reality by looking solely by material and systemic phenomena. It is inherently nihilistic, rejects consciousness and don't care at all about methaphysics, aways incorporating the current methaphysics of their time (materialism / abstractionism), never ever questioning it because as it has been decided through the 20th century, "methaphysics is useless, bulshit and a waste of time."
Not necessarily. Capitalism suffers from the Economic Calculation Problem unfortunately Hayek didn't see that. Capitalism is a centralized planned economy by Capitalists in collusion with the State solely for profit. Free enterprise through a freed market is participatory through the socialization of economic calculation down to the individual based on supply(providing for) and demand(needs).
It's so good. Can't believe there are such gems on yt with so little views. Seems the recommendations are a good idea for new video creators
Get a better microphone please, because I'm interested in the point you're trying to make.
Maybe I just don’t have a good understanding of Egoism, but I don’t see what we have left when we leave Postmodernism and psychology behind. The core tenet of Postmodernism is the rejection of grand narratives for the self to play a role in, so to abandon this in service of the self to me sounds like submitting to something outside of the self which directs your life. I was under the impression that Stirner strongly implied that those things outside your Self are all spooks to be abandoned… I’ve circled back into postmodernism.
I didnt say we should leave postmodernism behind
You're voice is not very clear and volume is less. I can't understand what is being said
Yes! Great video but your voice is not clear enough 😢
probably clearer that way 🙄
Sorry. Thats why theres subtitles. Im poor af. So hopefully soon i get a better mic
Maybe we have reached the point where we have all gone insane.
Maybe
Deleuze is anyhow interesting, maybe the only interesting postmo and maybe because he collaborated with Marxist Guattari; Anti-Oedipus is a gem in disguise (disguise of Freudism and postmodern wacko wording): it does address a very materialist issue of how Capitalism is just a decoding (corrupting, accidental cultural-revolutionary) force and that, as such, produces also something as idiotic as Postmodernism itself (D. may not have understood that but he understood the underlying basics to a large extent) and how it always reaches out to "fascism", i.e. reactionarism, paranoid ultra-conservative polarity, which they evidence as actually powerless in the long run, although they don't fully understand/explain why.
My take here is that it is because Capitalism emerges from Landownerism (Patriarchy, Warlordism, "Territorial" Ancien Regime) and as such they share the "love" for private property, hence the paranoid reactionary polarity can solve nothing at all: it's utterly powerless as D&G do manage to understand and (very cipheredly "explain" to the careful reader).
However what they never explain is what remains when that cultural struggle between the decoding "mafia", corrupting, "schizophrenic" polarity and its reactionary or paranoid pseudo-antagonist is exhausted. In order to understand that one has to reach out to Primitivism, a very underated philosophy that holds that we're to a large extent still hunter-gatherers and that our hardly erasable "primitive communist" (but also "primitive libertarian" and "primitive scientific") instincts prevail in the end when cultural decoding is finished. In the end we're Paleolithic people dumped into the concrete jungle and deprived by Capitalism from the Patriarchal-Landownerist "morals" that reactionaries love that much, we only retain one ethics: that of the primitive hunter-gatherer and that leads us to libertarian communism or something close enough within political realism such as radical democratic socialism.
Interesting video but the audio was hard to dicern, think about increasing the volume and speaking more clearly.
I thought PoMo died a quiet death within academic circles a few decades ago, perhaps around the time it broke into mainstream pop in the form of the Matrix movies. I'm not sure I ever understood much of it. Not sure if that means it was way too clever for me to wrap my little brain around, or just another emperors new clothes scam. I tried get Slavo to explain his beloved Lacan and Deleuze to me, but he just talked gibberish and showered me in spit, whereas when I tried to find out about Post-Modernist Marxism from JP, that great defender of free speech, he ended up cycling between moral outrage and uncontrollable sobbing. All I could determine is that he really needs a good sandwich, or maybe a cream cheese and salad bagel would cheer him up. Now they're trying figure out what post-post modernism or maybe meta-modernism is, perhaps a bit like post-modernism with some meaning reinserted - something like an Aetheist Tabernacle Choir. Anyway, I think I'll just stick to thinking ambiguously, moving through this world - or illusion thereof - whilst gleaning whatever lessons I can from people and things I encounter, all the while obsessing far too much on the yoni-ling dialectic.
Sponsors are the lifeblood of ideas under capitalism. Arithmetic itself suffers for that as does every manner of discerning truth.
Not only postmodernism but the almighty dollar has failed at the time of this writing: if you want to afford a Picasso you need gold and capital for the trade - or so many dollars it isn’t even funny.
People will take their last breaths looking for what they can blame their grief on I mean really our consciousness is able to exist anywhere and however it wants so whether we choose to dwell on existing human constructs the conscious mind has created or pursue the creation of ones that yet don't exist nothing can possibly be wrong no matter how flawed we see an idea or how tragic we see a specific event it will always be a necessary occurrence of what happened or what will happen in the natural flow of the universe. Everything that is, has been and everything that has been, is. what is the difference between a man who lived and died in a communist environment or a man who lived and died under a capitalist one or even a man who lived and died in a cave at the dawn of man. what is it exactly everyone is looking for? the meaning of life? the key to ultimate happiness? knowledge on how to build the perfect society for our needs? is consciousness a separate entity entirely and only using our monkey derived bodies because evolution provided a great vessel to do so or does it all naturally work together in synchronized harmony? so so so many questions that many have and will dedicate their lives answering. well I believe every single event in the history of everything has been perfect, a simple reaction to a prior that's why the past cannot be altered, I think the rest of existence will continue being perfect up until the end of it and there will an end because every beginning must have one. all we can really do as humans is keep stacking our biases on top of one another and keep setting up goals for improvement for the "better" of mankind maybe it is the individuals ego at work or perhaps its our conscious answering to a higher awareness that understand the natural order of things, we're such an anomaly aren't we, designed to care but not to be cared about.
... Anyone is free to claim whatever relating it with dialetics or any other theory however that is not necessarely consistent even with the restrictions of the theory. Anyone could make any binary and claim it related to dialetics, but it is never valid outside of the context of the movement being analysed. Then that description of superiority of either one side of the contradictions is straight out false, what dialetics says is that the contradictions will resolve into some form of synthesis, which as on the interpretation of darwinism, just means the synthesis is what can exist at some given moment or will be possible to exist
Deleuze and Guattari are worth considering.
interesting criticism of identitarism, but that description of dialetics is really not fair neither to the theory or to history. Theory is not magic, and applying any theory while with bad representations of reality will bring problems; it is true that on the period from the first and second internationals there was a problem with chauvinism, however chauvinism being a problem on its own which may inform bad conclusions with dilectical thought is not a problem of the theory of dialetics. So the production of those binaries from dialetics arises from its intended study of the changes in reality and can only ever be understood from the context of the especiffic moves that are being considered, ...
Seriously I thought it was a great essay - but you need to work on the sound quality. Overall I agree that post-modernism offered plenty of interesting insights, it's not all that original or useful. We need to be much more focused on ending colonial and capitalist oppression, developing more equitable societies, preventing environmental disaster and preventing the outbreak of WW3 (if its not too late already).
Ik my mic sucks. Im poor. What can I say
@@recurringparadox don't sweat it! There are solutions! You can record separately on your phone for example
Postmodernism isn't a thing that can "fail." It's just where the world is right now because of modern technology and global awareness, and because Modernity failed.
The only way to restore a modernist sensibility is to provide the objective truth with an invicible grand narrative that we all agree with. If you don't have the objective truth, because such a thing is impossible to grasp individually, then you've achieved the seminal post-modern consciousness that we are all in the dark, aside from the enlightening will towards kindness in the face of a certain degree of inscrutability in life.
There's no genuine way to return to the flat-earth, or geocentric cosmologies that supported faith in ancient kingdoms. You can try to force it, but all the while you'll know that it will only last until people regain the freedom to think about reality again.
But actually, the current world does have a grand narrative. It's what you call PostModernity, but the future may call it something else, because there are recurring contours to this age, which include awareness of the quarkiness of quantum dynamics, a longing for mystical intuition, and tentative willingness to increase the sphere of inclusion and diversity, as well as a paradoxical and complimentary desire to form broader concrete groups, like how people of European descent are dissolving their concern for being "Saxon" into being more simply and broadly "White."
I want to work with you.
?
Very obvious bias towards depressive outlook and ineffectuality.
I know you think you're smart....
@@HakuYuki001 Go ahead, finish your argument.
To begin with because it's an Idealism and not a feet-on-ground Realist/Materialist type of philosophy. Wishful thinking almost invariably fails, and there can't be any doubt as of why. Let's get REAL, people.
Egoism is neither materialist nor idealist. Maybe I dont need to care about what will work and just live the way i want either way. I dont really care about humanity.
@@recurringparadox - Maybe but that's not the issue with Postmodernism, the issue of Postmodernism is the return to Hegelian-Platonic idealist (and conservative) dialectics and ending in almost pure wishful thinking. What matters the less is if they are egoist, altruist or something in between, what matters is if their theory is grounded on Reality (it's not).
Post modernism is inherently materialistic, it rejects looking at people's and society ideas and conception of reality by looking solely by material and systemic phenomena.
It is inherently nihilistic, rejects consciousness and don't care at all about methaphysics, aways incorporating the current methaphysics of their time (materialism / abstractionism), never ever questioning it because as it has been decided through the 20th century, "methaphysics is useless, bulshit and a waste of time."
this why we need metamodernism 🤑🤑
The Economic Calculation Problem makes capitalism inevitable.
Not necessarily. Capitalism suffers from the Economic Calculation Problem unfortunately Hayek didn't see that. Capitalism is a centralized planned economy by Capitalists in collusion with the State solely for profit. Free enterprise through a freed market is participatory through the socialization of economic calculation down to the individual based on supply(providing for) and demand(needs).