spongebob

4y

and so on
and so on and so on

Parenti Version:

and such things, and the like, clears throat

Scratchin Mamba

4y

It's really.. quite a remarkable thing you know.... punches microphone

krishna bound

4y

the main thing i agree with Althusser on is the idea that economic practice enables certain superstructural autonomy, but even swapping these instances doesn't fix the issues derivative of that autonomy, it just swaps what superstructural determinations are the most prevalent in a social climate, mostly due to (different writing from him idk if youve gotten to it yet) the idea that people cannot understand themselves as individuals without drawing from the ideological practice borne from the relation of the base and superstructure they were born into. also his idea about the inescapable nature of ideology irregardless of relationship to the base i think is more or less correct

i think where i disagree with althusser is on his idea of contradiction and the relation to complex structures. while i do think maybe a lot of it is just textual based on definition, althusser's arguments about the inseparability of contradiction don't really make sense when you break it down. If contradiction is an inseparable result of other phenomena, it ceases to be a contradiction, it just becomes a result or extension of that phenomena. Calling it a contradiction implies - ironically - the same background of ideological pretext because it's only considered a contradiction relevant to the ideological observation. In reality, if the contradiction is a natural phenomena, it's not a contradiction.

This is a similar issue I've had with Mao's On Contradiction. I don't really have any inherent issues with Maoism per-se so I think a lot of my critiques here really just sound arbitrarily obsessed with textual definitions, but calling the relationship of emerging phenomena contradiction is kind of just a cope to me, if something arises from certain conditions and then is an observable behavior because of those conditions, then it's really not a contradiction, it only is if you prescribe it to be so because of the observation from a from an innate ideological pretext. It's weird because Althusser himself seems to essentially recognize this with his idea of Ideological Apparatuses but then he isn't consisent on apply the same logic elsewhere within his own work

Scratchin Mamba

4y

My uncle actually studied in DDR

deadacc

4y

Google who mamba's uncle is and you'll know why he's where he is today.

deadacc

4y

Google who mamba's uncle is and you'll know why he's where he is today.

SEGA GOON

4y

New insane subreddit I discovered: /r/SeattleHobos

https://old.reddit.com/r/seattlehobos
They claim there is a "hobo-industrial complex" and that rising housing costs have nothing to do with homelessness

They also think d*** addiction appears out of nowhere

deadacc

4y

ah that totally reads. ig i just dont have a problem with him claiming both monism and dualism at certain points because it just seems to be more useful to refer to both to get the point across. it seems like you don't particularly have a problem with it either but what would you say is the way to square that circle in regards to the post-structuralist critique of contradiction defining itself

SEGA GOON

4y

New insane subreddit I discovered: /r/SeattleHobos

https://old.reddit.com/r/seattlehobos
They claim there is a "hobo-industrial complex" and that rising housing costs have nothing to do with homelessness

They also think d*** addiction appears out of nowhere

deadacc

4y

the sidebar is the most unhinged redditor s*** ever

krishna bound

4y

I don't really have an issue with it either in terms of conveying concepts, i just mean that from to an extent the underlying argument being made is actually legitimately different depending on how you refer to these things, so if you're using it less as a descriptor and more as an overt conceptualization, you do have to answer to what that then implies in turn. In general as I mentioned I do like Althusser overall, my agreements with him far outweigh the smaller set of disagreements I have.

In general to your last point, I would just say the unfortunate part of talking about concepts like contradictions, semiotics, and phenomena is that eventually it just comes down to people playing games with words. When Derrida first rolled around, some of the biggest critiques of his were like "this guy isn't actually theorizing anything he's just playing with the definitions of words". Can you re-ask the last part of your question though? Is that aimed at Althusser or like post-structural critics of Marxism?

deadacc

4y

needing 12 paragraphs to explain how your schizoid terminology actually makes a lot of sense

deadacc

4y

ig the althusser / maoian conception of contradiction as minutiae to the point of discombobulation, and therefore being unable to strictly convey where contradiction and "natural causes" are delineated

or in other words how would you define contradiction if not the fusion and subsequent resolution of granular natural phenomenon?

spongebob

4y

yeah but lowkey ig the althusser / maoian conception of contradiction as minutiae to the point of discombobulation, and therefore being unable to strictly convey where contradiction and "natural causes" are delineated

or in other words how would you define contradiction if not the fusion and subsequent resolution of granular natural phenomenon?