Well that’s what you get when you follow a schoolteacher.
The eternal trap of the satisfied patriarch.
Yes, I agree with this.
Also very nice play.
Plate also staged his philosophy.
Thats the wizardry, which makes the will to truth into an institution.
Weird, and not weird, that this was the way Athens, resolved itself, in a dialogue about goodness, the gladly overlooked remnants of which were lying in the forgotten dust under their feet.
Yes rhetoric. It was the rhetorician Socrate who, comically, induced the idea that true philosophy and truth were to be rhetoricless. Because of all that two-faced shit he said at the tri-all.
There is where the real floundering is.
And why Schopenhauer as a really such a very genius.
“… for they seek …”
The schoolteacher’s rhetoric.
shivers
Still, this:
“Socrates was just the crystallization of a point of view afforded by the first ever city. As soon as it was city, you see, there was Socrates. It would not have waited a second. Not a minute.”
is crucial. To understand why this all happened and what it really was, how we are supposed to make sense of it as philosophers.
His eminent two-facedness, his whole act, charade, hype, all that was Urban, urban legend, or lets call it cosmopolitan.
Not since recently did I understand what precisely cosmopolitanism is. Only recently, in my discussion on the Presocratics, did I realize it literally means cosmos-polis-ism. The idea of the natural cosmos is replaced with the idea of the social cosmos.
And this fits the legacy of Soc like a glove. All he did, all his dwelling in the streets, testing of salespeople and other city inhabitants, his constant presence among people and his fierce interest in what other people know and think, along with the absolute absence of anything like physics, natural sciences, all of it represents the valuing of the polis as cosmos - something beyond which there is no meaning.
Hilariously it turns out that in the end in the polis there is no meaning either - not at least if you have previously discarded all meaning outside of the polis - values on the back of which the polis was once erected.
Socrates seems to have been a monotheist and thus rejected the Olympians, and thus the Acropolis and the very soul of Athens.
His cosmopolitanism thus was even an attempt at refuting the very polis he tried to make into a cosmos.
And yet - your original, which I quoted above, shows that even though Soc went about philosophy and Athens as a destroyer, his very eminence of his figure did indeed manage to represent “the first ever city” as you call it as a figurehead of its legacy. That is the true value of Soc. That he was Athenian and knew all these other people who had read all these other philosophers. That is apparently the value of cosmopolitanism.
You know, very often I think, Nietzsche can be summed up in the following: Don’t dwell on the bad stuff.
oh that’s just wonderful, dude. the greatest iconoclast of all time smashes everything we hold dear and then just casually says ‘you know what… don’t even worry about it.’
you got some nerve, pal.
Well what’s it all for if you’re not enjoying it?
What’s a soul anyway?
Fetches a good price, and the Devil is the only honest dealer around.
Parodites says:
“(“money” is to capital what
sublimation is to the Freudian conception of desire; surplus-value is to production and
labor value what primary narcissism and the injunction of the reality-principle upon Eros
is to the Freudian concept of Oedipal resolution and organization.)”
And:
"The real meaning of the Oedipal complex, the fundamental concept in Freud, (object-
relations theory is simply an expansion of Freud in opposition to Lacan) is the following:
the true source of man’s psychic power, of his very Will itself, is- guilt. Man’s psychic
wound is the source of all his power, of the very dynamic force responsible for
differentiation and individuation. As sexuality is simply one of many expressions of our
power, Freud took it as a distinctively primordial expression of man’s existential guilt,
which he could find no other way to configure save by an incestuous fascination with the
mother. "
And what guilt is this that we feel besides obligation? We are by all means indebted to our mothers for the labour of producing us. Oedipal guilt can thus be explained without the naughty angle of Freud - the obsessive affections for the mother are simply our existential sense of what we owe, whom we owe it to. Our whole existence, the whole of our part in Eros, is due to the mother.
Due, debt -
guilt only arises when the debt can not be paid.
People with psychiatric problems, hospitalized and sent to a specialist, the patients of Freud and his colleagues - in them that which they owe their mother is larger than the capital in happiness they feel is in their reach. So what is most violently manifesting in therapy sessions would be a raging guilt.
But I sincerely question the idea that the existential debt owed to the mother must always turn to guilt. What is certain true is that much must be accomplished to completely be free of guilt - culture is much the result of men trying to be worthy of their existence.
We can already begin to question the validity of the attribution of mans fundamental affective complex with incest. By these terms, birth would be a form of incest.
I leave it up to the reader to decide what this does to the rest of the Oedipus complex.
I wish merely to explore the concept of capital in terms of the existential guilt, and I can sense that this will lead to a teleological theory of capitalism which will exhibit all of what is attractive to people in Marx without the inhuman logic of class-dialectic.
What is missing both in Freud and in Marx is a proper conception of the supreme value of the mother -
in Freud, the individual, human mother is simplified to mean simply a source and an object, dismissing the divine aspect of creator , and in Marx, it is mother Earth which is sen only as a place from which men get wealth and fight with each other over who gets to own it. Nothing in Marx suggests that the resolution of the class struggle may have something to do with recognizing that witch produced the bounty along with those who work to enjoy it.
P goes on:
“Politics alone, incapable of meeting the un-intuitable in any meaningful way, (hence the
current state of power-politics in the world. As Steigler notes, technology began to evolve
so much faster than man could evolve a response to it, that we had to resort eventually to
freezing the world in place at the chessboard that had been set up not long after the first
fusion bombs were put together, so that we could have enough time, guaranteed by MAD,
that we could develop some form of theory in the cultural shadow of the Cold War.) reads
it merely in terms of the symbolic-exchange through which Death insinuates the
treacherous excess of capitalist logic into the value-exchange (“money” is to capital what
sublimation is to the Freudian conception of desire; surplus-value is to production and
labor value what primary narcissism and the injunction of the reality-principle upon Eros
is to the Freudian concept of Oedipal resolution and organization.) on whose basis
civilization has fetishistically shielded itself from death and negation, following Rank- an
excess that signals a gradual accumulation of entropic negativity within the strictures of
an eventually paralyzed socio-economic System. In order to resuscitate System, Freedom
must gather into itself this excessive force through the Agon or violently discharge it in
an act of sacrifice, waste, ie. the “accursed share”, the later being a task easily
accomplished in ancient Rome, but more tedious in our era, because in ancient Rome
there existed a massive slave class separated from a nobility that possessed extremely
effective control of the economy, whereas in our age, the ruling-heights have gradually
emerged and control over the economy is not as consolidated as it once was, despite how
much wealth might be concentrated in however small a percentage of the population, and
despite how much that percentage of the population might want to consolidate it. The
globalized or pan-hemispheric global economy that both neoconservative Republicans
and faux-Democrats desire can be weaponized by state-autarks in order to manipulate
dependent nations into the position of having to perpetually straddle the line of pre-
industry and technical development, …]”
Maybe also some things are secrets, kept secret for tens of thousands of years, because it would be impolite to say them.
first of all, who would ever reveal anything of importance to a communist?
I suspect not even their wives.
Yes.
Nature likes to hide.
Possibly nature likes to reveal herself, and it is more a problem of men not being able to see her.
Like a wallnut cannot see a rock.
Does a mountain hide?
Ok, full disclosure, I don’t know what tf I’m saying anymore. But it sounds wise as shit.
Yes, a walnut has no way to value the rock.
A walnut only sees what feeds it.
It is certainly a good hiding place. It hides treasures. It hides itself in the clouds. But this is not what you mean.