Philosophy thread

[wok]

Just been reading a lot on Gilles Deleuze and his ‘Anti-oedipus’ work which discusses his ideas on the desire of oppression, not just of others but also our selves ( voting against our own interests which is pretty relevant in the age of rightwing populism) and how fascism uses the archetypal ‘nuclear family’ ideal as the main means of psychological oppression ( which would explain the far-right’s obsessions with traditional family values, again very relevant anno 2023).



Anyone else has an interest in post-marxist French philosophy?

this is not meant as a political thread.

[/highbrow wannabe intellectual thread]

 

[mongooz]

Just been reading a lot on Gilles Deleuze and his ‘Anti-oedipus’ work which discusses his ideas on the desire of oppression, not just of others but also our selves ( voting against our own interests which is pretty relevant in the age of rightwing populism) and how fascism uses the archetypal ‘nuclear family’ ideal as the main means of psychological oppression ( which would explain the far-right’s obsessions with traditional family values, again very relevant anno 2023).



Anyone else has an interest in post-marxist French philosophy?

this is not meant as a political thread.

[/highbrow wannabe intellectual thread]

nope....but it sounds pretty sensible.

 

[tiger roach]

Have not, but that does sound pretty pertinent in light of current events. Noted for looking into next time I am in a nonfiction mode.

 

[Monson]

I'm not sure if it's actually Post-Marxism, but I'm still sort of stuck in various kinds of constructivism in the context of Science and Technology Studies, like Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker. I guess most of these thinkers stand on the shoulders of Michel Foucault.

The core notion is that scientific and technological developments are not linear in a 'bound to happen' sort of way, but are multidirectional products by society, politics, economics, values and so on. So what we consider facts are just that in the original sense of the word, not fabrications but certainly products, and indeed rhetorical ones as well, and innovation is therefore an ongoing process of negotiations. So what they're saying is basically that no, you can't stop progress, but you can contribute in shaping it by taking part in these negotiations.

This is all mostly 1970s and 1980s stuff, but in the light of recent AI developments I still think it's relevant and interesting, at least to me.

 

[Peen Simmons]

I’m broadly familiar with the main thrust of Anti-Oedipus, but I’ve not read Deleuze beyond excerpted bits. Some of the madness vs. repression stuff seems pretty self-evident in a post 1960s US cultural context just because pop culture sort of adopted that line of thinking as an article of faith (Cuckoo’s Nest, oodles of countercultural narratives, etc.).

Reckoning with Freud/paychoanalysis and fascism through a Marxist lens makes a lot of sense in a mid- or late-20th century context, but now that the cultural turn and “post-modernism” more generally have become entrenched intellectual modes/traditional ways, it’s almost hard to see some of the landmark provocations of late 20th century continental philosophy as radical rather than simply obvious.

I guess I’ve never really been driven to delve more deeply into Deleuze because the question/problem of desire isn’t something that I’m super interested in. Also, I tend to glaze over when it comes to stuff that’s super-concerned with wrangling with Freud and psychoanalysis just because it’s not my jam. And when it comes to philosophy I’m a pretty haphazard student/reader.

 

[wok]

I’m broadly familiar with the main thrust of Anti-Oedipus, but I’ve not read Deleuze beyond excerpted bits. Some of the madness vs. repression stuff seems pretty self-evident in a post 1960s US cultural context just because pop culture sort of adopted that line of thinking as an article of faith (Cuckoo’s Nest, oodles of countercultural narratives, etc.).

Reckoning with Freud/paychoanalysis and fascism through a Marxist lens makes a lot of sense in a mid- or late-20th century context, but now that the cultural turn and “post-modernism” more generally have become entrenched intellectual modes/traditional ways, it’s almost hard to see some of the landmark provocations of late 20th century continental philosophy as radical rather than simply obvious.

I guess I’ve never really been driven to delve more deeply into Deleuze because the question/problem of desire isn’t something that I’m super interested in. Also, I tend to glaze over when it comes to stuff that’s super-concerned with wrangling with Freud and psychoanalysis just because it’s not my jam. And when it comes to philosophy I’m a pretty haphazard student/reader.

I am by no means an expert on philosophy, I am
pretty much a novice on a lot of concepts and movements. And yes, a lot of pre-21st century stuff has become self-evident, but I find it pretty interesting in a historical perspective and that a lot of thinking is nothing new.

 

[Bones McHorror]

This is stuff I read in college. Namely Barthes and Foucault. And I still have some interest in Derrida and Lacan.

I don't read a ton of french stuff anymore. Catherine Malabou and Julia Kristeva I guess are french. I've read their stuff more recently.

My hottest take is that Deleuze and Guatarri's ideas have just been subsumed into capitalism. ie: body without organs and nomadic subjectivity is just what we have in social media.

 

[Punchy]

I am not that well-read in philosophy (Zen and motorcycles, amirite?), but that premise would seem to tie in to some of the criminological theory I studied for my bachelors. Not necessarily the nuclear family part, but self-oppression; some kind of "I'm not good enough so I'll go ahead and force failure" state, especially given the timeframe that most criminal activity starts.