The project we can generally call the Enlightenment was about including humanity is one common category. It’s economic and political arms involve incorporating difference and investing in unknowns we can call excess.

The failure of this project is actually the culmination of its effort, its fruition. Where ever difference may appear, it’s manner of viewing the universe has filled in, colonized every possibility of thinker including ways to think about thinkers and thoughts that could not think of have a thought.

The enlightenment and its project of colonialization continues because thought itself is understood commonly as a particular set of instructions and descriptions that most people are simply unable and will not ‘think’ outside of. This is so much the case, the project so solidified, that even philosophy itself thinks that it is able to overcome this ideological theological maxim.

What we call ‘Esoteric’ is that manner of coming upon the universe which, for any group of human beings, cultures or “religions”, is unable to be communicated to the aggregate of constituents.

Confusion arises in the world, dissolution of group coherence, when everyone one is assumed to be party to all ability of knowing and thinking in potential. Individual withdraw into subjectivity, the atomization of the human group, the dividing or separating of things along “improper” junctures, causes demoralization in the groups constituents and an ability for large exploitation of those individuals due to the conceptual excess which arises from the ‘fission’ of people who would otherwise see themselves as a whole being intimately involved with a coherent and meaningful group.

Vacant Leaders

We should by now realize that our leaders have only a simulacrum of intelligence.

The climate is changing because the manner human beings view the world is changing. Involved; inseparate; acausal.

Storms arise and destroy; the storm must be a storm, even while those who live intelligently and ethically resist and ride it out and rebuild.

Yeah it sucks; but there is, at this point, no ability to effectively mount an argument with the storm, and indeed such efforts merely fuel the power of the storm.

Storms move air, only circulate energy but on a scale that intelligence can only speculate about. And that is because the storm has no intelligence but it a Natural force which arises within certain conditions which involve the human ideal of intelligence.

But the storm is vacant of intelligence; it is only a motion of energy that has developed out of the ideal of intelligence, a motion that moves beyond intelligence, which will dissipate in time, as it attempts to organize use itself intelligently. But it is vacant of such organization of intelligence.

What you think?

THE SECOND PART * crossing your mind near you.

thephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophcialhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackTHESECONDPARTthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackthephilosophicalhackOUT SOON

The Point of the Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson debate: An Assessment

Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson: An Assessment
— Read on

Thanks Neotonos! I agree with much of his assessment.  He hits on some significant turns of the debate; Im glad, because I didn’t really want to assess a play be play.

I’ll use this repost to give my final comments on the Z/P debate.


It’s intresting to me that none of the commenters saw what I saw, which is, really saw any big picture. It really is, like Neotonos said “like a bunch of people reporting on a cricket match”. To my eyes and ears, it really is like people miss the debate for the spectacle. I think Noetanos gets a little more involved that the others I’ve read, though.

First off; yeah, I get it: people wanted a WWF slam-a-thon, of whatever that WWF thing is.  Zizekians wanted Zizek to take Peterson apart, and the Petersonians wanted him to show Zizek where he is stupid liberal, or something like that. These two celebrity philosophical figures represent a certain polemic in the philosophical world; people wanted a battle.

The thing is, if you have been listening to Zizek lately, and understand Peterson’s general effort (which he does use his point in the Z/P debate), both are actually more concerned with the world than they are just political voice boxes. Both actually care. They both advocate responsibility.
You can listen to and read my essay about the current state of philosophy HERE, the essay I wrote before the debate. One of the main reasons why one can tell they actually care is because they don’t give a shit about towing the political lines.

It is interesting to me that people seem perplexed about Zizek’s apparent shift from what they understand as his usually Marxism, and his basic support for capitalism. But if one is familiar with Zizek’s philosophy, he has not changed his view; rather, he had elaborated more upon the situation given the condition at hand.

In the debate Zizek even alludes to his earlier work about Marxism, of which he says he’s not going to take the debate that way; it is obvious to Zizek that Peterson has not read Zizek enough to be able to address the subtleties involved with Z’s “Marxism”. He highlights his Hegelianism. But the reason for this, I think, is because Zizek was not concerned with showing how Peterson is a ignorant fool (like many of us were hoping). Zizek’s point has always been Marxist in that the subject is a state of being which is involved with a dialectical reality which shows up in the Lacanian manner at all times. That is; through the symbolic order mediated by what is ‘imagined’, or what is the real fantasy. This fantasy is manifested in the (further) dialectic between what appears should occur due to the symbolic presentation. But there is a problem (as we understand the “barred S”). When the subject attempts to speak about what the symbolic world is presenting, a transformation takes place: similar to Derridean issues of subjectivity, what was once the true meaning of reality is noticed as a fantasy. The issue within this world, though, Is that one has to be able to notice it (clean house; think).

It is in this dialectic that Zizek locates his Marxism, because it indeed functions to supply all the multiplicity of material for and by which the subject is able to act in reality. There appears to be an element or aspect which oppresses the subject’s ability to appear in the world. This is why Lacan’s “Real” is impossible; because reality presents that which appears to not exhibit a contradiction in its terms for existing as such. It indeed shows aspects of its operation everywhere as contradiction in the, what i call conventional and what Zizek calls naive, sense, but because the withdraw that this ‘Real’ enacts occurs in the dialectical relationship with the symbolic-imaginary domain, as I just said, manifesting an appearance of real truth. As Cedric Nathaniel discusses in his book The Philosophical Hack, it is this ‘real-truth’ that is the political world.

There is no “actual” reduction to the usual traditional-conventional rhetoric or some “actual” political state where the “pure” Marxists or the “pure” capitalists exist because these supposed entities, states, or situations are –yes — already occurring in the discussion, as Nathaniel discusses, of term-object identities. The idea of ‘identity politics’ is a mistaken or distorted use of the the concept of the Term-object Identity in the same way that reality is a ‘mistaken’ apprehension of what is Real. They are dialectical mechanisms.

Now, the situation that I described above is the real political situation. It accounts for why we are having such huge discrepancy in political ideals and ability to get things done in government across the globe. It is the situation of what I call “no communication”. This situation of no communication is what Zizek refers to when he says that he does not see a way out of our capitalistic situation of inequality and exploitation, because it is exactly the ‘equality’ which is posed in the politically real estimation which is able to skim profit off of the ‘excess’ which occurs in the dialectic between what is true and what is real, between what is ‘equal’ in the dialectic of relation of what is Real, and what is ‘unequal’ in the dialectic of what is real politically. This current process of existing in which humanity finds itself now, seems inescapable because it is indeed how we function ethically, which is to say, in remaining fidelitous to what we know as true (Soren Kierkegaard defines this space, and Alain Badiou describes our activity within it).

OK. Peterson, on the other hand, sees a ways out. Both philosophers (Z and P) do not see any constructive point in continuing with the regular status quo situation which they both see in their ways. They both do not simply give up and be naive nor inauthentic (in the Kiekegaardian sense).

In another lecture, Peterson gives us a similar description of Capitalistic nihilism, of the situation that Zizek cannot see a way out of: Peterson describes the situation of larger projects losing their ability to be effective. His idea is thus that we must begin with the smallest or more local project. As he says, we must clean our own house first. We must begin with ourselves, put our own houses in order. He thus extends this manner of being able to get honest with oneself and associates it with a Christian kind of theme.

Both of these philosophers thus pose the same question, have a similar manner of understanding it, and also see that the only way through is, indeed, Capitalism; we must use what we have, and stop attempting to escape the problematic situation through all sorts of fantastic psychic mechanisms (for those kinds of ways of denial enforce the philosophical correlation). Hence, Peterson’s “see how apparently antagonistic positions can work to communicate”, and Zizek’s “think!” as their closing statements, respectively.

Yet, to focus on the small, segregated, details of the debate is exactly a capitalist manner of approaching discourse, even if one says they are Marxist. The hard Marxist activists are indeed perpetuating the capitalist agenda by constantly reifying routes of control for the capitalist congregant (all of us). It does not matter what kind of revolutionary (or fundamentalist) state would do or say to assert a proper manner to have reality because reality itself is being informed by the ontological exploitation of subjective excess. Hence, political-reality is that inescapable condition where philosophers find themselves. And yet, the move seems to be to stop attempting to be Gramsci-esque proponents for the masses, because so long as this kind of philosophically ‘enlightened’ manner attempts to alleviate the struggle of the disenfranchised, the activist has only asserted that those she would help are indeed lost, as they both become as now a positive historical cause.

Yet I am skeptical that siding with the super-wealthy (as some have already decided is best) will be any more effective, for they, as a general class, are “large scalers”, abusers of excess, exploiters of the world, creators of chaos and confusion.

Ok. I could go on, but I think Ive made my point. And if you ae really interested, you can always read mine and Nathaniel’s books.

The Left and the Right.

The “left and the right” is a “kind” way to speak about what is occurring. It is a way of not only catering to those who do not comprehend (whether is be the left or the right), But as well as a way to think existence, to be the enacting of thinking which views the world in a certain way. This way is thus kindly appropriated toward the psychologically religious maxim of offense, a way to speak without addressing the responsibility which is inherent to that way, or manner offense, as though to exist that way is the only way possible.

The way forward, then, is to elaborate these lines of offense responsibly, that is, in a manner which attempt to own what is inherently offensive.

Why I Like Thomas Hobbes and You Should Too

Why I Like Thomas Hobbes and You Should Too

Why I Like Thomas Hobbes and You Should Too
— Read on

I was just Got picked on Becuase I was new. Somehow, I think we just make meaning to justify our individuality, but the reasons why kids get picked on has no reason: Some kids just get picked on. And those who do it don’t really know why the hell they do it either. I mean really, children’s brains have a minimal capacity for executive function; to say ‘their reason’ is really stretching what reason is able to be — And I imagine, so we can retain this ‘common human individual’ ideal: If they are human, then they reason; but somehow they cannot prevent themselves from picking on kids who are actually doing something ‘smart’. Where is the kid’s ‘reason’?

Maybe we could actually start limiting definitions instead of letting them flop every which way. Lol. Maybe we might actually begin to see what is actually occurring.

Also, I am no scholar of political theory, but in reading only the first part of Leviathan, I remember having the suspicion that he was describing the way things actually are despite what people think, more than he was really having a political theory. That indeed human beings exist in that way, having a ‘sovereign’ at all times which inscribes people into identity for a particular world.

But, I’m not a political theorist so I have little invested interest in trying to understand what I believe other people believe of their own political theories. 🧐. There is some sort of discrepancy in how material is read, and it’s seems there is no arguing at times about how this may or may not be the case: Becuase the ‘state’ has already ‘decided’ how one is to properly approach certain texts. Alienation is thus a product of the state itself, and perhaps no so much a common state of being.

Maybe. Who really knows though.

How ‘bout instead of nervous liberal-conservatism…

…how bout we grow some balls. How about we have some critical self reflection on who we are as valid ethical- global beings, or “nation-Being” as the case may be.

how about we get out of the nervous capitalistic wealth =power U.S. self righteousness and insecurity cast out on what the world is supposed to do; how about we absorb the contradiction and go down to Honduras, for example, and kick someone’s ass, so regular people can go about thier lives?

This “democratic-republican” self-righteous ideal of the United State seems to be failing, when we consider we supposed to be “Christian/liberal values”. Defending our boarder could be seen as a weak move of blaming others for our problem; a kind of projection. A kind of “you take care of your own shit” while we do nothing to take care of our own shit. Perhaps we pull our numb head out of our asses.

Why dont we just own it instead of playing the United States Of ironic Victimhood, and go kill a bunch of people for the purpose of allowing the rest to prosper in their own land?

Just a thought.

I realize this goes against the contradiction inherent in modern nationalistic liberal-conservative ethics. (Love everyone; but have borders)

But really ? We’re gonna allow national sovereignty to a nation that has no control over its own governance for a peaceful existence of its citizens. Do we walk the walk of ethics or just say what we need to to make lots of money for a few greedy fuckheads.

Let’s get over our Korean-Vietnam nervous trauma. Let get over our modern ‘can’t we all get along’ and grow some balls back. We can be our liberal – conservative ethical selves and still exert a strong presence in the world. This doesn’t mean we have to have fucked up walls around our borders, but it could mean that we actually go into countries and we say fuck you you’re an asshole and then we just make them stop being an asshole. At least try. Right now we’re kind of like you’re an asshole but I’m going to stand at the edge of the playground and let you be an asshole out there. Maybe we grow some balls again and we say no we want the playground where everyone gets to play and be happy and you’re the one asshole who fucking everything up and so we’re gonna kick your ass and make you stand around the fence.

Next Generation of justice.

Hopefully the old geezers still in Congress of a by-gone tradition of paternalistic innocence, both men and women, will be aged out of office over the next 5-15 years and such anachronistic blindness as a governing mandate will move out of our government. Hopefully the younger ignorance will have less influence.

They simply are unable to see that their ‘neutral facts’ weigh unevenly toward men. There is no arguing this with them, they are totally unable to move or see beyond their ontological myopia. This is not an intelligence or education thing, it is a time thing, a brain thing.

So we will attempt to hold down the fort to the never ending on slot of ignorance and bias, and hopefully the next generation will see our flaws and be able to bring in justice as a way of life.

Of course, people will have to play politics, but perhaps blatant ignorance will not be running the show.