Literature Thread #6

Lovely gondola.

Yeah I have that version. It doesn't help much trust me, you need a proper secondary text.

that's probably the easiest to read entirely. Good call.

DO NOT STEAL THIS GONDOLA

It was drawn for me by Spor Arain strictly for my new podcast thing whatever the fuck, I am only allowing you to have a glance at it.

all things are my property.

:^)

I think you'll be wasting your time. it's a really hard book and I'm not even sure if it's relevant anymore in light of dialectical materialism and whatever Zizek is doing.

Oh it's relevant.

Yeah but it pays off to be able to say you are a special snowflake who actually gets phenomenology.

I mean, that is pretty much the only reason we actually read this shit.

I disagree, I certainly don't understand phenomenology but it really is important once you take a look at it. You do some around reading and you'll see that it really is cool.

no u

reading state 'n rev' rn

I made it to the chapter on understanding and I realized that I couldn't keep up. Even the secondary literature was like "this is where Hegel tells you to fuck yourself".

It just seems like if I wanted to read about ideology. I should probably just skip to the relevant writers, rather than read stuff from the 1800's.

I think if you do that and then go back that's a good idea, because it's always good to know where the original guy was coming from

Yes. IIRC in US there is some dumb way you can avoid charges if you look like police but don't claim to be one.

Good luck with that. I'm sticking to DiaMat. I'm planning to chew through Ilyenkov some time soon-ish.

Is he actually doing anything?

Not really. You need to train your brains.

Reminder that dia-mat is okay but is a misunderstanding of dia-idea

Reminder to commit suicide

Everything is a waste of time.

Tbqh fam. I wanted to read more contemporary stuff, but apparently nihilism is hot right now with anarchists. And I ironically don't want to read about nihilism because I also think that's a waste of time ;_;

Passive life-denying nihilism such as Schopenhauer is.

Life-affirming nihilism like Cioran, Nietzsche isn't a waste of time.

Through reading will I finally be able to muster the ability to organize the Canadian proletariat to finally rise up and seize the means?

I rolled a 66-faced, digital die, it landed on 37, and decided to read Haggai—it's the 37th book—all the way to the end of the Old Testament. Now I'm just reading commentaries and analyses on those last 3 books.

Not really doing any more serious reads until Trungpa's Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism and Žižek's Less Than Nothing arrives in the mail…

Only thing you can do is self enjoyment, by whatever means. Follow your unique desires and pashions and maybe read some stuff on how to get that. (Like the abolition of Society and all its dynamics.)

Speaking about time in an unironic way.
Check out this essay on time by Feral Faun.
The Liberation of Motion Through Space
deoxy.org/libermotion.htm

A radically different way of experiencing living occurs when we are consciously creating time for ourselves. Due to the limits of a language developed within this time-dominated social context, this way of experiencing life is often spoken of in temporal terms as well, but as a subjective "time", as in: "The time when I was climbing Mount Hood…" But I'd rather not refer to this as subjective "time" since it has no shared purpose with social time.

Yeah. I made this dumb reading list and I'm too deep in to give up. It unfortunately started with Schopenhauer because I was too dumb to understand Hegel. But I decided to just read the secondary literature and work my way to more modern philosophy.

Anyway, right now I'm also listening to an audiobook: the case for Jesus :^)

Reminder that it is DiaMat for this exact reason. And it is not misunderstanding if it is deliberate expropriation of means of philosophical discourse.

Through reading - no. Through organizing - yes.

the only case for Jesus you need is paradoxical subjectivity :^) apologetics is heretical

You aren't getting my meaning. A diamat system isn't conceivable because it would no longer be dialectical. The dialectic bridges the gap between the materialist and idealist systems. So to call it materialist as opposed to idealist is ridiculous. Dialectical idealism *is* dialectical materialism.

Have you read Tolstoy's theological writings by any chance. That's mostly the reason I started with Schopenhauer in the first place. That and apparently Kiekergaard and Nietzche liked him.

No, been meaning to though =(
Not surprised that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche liked the same people so often, they were very similar.

LE GUD IS DEAD XDDDDDDDDdd

Let's get leftypol educated again. Quality of posts has been sliding.

What does this mean exactly? Because there are two possible ways I can interpret this, but not a single one makes enough sense in the context of

No. What is ridiculous to blindly use Hegel's definition of Materialism, when we are talking Marxism.

See, the main thing about Hegel's dialectical method is that it bridges seemingly or self-professed irreconcilable positions and shows that they presuppose each other.

Like pepsi and coca cola exist because of each other. Or being and nothing, the classical example, is bridged by "becoming".

The rest is just rhetoric, so until you can actually tell me what you think is different between Marx's and Hegel's dialectical methods then there's no point in this argument.

Reading secondary literature gave me a bunch of useless info. Like Kiekergaard's middle name started with an A. And he once remarked "he's A.S. And I'm S.A. lol I guess I we must he opposites or something".

But that's the kek part about secondary lit, the super useless info

I finished The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley. It's beautifully written but of scarce substance.

I'm convinced that was a statement about establishment destroying belief, which was similar to statements Kierkegaard made. I mean he was probably atheist but he had mad respect for Jesus

Not an argument.

Yeah no actually Jesus was retarded read Dawkins.

Stop being silly. You asked what it means that it bridges. I told you. You aren't going to defend "dia""mat" I presume (whichever one of those parts is false is up to the reader)

O shit foiled again =((((

...

Huhmn…I'll read some YA fiction until I have to go in. Was gifted Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe from a former professor and haven't had the chance nor the care to read it. First few pages feel like something from Joan Didion, but not in a good way. And cue the homosexual protagonists. I have a hunch this is going to take a turn for the saccharine and obvious.

I did not ask for some abstract explanation, just to make a post.

I had a very specific reason: I asked you what exactly does this mean in the context of you claims that "Dialectical idealism *is* dialectical materialism".

I.e. how does it prove it?

You supplied some vague explanation that has no relevance to this. It does not prove that "Dialectical idealism *is* dialectical materialism" in any way, nor does it make any connection to those concepts.

I.e. it is absolutely irrelevant to the question I asked.

Hm. Apparently, we have philosophical idpol now.

I already argued with Hegelian crowd a few times. Last time they started claiming that actually understanding DiaMat was unnecessary, since Hegel already used similarly-sounding words and Hegel was not impressed with them.

Welp, Idealism in action. What can I say?

Not happening. Just pick up the fucking book if you want to actually understand him.

How does it prove that it bridges the gap? It doesn't, you didn't ask that question. You asked how it bridges it. I'm not entering a debate over Hegel with someone who hasn't bothered to read Hegel.

Your question:
What does this mean exactly?
My answer:
It bridges it by showing it presupposes it

Nice backpedalling.

Are you fucking retarded?

Love in a Time of Loneliness by Paul Verhaeghe

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, The Republic by Plato, The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, and The Gommunist Manigfesto.

I'm new.

All thoghetter or one by one?
Why Wealth of Nations?

Good choices!

For any other new comrades too - check out >>>/freedu/ for free learning resources, PDFs, etc.

Good books
I like the republic don't hurt me leftypol

Shiina is my waifu

Because know your enemy comrade. All together.

I have saved up a lot of pdfs from /freedu/. Really useful board.

it really is. More people should use it.

The Wealth of Nations isnt a book about the defence of capitalism but of a critique on mercantilism. You should read Austrian School lit to get to know your enemy. To get to know Capitalism then you must read jean Baptiste Say, Ricardo and perhaps Mill.

Knowing capitalism isn't hard. They've got very little in the way of complex theory.

The Qu'ran.

This book is the best one I've read. It has great political theory and perfectly blends a Marxian analysis of current politics with a Stirnirite analysis of culture. This book helped redpill me into leftism. The only flaw with the book is that I can't tell if that is a potato or a drum on the cover.

kek'd nice meme /mu/m

Yeah everybody knows the diffrince between fixed and liquid capital and the relation between price increase of land with higher margain and your land of use. But to be seriouse, everyone who wants to critique. capitalism should read Jean Baptiste Say cause his book A Treatise on Political Economy is the foundation of economic theory for capitalism. (With On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo)

It isnt hard but it also isnt so simple as reducing all philosophy towards its all about le meaning of life

...

I sure hope you're not implying those things are complex.

They are not complex but it does have theory and reducing it to hurr durr no theory is silly. (inb4 mention of austrian school rhetoric)

I said complex theory, I didn't say no theory.

Recommend me some starting anarcho-nihilism and post-left books

Just read Bob Black's articles, realize they're trash, then go back to Hegel.

Ok =(

Anarcho-Nihilism

Post Left Anarchy

This tbh fam.

Hegel is such a fucking shitty writer. Fuck him and fuck dialectics

Hello Satan, stop trying to throw people off the correct dialectical path please =)

I'm just frursturated because I can't bring myself to believe dialectics

Why tho friend?

I spent an ASSLOAD of time reading and taking notes on the phenomenology of spirit (this copy contained many useful annotations)

Now I have a decent understand of dialectics, but I'm not happy, because I still don't "believe it". It's just not clicking in my head

How long? Several years?

Like all my designated "theory time" for 3 months. About 1-2 hours a day

Switch to DiaMat. It makes much more sense to inverse Hegels logic and treat this whole "final truth" concept as a cognitive bias.

I know that feel. I think it's more of a problem of application. I didn't really get that click until ironically I began reading Kierkegaard.

...

...

Hegel has nothing to do with Marx retard

I understood enough so as not to confuse him with Marx. You, apparently, did not.

you didn't read the conversation, did you

Oh boy, this is cancer. You should get some good old bleach down your neck tbh

This is the place you can pretty easily refute my position by explaining Marx's Materialism.

One would've had to wonder, why you don't, except you already admitted that the only way you can explain anything about Hegel is to copy-paste Hegel's book in all entirety. Such understanding of Hegel you have.

Unsurprisingly, the same proves to be true for Marx.

I would refute if you offered an argument, unfortunately you are doing the general tankie thing of doing nothing but rhetoric.

And I'm guessing you're refusing to actually try and understand Hegel then lol

It was you who went into full butthurt mode twice when I recommended to someone else to use DiaMat for making Hegel's ideas practically useful.

And both times you failed to present anything coherent beyond usual pseudo-intellectual shitposting.

I'm not offering you anything, you inbred troll.

t-t-t-troll s-spotted!

You can't explain what makes it useful though? Lel ok keep passing off the culpability like a good tankie.

It was my understanding that both Nietzche and Kiekergaard were at least arguing against Hegelians in their work. Don't you see a contradiction there between what Hegel thought and other people's philosophy you seem to agree with?

Why would a Christian socialist be interested in nihilism?

I'm pretty disappointed if nihilist anarchism is the best we can do right now. And yes, I realize it's a superficial dismissal.

Any non-Tolkien fantasy comrades ?
I want something new but the fucking elves orcs are everywhere i want some non-Tolkien fantasy novels

Kierkegaard argued against what he called "half-learned Hegelian robbers", people who perverted Hegel. He saw that Hegel had a much deeper philosophical richness than what faggots like Marsden suggested.

He actually had a lotta respect for Hegel.
I mean yeah, there are contradictions but

Guilty pleasure.

Any ? plz

Check out M. John Harrison's Viriconium cycle. About 400 pages overall.

Also China Mieville is good lefty prop but I wouldn't call it fantasy exactly (at least not medieval fantasy).

Grace of Kings by Ken Liu

Although they are not medievaly magicy enough for my taste i will check them soon comrades

Thx

I've been reading Limits to Capital and The Enigma of Capital by David Harvey recently. So far I'm finding them to be incredibly interesting reads and would highly recommend them to anybody.

What I'm preparing to do is dive back into the philosophy aspects of Marxism. I've been studying economics for a while and I'm starting to get bored with it. I'm thinking of revisiting the Left Hegelians (Possibly the Right Hegelians just to learn about different interpretations of Hegel.) My Hegel has never been that great, so I need to constantly read him and people who wrote about his philosophy until I get it.

Any Classic Econ? What are your thoughts on Sismondi?

Is this bait?

Also, you study philosophy before you go for theory. It's faster that way and you understand things much better.

Marx was a Hegelian even if he didn't understand him all that well. That's why they're called the young HEGELIANS.

I would call Marx a Hegelian Epicurusist tbh

And that's why i'm calling you Tinfoil Hegelian.

Go. Away. And take your Lord and Saviour with you.****

what ?

Hah, classic stalinist can't argue so resorts to gulags and insults :^)
Marx called himself a Hegelian and WAS a Hegelian. He sort of properly applied dialectical idealism to political economy. He just wasn't the hot shot subversive goy he thought he was.