Kierkegaard on the Internet: Anonymity vs. Commitment in the Present Age →

louisdoulas:

Thoughts?

I believe the 21st Century has commitment issues. 

(Source: ldoulas)

"In a theater, it happened that a fire started offstage. The clown came out to tell the audience. They thought it was a joke and applauded. He told them again, and they became still more hilarious. This is the way, I suppose, that the world will be destroyed—amid the universal hilarity of wits and wags who think it is all a joke."

Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or. (via ex-ist)

"

Nietzsche can steel you in your secret conviction that, no, I’m a genius, or at least very special, and everyone else is the loser. Like you, Nietzsche was misunderstood in his day, ignored or derided by other scholars. Like you, Nietzsche seems to find everything around him lame, either stodgy and moralistic or sick with democratic vulgarity. Nietzsche seems to believe in aristocracy, which is taboo these days, which might be why no one recognizes you as the higher sort of guy you suspect yourself to be. And crucially, if you’re a horny and poetic young man whose dream girl is ever present before your eyes but just out of reach, Nietzsche frames his project of resistance and overcoming as not just romantic but erotic.

If you’re a thoughtful and unhappy young man, in other words, why wouldn’t you want to read someone who seems to reflect both your alienation and your uncontainable desire back to you as masculine bravery and strength? Indeed, there’s something in every book you’re likely to pick up—some enticement of form or content or both—that addresses your horniness/alienation and flatters you in the pretense that, though you have no formal training and are actually kind of a crappy and distracted reader, you are doing philosophy.

"

Jared Lee Loughner’s Nietzsche: Why the philosopher is misunderstood by angry young men. - By Matt Feeney - Slate Magazine (via jomc)

(via jomc)

androphilia:

DISCOURSE IS NOT LIFE

Discourse is not life: its time is not your time; in it, you will not be reconciled to death; you may have killed God beneath the weight of all that you have said; but don’t imagine that, with all that you are saying, you will make a man that will live longer than he.

- Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (1972)

(via smkflwr)

tobia:

Michel Foucault & Noam Chomsky: Justice vs. Power

via alienationtoday. 

View high resolution

adamquinn:

seanxvx:

funkyfest:

kimfffunk:

My parents sure are proud of all the debt I’m going to be in for going to college!

I started a tumblr for my comics and illustrations! Check it out!

And also: Please dear god tell me whether or not this is funny. I find it hilarious, but that probably means it’s only funny to me. It’s Butler and Foucault as food. Dear god what am I doing with myself.

NEW FAVORITE BLOG

FUNNIEST THING ON TUMBLR EVER

(Source: kfffunk)

"

There is a second part of the Spinozan definition taken up by Deleuze that is not cited as often. It is that a power to affect and be affected governs a transition, where a body passes from one state of capacitation to a diminished or augmented state of capacitation. This comes with the corollary that the transition is felt. A distinction is asserted between two levels, one of which is feeling and the other capacitation or activation. But the distinction comes in the form of a connection. This separation-connection between feeling and activation situates the account between what we would normally think of as the self on the one hand and the body on the other, in the unrolling of an event that’s a becoming of the two together.

This already yields a number of terms that can be put to use and developed. First, the feeling of the transition as the body moves from one power of existence to another has a certain separability from the event it is bound up with, by virtue of its distinction from the capacitation activating the passage. What is felt is the quality of the experience. The account of affect will then have to directly address forms of experience, forms of life, on a qualitative register. Second, the felt transition leaves a trace, it constitutes a memory. Consequently, it can’t be restricted to that one occurrence. It will return. It has already returned, in some capacity. It was already part of a series of repetitions, to the extent that the body has a past.

That’s the third point: the capacitation of the body as it’s gearing up for a passage towards a diminished or augmented state is completely bound up with the lived past of the body. That past includes what we think of as subjective elements, such as habits, acquired skills, inclinations, desires, even willings, all of which come in patterns of repetition. This doesn’t make the event any less rooted in the body. The past that the body carries forward in serial fashion includes levels we think of as physical and biological, such as genetic inheritance and phylogenesis. So there’s a reactivation of the past in passage toward a changed future, cutting transversally across dimensions of time, between past and future, and between pasts of different orders. This in-between time or transversal time is the time of the event. This temporality enables, and requires you to rethink all of these terms – bodily capacitation, felt transition, quality of lived experience, memory, repetition, seriation, inclination—in dynamic relation to each other.

If there is one key term, that’s it: relation. When you start in-between, what you’re in the middle of is a region of relation. Occurrent relation, because it’s all about event. Putting the terms together, you realize straight away that the relational event will play out differently every time. In repeating, it takes up the past differently. In taking up the past differently, it creates new potentials for the future. The region of occurrent relation is a point of potentiation. It is where things begin anew. Where things begin anew is where they were already present in tendency.

"

Of Microperception and Micropolitics - Brian Massumi and Joel McKim

via INFLeXions

Morning Massumi. There is so much more contained in the interview but this section really nails so many of my feelings and ideas about memory and repetition— how past experience plays out in the body as a state of merging or in-between. Talking about the qualitative aspects of an encounter—temperature, pressure, volume, sensations, etc.—draws attention to difference in repeated encounters/experiences/actions etc. differently than simply focusing on an essence or essential quality. These are my thoughts this morning.     

(via tremblebot)

smkflwr:muchjunk: Slavoj Zizek :: Against Charity (@ RSA Great Hall), on neoliberal capitalist society’s flawed priorities

"Ephesian 6:12 wrote “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against leaders, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness and against the spiritual wickedness in the heavens” or to translate it into today’s language: “Our struggle is not primarily against concrete corrupt individuals but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it."

zizek (via zizekianrevolution)

(via fuckyeahphilosophy)