"The Revolution Will Not Be Theorized" Article by Left of Wreckage

leftofwreckage.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/the-revolution-will-not-be-theorized/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CjnFtH50vio
web.archive.org/web/20161003061832/http://8ch.net/leftypol/res/952164.html
goodreads.com/review/show/1682084293
twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/939617785495240705
youtube.com/watch?v=6rctqCC2ym4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

DO NOT RESPOND TO THREADS ABOUT ANAL WATER. HE IS A MAJOR CONMAN/SOPHIST.

?

he's butthurt because it was written by a namefag, namely A.W.

A.W. (Anal Water) is a know sophist who deliberately twists Hegel and Marx. He repeatedly attacks anyone who dare challenges his interpretation of Hegel and claims things about Marx no Marxist would ever say.

Listen to him 'debunk' Dialectical Materialism here:
youtube.com/watch?v=CjnFtH50vio

Anyone have the links of Anal Water being BTFO'd?

How much of a defeatist pseud could this faggot be? This is his critique of a revolutionary theory and praxis? This is laughable Roo tier "theory".

Already wrong on the counts of Marxian philosophy, doesn't know about aleatory relations and how they're related to a symbolic subject

what's wrong with having your own opinion about something?

go back to your cuckshed anal water

Hey OP here, didn't realize this guy was such trash. I came across his Hegel talks recently & was intrigued but haven't prodded too deep yet. How infamous is he around ehre tho?

He shows up in basically every thread about Hegel. I don't understand Hegel for shit so I can't tell you if he knows his stuff or not, but he's definitely an incredibly pretentious faggot. He never writes a single post without insulting the person he's arguing with.

He's universally loathed for being a stupid, disingenuous, asshole who samefags and relentlessly shills his own shit on this board. He's rude, pretentious, and completely dishonest. His reading of Hegel is simultaneously unorthodox and boring, a disparity which is likely the only interesting thing about him. He's a pseud of the highest order and I unironically wish he would just kill himself already.

In what way is his reading of Hegel unorthodox? I always just assume he's right when he talks about Hegel, since I've never read Hegel, and a lot of Marxists seem like they learn about Hegel from blogposts and not by reading him themselves. Are his critiques of the way Marxists understand Hegel and dialectics (the article he wrote about Mao for example) correct in any way?

Notice how they will never give a detailed and cited explanation of why I'm wrong, just that I'm wrong. Besides the Lacan/Badiu guy and the Lacan/Schelling ML guy they never elaborate, and those that do elaborate talk past me and miss the mark if their intention is to communicate my error to me.

Also,
Right, and you are a shining beacon to trust to know this because…? You 'read' a book about Hegelianism? Please.


Read my stuff or don't, think what you will. I post things there as exercises for working out concepts I have. As a beginner you learn by trial and error and never begin with the truth, so choose your poison. If you fear being wrong you basically fear having to think for yourself, and that's not something you want. You can talk to me and I'll teach you something more useful than mere beliefs to be taken as given or on faith.


But Althusser was wrong. Substance is subject.

I think you replied to the wrong posts, unless you intended to reply to me three times.

Ok, so call me paranoid, but when I have someone ask me a bunch of questions in an AW thread I just assume it's him trying to get me to make an argument so he can critique me without having to take a position on anything. He does this every fucking time, and it always turns into an argument where he just asks questions relentlessly and claims victory when I give up answering them. So if you are AW: go fuck yourself, you're the biggest cuck. I will not engage you.

But assuming you're not AW, I'll answer this.
Hegel rejects all forms of metaphysical rationalism, and that includes the kind of rationalist monism AW loves to drone on about as if it were truth. AW is really a Spinozist who thinks he's a Hegelian.
No, not really. His critiques of Marxists who don't understand Hegel are valid, but given how poorly many Marxists understand Hegel this is like shooting fish in a barrel. His understanding of Mao is poor and he doesn't correctly identify what Mao is wrong about as a result of this. There's good critiques of Mao out there, so I dunno why AW is the person you go to for this kind of thing.

I'm one of the many Lacan-fags who regularly schools you. I'm not either of the two people you mentioned though.

Thanks (I'm not AW lmao)

Ah, so you're one of the Pinkard neo-Kantian readers. I see now why you're so ignorant of the Logic.

I never claimed yo be right about Mao. I rightly claim Mao is wrong about Marx's dialectics, and that's simple to see.

Lies again? Who do you think I am, you? I just leave a thread and say nothing about 'winning' or btfoing anyone. Unlike you I dont keep claiming I beat you or anyone. We talk past each other every single time, what is there to win? Perhaps you should go get analyzed, I think you have way too much of an obsession of winning a non-contest on the internet with me.

OP back at it - the only thing that I found pretty interesting about this article was when it talked about humans aren't mere machines who can be expected to have the same results to the same inputs, ultimately. How the very existence of a counter-ideology shows the weakness of hegemony. That was cool. But it didn't seem to really strike any significant hits on Marx's theory, which it attempted to deny.

Oh the guy actually showed up lol, hey. I thought your post was kinda interesting, as I just said lol. I am actually trying to begin reading Phenomenology of Spirit, and haven't read any major commentaries/summaries/interpretations, and don't plan to for a little bit. Other than you/AW's little series, of which I saw the first 5 minute vid. After my finals are over, I'm going to try to really deep dive into Hegel & other philosophy/marxist related stuff.

I'm not a neo-Kantian, you fucking presumptuous retard. The claim that Hegel is merely describing how thinking works is reductive at best. Hegel does make the claim that reality as a whole has a structure, but not in the sense that the whole provides the complete grounds for everything else. There are things in nature that are merely contingent, things that aren't necessitated by any underlying ground. In other words, your monist conception of the absolute is a load of shit because the absolute is completely self-determining by definition. In pointing this out I hope it becomes clear to anybody reading this post that this flawed reading of Hegel is where your dumb positions on science come from. Examples for those not in the know:
web.archive.org/web/20161003061832/http://8ch.net/leftypol/res/952164.html
goodreads.com/review/show/1682084293
Spinoza's claim that substance is in itself and conceived through itself is explicitly refuted by Hegel, who claims that this definition couldn't possible apply to the whole of reality. Your monistic conception of the absolute is essentially a Spinozist one, fam.

Oh bullshit, arguments are about proving the superiority of your ideas, and you wouldn't argue if you didn't recognize this to some degree (especially given how dishonestly you argue).

I am the Lacan/Badiou user from the other day. Althusser never contended a lack of subject, only that there existed an ontological void for which the subject was, well, subject to but not wholly encompassed within - thanks to the constantly multiplying number of particularities/subjectivities in an individuals life, the points of suture where the subject is rendered within the symbolic order and its structural edifice always has points where the subject slips beyond or outside of it. This, of course, is no egregious failure on the part of the system of thought, precisely because the subject regularly encounters the foundational negativities that are involved in its basic fabric but continually reifies them in some flat manner within the symbolic order, precipitating its reproduction. This is all well and good, but as we'd say - this is merely talking past the point.

On Hegelian substance, I note Hegel having argued in the Phenomenology the basic structure of substance - being the same as reality - as being of the same disposition of subject-consciousness, allows for the two to be reconciled in Spirit. This process is, obviously, one of consistent motion in trying to stitch this basic hole in being. Each process, consciousness and reality, must negate their separation in their synthesis in spirit, but this negation, that which is beyond them, is also a part of their fundamental being - consciousness seeks to render reality within itself and thus become as reality, while reality already contains consciousness which is real enough.

Without this constant incessant motion towards wanting to be something else, neither reality nor consciousness could be, as if consciousness merged with reality, it would no longer be consciousness of reality, and reality could not lay claim to the being of reality, whose only fabric was the object of the separate consciousness. The point being that the only measure by which the two are constituted are the mutual differences from the ideal, that of Spirit, but that their very difference is not a product of some thing-in-itself but rather the distortion of Spirit as a sublime object.

To address the matter of this within history, as I am sure we are both in agreement, history effectively ended with Hegel, not with Fukuyama. Here, I offer my hand to Hegel and not Marx, for it was Hegel who could understand precisely the reverse telos of history - the construction of reason in such a way that it conceives a superlative human freedom, the absolute totality for which immanence is an obvious corollary. Marx attempting to reframe the nomenclature, freedom as the market and the necessary human departure from "freedom" was nonetheless necessary in exposing that the supreme freedom was not within the capitalist horizon. However, as we'd come to see - the 'end of history' came nonetheless, and frustrated all the dogmatic Marxists and maybe even shocked the capitalists a bit, too. We now live in the age of "reason and freedom", where ideas and stories are for naught and their is always the contours of capital which you cannot negate. This, however, remains as unfree as when Marx addressed it; however, now the lesson must be for the revolutionary, as the Marxist philosophers have said for some time. Postmodern reversal has killed history as a refraction of the Spirit, no one believes in stories anymore - "the full measure of being has been achieved" the more erudite amongst them might say. Hegel's freedom is no more ubiquitous in this end of history than Marx's. This said, I now defer to Hegel on the conception of history, precisely in that only his horizon, and certainly not Marx, informed an "end of history". Just that this end of history was not the synthesis of freedom, but its ultimate abridgment. I end saying that the finest Marxists were those who understood the human necessity of communism, but who understood that it was Hegel in this regard who was the most Marxist

An addendum to this, being that the unchallenged essential characters of consciousness and reality are flux, and thus abnegation of essential fixture - their negation being the denial or revising of their being - the question remains to address that which claims to effectively reconcile the two into Spirit.

From this line of thought emerges the post-Kant and post-Spinoza Hegel, the question of the appearance of appearances reasserts itself in how Spirit can reconcile Being and its Object, while still - even as Hegel says, retains all of its negativities as a relation to itself, even those which should deny it, as above.

So enters the realm of the symbolic order, that which abridges and permits, and the consistent inconsistencies of any "absolute" order. This is the space of Lacan, Althusser, Badiou, Žižek, etc.

There he goes again using a word he does not understand to accuse me of something I have never claimed to believe with non citations from Hegel about things he never claims.

You attack a problem you have concocted of a person and philosopher that does not exist. Once again, m8, go see your psychoanalyst because you clearly have some deep issues with a fiction you mistake to be me.

Then why are you spitting their arguments at me? arguments focusing on the Phenomenology, the negative portion of the system as if it has any positive claims of Hegel to be taken out of it? Why can't you quote a single line of the Logic, Nature, or the Philosophy of Spirit from the positive system and give a logical derivation link? Because you either don't know and are spitting second hand (very likely) or you're the worst communicator ever.


I don't know why you bother tbh, no one understands you and you are hellbent on not being understood for all I see.


Talk to me elsewhere and I'll link you to a discord for the Phenomenology with some significant amount if discussion going into detail going on.

I don't write pieces I think are difficult or deep. Much of it is, I think, obvious with very little thought, but people seem to lack that little bit when they're caught up within a dogma (I am no exception).

To anyone claiming we have arguments: Whatever you're smoking, please stop smoking it. To call these posts between us arguments is honestly shameful compared to what actual arguments are. We have disagreement, spats at best. To think there is any dialogue happening when we all talk past each other willingly is silly.

I haven't learned anything from you or about you other than that you refuse to talk my language (despite claiming to know it), and I have made it clear I don't and won't read or speak your language just to find out if you have anything of worth to say.

Couple of things.

If there's a scruple to be made within the philosophical zone, you use the appropriate nomenclature - that said, aside from the Althusser deal I really didn't say anything profoundly obfuscatory. Plus, you've nothing to note on the inclusion of the Phenomenology or Philosophy of History.

Your response here is essentially
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can either make the claim that my arguments don't apply to you or you can make the claim that I'm wrong, but making both of these claims at the same time is a performative contradiction. The only valid argument you had here was that I didn't cite anything from a primary text, but that's irrelevant since you haven't even made a substantive counterargument yet. But for the sake of """discussion""" I'll cite some shit for you, fam.

You're such an asshole, they made good posts in good faith and you decided to shit on them for no reason.

Then quit talking to me if you're not intending to communicate.

Then use it. The 'appropriate' nomenclature is not >your< personal nomenclature or what is popular. I've already made clear I know nothing, and am in no way interested in knowing, of your own jargon. Speak English or Hegelian qua Hegelian, Marxist qua Marxist, or don't.

I know what monism is, I know the Hegelian terms you're using. You're using them wrong. Learn to use the language correctly or don't use it so I don't misinterpret you. Have I argued against you based on your Lacanian and Badiuian terms? Not at all, because I have no clue what those are.

First, learn what valid is. If you're working towards a degree, or have a degree, at least use terms correctly. There is nothing valid here. Me telling you that you talk to me in moonspeak is not not 'valid'. It's just what you're doing. What kind of fucking moron thinks I need to give proof that I have no clue what you mean? Can you read? Here, read this and don't respond if you can't understand:

I don't read your canon, I won't read your canon, and I won't google the terms of your canon. If you know my theoretical languages, talk to me in them. If you don't, talk to me in the most basic English your autistic brain is capable of grasping. If you're going to 'school' me, at least do it right and TEACH me you fucking idiot.

Oh look, something I've been aware of forever, which I've told to many people openly and have never made any claims you claim I make. Will you ever stop claiming your fiction is me? Hope so.

If it talks like a retard and writes like a retard, well you know what they say…

Nah, read this and recognize you're a TERRIBLE communicator. You're not going to get any better if you refuse to acknowledge your problem. I don't know why you would want to not know this and improve it. Don't do it for me, I don't care. Do it for the others you'll help in the future you dumbfuck.

Hey, if some random internet autist keeps on lying about you and making false claims I'm sure you'll just give them a rimjob and a kiss too.

Who the hell are you to say they made a post in good faith? Are you them? Are you me? Social tip: don't get between two people in an argument, you're not going to help. Lying about me, ignoring what I say, talking past me, ignoring the recognition that we're talking past each other—yeah, that's good faith right?

If you seriously believe I decided to shit on them, I'm sorry to let you know you're too stupid to recognize high brow intellectual insulting. Passive aggressive barbs hidden under verbosity carry the exact same content. I'm not that refined, I find it myself more at home being blatant and openly hostile rather than hiding it.

Where did they lie about you? What false claims did they make? All they did was make a point about Althusser and refuted things you said that were dismissive of their ideology.
On any type of social media there will be interlocutors joining into your conversations. Whine all you want, I was only sharing my opinion.
Wow, self-aggrandizing much?

Well that's nice.

You're talking to two different people, at least.

Okay, I'm not sure what just happened. Was he insisting that we misrepresent the canon of Hegel by inclusion of the negativities of his system of thought? I count that between you and I, that covers the symbolic negativities in Phenomenology, Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Nature, and even the Philosophy of Right

Not to mention the rest of the autistic screeching, not quite sure why it is he insists on being the measure of representing Hegel in his full breadth, when that summons him to deny the radical implications of Hegel' work.

No, I'm noting that you are using the negative conclusions of the Phenomenology where problems and concepts appear not in their truth, but in their historical arbitrariness. There is a noticeable difference of how concepts are exposed and elaborated in the Phenomenology and the positive system, and Hegel himself tells you the Phenomenology is a negative system about natural consciousness, an erroneous cognition. To use the Phenomenology as the positive account of what anything is, and to use those views for your basis of attack, is itself just a one sided ignorance of the fact that the Phenomenology's accounts are accounts of appearances of Spirit's self-conceptions, not its truth.

I don't, never claim to do so, and if you claim to do so, well…

No one here has actually given a claim of what such an implication is in logical form. You've given a statement and an external connection of what is convincing to you, a subjective claim. I don't even know what 'radical' implication you're talking about. The only radical implication it seems was implied by you was something about [Lacanian buzz words] concerning the subject.

There's a reason I replied to the other Lacanian and not to you. Precisely because you're outside your canon.

Here's as base as it gets: The existence of antinomies within Hegel is not a rejection, but the idea that a reader of Hegel could conceive some TRUTH from his canon that isn't symbolic. What that means is that it represents the 'Real', which, and this is plain language, characterized by impossibility.

No one is out here pulling anomalous conclusions from spurious correlations.

Completely outside of all of this """"discourse"""", I find it interesting that this is an excellent enumeration of that cognitive study done most recently showing that iconoclastic inquiry provokes anger and hostility as though one is being threatened. I'll recommend you some Lacan to make that all better ;D

twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/939617785495240705
Now he's tweeting about reading Philosophy of Nature. It's almost as if he had only read the Phenomenology and Logic and thought he had a complete grasp on Hegel's view of how symbolic considerations constrain our epistemological theories. Really makes you think, no? I dunno why he had to be such an ignorant ass tbh.

...

What's wrong with Lacan?

ITT: Hegelian (and not just any Hegelian, fucking Anal Water, but well leave that for now) calls other philosophy moonspeak. Holy shit.

YouTubers were a mistake.

You don't have to wait for his answer to know it won't be of any particular value. He's already said multiple times he hasn't read any of Lacan' work and won't

Don't afford him any credit here, given his sheer level of reproductive pedantry, he could one hundred percent just fold this into his teleological, closed-system reading of Hegel and blame negativities on "historical abstractions"

Isn't Hegel's system totalizing since he believes intuitions were lesser forms of an idea? Perhaps not historically totalizing (in which case I'd like to ask what you think of Lefevbre's reading of Hegel).

Why does he hate Lacan?

Also, from a Hegelian perspective what's wrong with Lacanianism anyway? Doesn't Zizek prove you can hold to both?

...

This would only carry if one assumed the overall process of consciousness and reality were reconciled in Absolute Spirit ("…the highest identity which being has, and therefore observes all the determinate beings in the world as a nullity and entities to be sacrificed, the ethical substance has the significance of absolute power and the absolute soul." -The Philosophy of Spirit, § 554). The problem with the simple closing of the system here is precisely that the Absolute (the totality) can only ever be done in representations (as in reality and consciousness in being are not a process in unity, but continual elements of disunity, Second and third paragraph here talk about it) which Hegel recognizes. There can be no totality, no formalist, reading of Hegel that doesn't end with a telos (so most of the nuanced readings of ==Geist== are that it is not the telos, but as the introduction to the emancipatory philosophy that does away with the telos as an element of philosophical dispute). This is of course as bare bones as it can be, but thats still a general idea. I'm not actually familiar with Lefevbre's reading - more on his influence on the situationist and structuralist movement, is it a worthwhile read in your opinion?


He has always stated he prefers reading first hand material, so reading him through another philosopher is not his fancy. But yes, in the modern Marxian philosophers canon, the unilinear conception of history has long since bowed out for a Hegelian notion of the development of history. For Žižek, the only way to be a proper Marxist is to be a radical reader of Hegel, and Lacan is who he reads Hegel through. So yeah, for the most part Hegel has long been a companion of modern emancipatory thought

youtube.com/watch?v=6rctqCC2ym4