HTML banned?!?!
- Thread starter zhao
- Start date
I've been reading Zizek on virtue and divine terror, and the irreducible nature of terror within the revolutionary moment. Thematized in a variety of ways but mainly via the Hegelian "Fight to the death" or risking of life as moment of transformation within self-consciousness.
And Zhao- read Foucault's "The Order of Things" especially the chapter on "Man and his doubles" -- on the need for a Nietzschean "disappearance of Man" in order for thought to begin again- basically where Man=the Kantian Empirico-Transcendental doublet. Then read Deleuze on Foucault for an in depth reading of how this is achievable (the passing of Man) without falling into the trap of finitiude...
And anyway- its as much "democracy" and "human rights" embeded in the counter-conception of Man as animal-being which I despise.
Agreed.
vimothy
yurp
What's that in?
The Zizek piece is in the introduction to a new collection of Robespierre's writings, called "Virtue and Terror". It reprints large bits of his piece on Badiou however which is available online "Notes from an ongoing debate"... http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/26/85
Tho the "fight to the death" stuff is all from Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
Tho the "fight to the death" stuff is all from Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Can't you see that all of this is so vague as to be completely useless? What kind of purchase can anyone who is not of the same vague set of mind as you or Gek supposed to find on any of this?
vimothy
yurp
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
I wrote a big reply but what I had to say basically boils down to - asking questions is not the same as making statements. I know what nomad is talking about and in relation to that discussion I (almost) completely agree so it's irrelevant to say that there most likely is a genetic basis for skin colour *ducks*
I don't like this position that 'racism' is just a belief in the existence of races, and that that in itself is beneath contempt. All you can really say is that there are no 'races', so it is wrong to believe in them and if you do you might be in danger of falling for ideologies that would define people purely on the basis of superficial characteristics. Anything else just sounds like dogma.well believing in genetic differences drawn along "racial" lines is the basis of racisim is it not?
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Really it's prejudice and discrimination that are the problem, not 'racism'. Labeling someone with a such a strongly charged pejorative such as 'racist' just because they might have an erroneous or incomplete understanding of genetics (who doesn't? - we don't have it all worked out) seems like prejudice to me.
But really my point was that asking questions is not the same as holding beliefs. Accusations of racism are thrown around too casually I think.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well it depends what you mean by 'differences', doesn't it? Obviously there are certain physical differences like skin colour: if there weren't, the very concepf of 'race' (whether you 'believe' in it or not) would never have arisen in the first place, since we'd all look the same!
Racism arises, IMO, when people start to make generalisations of mental characteristics along racial lines. This doesn't have to be intelligence; in the past we've had racial stereotypes about personality (the 'mysically inclined' Oriental, 'untrustworthy' Arab and so on).
Last edited:
Yes it is.
N
nomadologist
Guest
*Adopts patronising tone of voice, with slight shades of hysteria*
If you know that that was my point, then in what sense was it not clear that that was my point?
I said I know that you CLAIM that was your point, not "I know that was your point." Read what I actually said, not what you assume that I said. You seem to have a problem with this--you rarely respond to what people have actually said.
It wasn't immediately clear that you were not dead earnest in calling Gek a fascist. Then you qualified your statement by claiming you were not 100% serious and only trying to demonstrate that Gek was abusing the term racist by hurling an equally "ridiculous" insult at him. This was not a particularly effective method of achieving this goal, any way you look at it.
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
Are you serious? There were several scientists at the time pointing out that we had no idea what atomic weaponry might unleash on the world, and look what it HAS unleashed--all sorts of political conflict and upheaval, not the least of which has likely been at the source of significant bloodshed.
The point that people like Gek are making is not that we should intentionally destroy millions of people (though I'd defer to Gek w/r/t what his own opinions are if he doesn't agree), the point is that the end of capitalism will invariably be extremely violent, no matter how it arises and no matter under whose auspices it is conducted.
N
nomadologist
Guest
I wrote a big reply but what I had to say basically boils down to - asking questions is not the same as making statements. I know what nomad is talking about and in relation to that discussion I (almost) completely agree so it's irrelevant to say that there most likely is a genetic basis for skin colour *ducks*
The point is not that it's racist to simply believe in races because you have your biology wrong, the point is that inherent in any belief in a biological foundation for race is the idea that races have different traits that are distinct to them on the level of a sort of biological determinism that has hideous implications. The idea that "blackness" is based on something tangible in our DNA is the same sort of thinking that, for example, guided the Nazis to conduct medical experiments on Jews, who were considered a "race" of people rather than a religious group. (Einstein had interesting things to say about this way back when, and fought the notion of the "racial" basis of Judiasm long before it became a hot topic)
Biology isn't destiny. Even if race were genetically or biologically sound as a concept, "blackness" (for example) STILL wouldn't be one-in-the-same with being born a black person. Whether you like it or not, there is a sort of insidious implication in the belief that race is biological and the only road it leads down is toward what Lacanians would call "fantasmic inflation"...
Need to sleep, more on this tomorrow...
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
I disagree wholeheartedly. Prejudice and discrimination are symptoms of racism, not vice versa. There is no reason to look at one race as inherently "inferior" at this or that, or as having any sort of essential and negative traits, unless you believe that a persons traits are determined by biological mechanisms and are therefore universal within that race and unavoidable/unchangeable.
crackerjack
Well-known member
That was not his point at all. Read the thread i linked to and ffs stop reinterpreting what people have written for your own convenience (the same goes for your utterly facile first response to the nukes bit too).
Edit: actually, that's a little unfair since the thread in question is about 25 pages long. So let me summarise. In there Gek does not say 'let's have a revolution, and if tens of millions die, well, it's all for the greater good". He says, "let's hope tens of millions die and with any luck we might get a revolution out of it. Even though we almost certainly won't, it's got to be worth the chance."
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Ok, ok. It was not obvious to you that that was my point. I've been giving you too much credit.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Actually, I think it worked quite well.
Last edited:
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Nonsense. People look at each other as inferior (or superior) for all sorts of reasons. People discriminate and are prejudicial for all sorts of reasons. Maybe I dislike Welsh people because a Welsh kid at school was an asshole. It doesn't mean I think there's a genetic basis for Welshness, and it would be an irrational dislike but that doesn't stop that kind of thing happening. Maybe groups of people are discriminated against because they are perceived as 'superior' and therefore a threat.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
However problematic or taboo you find it there are in fact, statistically speaking, traits that can be attributed to populations based on DNA. I draw no conclusions from that whatsoever and realise that it would be extremely dangerous to do so but it's the bleeding truth so perhaps we can see why someone might hold that to be the case? You can't just sweep it under the rug. There's got to be a more coherent argument.
Just because a particular belief more often than not leads to unpleasant conclusions first of all doesn't necessarily make it incorrect, but it also doesn't mean that the holder of that belief has extrapolated it backwards from those hideous conclusions. Holding that all 'racists' are bad is prejudicial too in a way.
It seems inadequate to me to say that a belief in a biological basis for certain traits nearly always leads to evil actions and therefore must not be permitted. It must either be shown why this is incorrect or it must be shown why further conclusions based on that belief are illogical and potentially dangerous. If you just say 'racism' is off limits it will keep coming back.
Last edited: