Filler: What exactly is "Aufhebung"…? It's a philosophical concept related to dialectics Marx picked up from Hegel. Its meaning is complex, ambiguous and even seemingly contradictory — it alludes to both elevation and abolition.There is no real English equivalent and it's often translated as "sublation", a fancy word if I ever heard one.
… But that's all I managed to grasp about the whole thing.

Other urls found in this thread:


Tell me

I flit around from philosophy to philosophy on fanciful whims but that was only after I realized nihilism meant I didn't need to stick to one and allowed me the freedom to do so. So I guess nihilism is the most influential for me.

SHHHHHH, don't summon a certain pseud whose name starts with A and ends with W.

Sounds pretty gay, my dude.

John Zerzan will bring the dawn, and spread primitivism around the world! Effectively destroying America; bring world peace for generations to come!


Not if I'm preparing mentally for communism.


Although I might not be 100% correct or accurate when it comes to what Hegel meant. I do think that the most useful interpretation of Aufhebung, is that societies and how they are structured always carry imperfections which pose challenges for the people within society. These challenges have to be overcome which in turn elevates society to a different form. Like how the change from feudalism to capitalism wasn't a single step process, however, a long row of changes to fix problems for the people within society. These fixes and changes did of course carry a whole load of new problems. We can even see this in our current form of capitalism, which has changed significantly since its inception, yet still carries the core of what capitalism was during the industrial revolution. All while new problems keep popping up and new fixes are developed. Ultimately it is also up to the people living under capitalism, experiencing the strain which the system puts unto us, to try and change it, to cause the next Aufhebung. Whether it is the bourgeoisie who find a new fix to save capitalism, or if it is an abused proletariat which revolts and forms socialism. Either path could be considered a form of Aufhebung caused by the strain of society upon humans.

Jacques Rancière.

Kaneko Fumiko

Jacques Derrida.
He truly understood that everything was spooks, even language itself.
He is the most accomplished Cultural Marxist to date, and vastly surpassed Lacan in "charlatanerie" without needing to resort to a pompous style. The obfuscation in his writings was natural and free-flowing.
He triggered every 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧analytical philosopher🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 and uneducated mathematician wannabes of his time who couldn't speak fluent Ancient Greek, and did so with grace.
He also paid homage to Guy Debord towards the end of his life, rather than Baudrillard, because he went so post-Marxist that he became a classic Marxist again.
I have nothing but respect for this master of ruse.

Georges Bataille is cool too. Story of the Eye is guaranteed to traumatize every normalfag for the end of times.

Stoicism by Marcus Aurelius.

I consider myself a Hobbesian communist. The greatest possible commonwealth is one without class conflict.

If it's not Heidegger plowing the shit out of Hannah Arendt I'm not interested

Can you explain it a little? Always came off to me as 'do what you can by yourself to survive in this crazy world. Thinking too much about your problems make them worse, just become passive".

who would sign up to operate the springs and wheels of your dead worm carcass?
That's Perlman-talk. Also, maybe read Introduction to Civil War by Tiqqun

I find Hegel's one of the most inspiring, as well as Heidegger's. Hegel for the dialectic and Heidegger for the Call of Conscience.
For what it's worth, Aufheben means to pick up (like to take up and carry) and it also means to void or cancel something.

Hegel's whole philosophy is a presentation of exposition, unfolding, dialectical development. It is the material theory of the idea, where what is real is rational, what is rational is real, and the truth is always concrete. So his concepts begin on the pole of immediacy and abstractness (Being, Nothing) and grow through mediations (Becoming, Measure, Judgment) to concreteness (Notion). So when we finally get to the Notion (Begriff) we still say the Notion IS but in a higher sense than immediate abstract Being. Being has at once been negated and preserved in the Notion.

In other words, the outcome of a dialectical negation is not plain nothingness but a determine negation, a negation which still posits something new. For instance, Being is so abstract and immediate it IS NOTHING at all isn't a pure negation since we can then say Nothing also is. Then the movement between these poles is revealed as the more real concept which contains both Being and Nothing in unity, Becoming. Again, we dropped off both Being and Nothing but preserve them because Being and not-Being are implicit in Becoming.

Ted Kaczynski Renzo Novatore and David Benatar

The milkman.

What do you think of this?

Sartre is pretty inspiring

Marcus Aurelius comes to mind, but that's less about personal inspiration and more about just surviving day-to-day when things are shitty.

I like to think about what people like Debord or Baudrillard would think of modernity if they were to be suddenly transported into it.

Nietzsche is probably the most 'inspiring' philosopher to me. Encouraging people to find their own way through life is an interesting message for a philosopher but it is certainly a message that transcends eras, and the way that he was able to explain it, I don't know, it's like looking at a beautiful painting - you can see it and appreciate its beauty and be moved by it, but you could never really explain the painting to someone else in a way that would convey the beauty you saw. That's kinda' how I feel about Nietzsche.


Spinoza is very dear to me. Aside from getting me into philosophy in general, I consider him an essentially Enlightenment figure before the actual period of the Enlightenment. He rustled a lot of jimmys in his time, and still does with parts of his thought that are hard to reconcile with the liberal paradigm.
Most of all, he convinced me to become a determinist, and his reasonings were like things I've always believed but couldn't articulate.
I think this general worldview can fit snuggly into a sort of structuralist, anti-humanist Marxism that appeals to me.

funny he's not here yet

I confess philosophy itself doesn't inspire me, perhaps because I'm yet to find someone I agree with 100% on politics. What does inspire is a good firebrand diatribe relating that philosophy to real world problems, with plenty of figures of speech, cold numbers showing how bad things are, and of course, pathos on as high a scale as possible.

Heidegger and Plato

What does Holla Forums think of pragmatism?

I like Stirner's theory of The Unique *gets tomatos thrown at them*
and I accept The Transcendental and Karma theory - you are subject to the law of cause and effect, and every ill you suffer must have been your own doing – untill you break the cycle and get free.
I would love to develop the ideas of Robert Anton Wilson more. To me, the central nervous system is the main stage for science and research.

Karma is such bullshit as a communist I don't see how you accept it. You're basically saying the poor are poor because they are evil and the rich are rich because they are good when there are countless examples of the opposite being true.

Badiou, tbh…


Seconding this. "Karma" is bourgeois-enabling pseudo-spiritual bullshit that holds no logical value and foolishly believes in the just-world fallacy.

While I find some of the Buddhist and Taoist texts to be inspiring (invaluable, even), I know that the objectors are fully right. I think we really need to consider the different kinds of world they lived in compared to us. "Backward" peasantries made domination seem a lot more "natural", it was generally a more stable system. They did not possess Marx's fundamental insights on material production, which are incompatible with karmic theory. Also, these philosophers were all complicit in domination, they wrote for the perspective of domination i.e. "the sage is ruthless. He treats men like straw dogs" - Lao Tzu the "anarchist"

no, Marxism is not in line with unilinear historical development such as monism which Spinoza was the progenitor of, and all that which emerged therefrom. Structural, anti-humanism in Marxism revolves largely around the concept of transient (or aleatory) material relations. So assuming any necessary value to material objects as refractive of human subject is a very serious distention from structuralist Marxism and its chief philosopher, Althusser.

So long as we're not talking the "philosophy is the tradition of the obscuring of being" Heidegger, and we're talking the "Language as the register of social being a la Wittgenstein" Heidegger

Analytic philosophy for epistemology and metaphysics, Marx for political economy, and unironically Max Stirner for ethics.

Spinozist ethics are superior to Stirner's tbh.

Me tbh

Honestly this for me too. I used it as a constant reminder that it's all ideology and behind it there is nothing.

Nothing inspires me, sadly, except perhaps to kill myself.