Philosophy talk talks about anarchy.
I’m kind of liking it. But my critical mind brings up Zizek and his changing the conditions of the past that bring us the present by which we change the past.
I’m sorry, but it seems that a lot of people have been thinking a lot about what Eric he might be and that’s defining anarchy as something that I remember it wasn’t.
I’m dictating this post through my phone so excuse me if I don’t attach all the links to the video clips and to the posts that I made earlier.
It is really all good, because there’s no way that I will be able to convince anyone that the definitions that they’re going by to philosophically determine what anarchism maybe it’s not the same that it was 15 years ago even. I won’t be able to convince them because every piece of evidence that I would bring up they would point to other evidence that already fits into their philosophical paradigm. It’s almost like magic; I kind of mass hysteria. And it’s kind of funny because even as I say this if there any ideological oriented anarchists reading this post they’ll get all bristly or something and want to point me to evidence that their philosophical understanding of anarchy goes back hundreds of years.
Great! I say. You are evidencing the strength and faith. And I like it.
Against Me! I was a Teenage Anarchist.
Great song, btw.