I don’t know if this is exactly what you are looking for, but John D’Emilio’s Capitalism and Gay Identity is a very famous paper that argues for a historical materialist understanding of gay identity. The paper is actually fairly old (it was written in like 1983 or something), so it actually predates much of queer theory, but its absolutely still worth reading if you haven’t yet
all due respect, but just take the L man
beyond this being just a stupid take, wouldn’t having protestors audible made a more interesting version of 4’33’’ than fucking birds or people walking or whatever
Also love the take that anyone in power in America who proposes gun control is only concerned about disarming the working class, not maybe stopping children from getting slaughtered in schools. Like yeah mental health services would be great but also there is absolutely a connection between the number of mass shootings and the fact that America has more guns than people
Pretty much, although I don’t think its so much that he’s impressed by it so much as he’s trying to impress on his hangers-on just how much suffering they’ve caused via the jihad. Paul is very bitter/ironic about the whole exchange, he’s clearly not happy about having killed so many people. Which, as others brought up, is essentially the whole point of Dune Messiah
If you like the stuff about Paul and his prescience, you should read the second book! It takes a lot of those themes around foresight and power and spends more time fleshing them out, I thought it worked really well as a counterpoint to Dune.
Can’t speak for the other sequels, but it seems like they get a bad rep
Love these woodpeckers. You just don’t think about a woodpecker being that big until you see one of them
I mean, maybe at some level but certainly not enough to make one side worth supporting over the other. Like ElGosso mentioned, the best thing is going to be what minimizes suffering for normal civilians, and I don’t think that supporting Russia is the best way to that goal
I hope I’m not intruding here but I used to be very into Debord and situationists (my username is actually a reference to one of his films, in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni). Its been a while since I read through all of society of the spectacle, but if you want another opinion on a passage I’d be happy to try to help
Love that this person demands everyone else have a phd to argue with them about a subject they clearly understand less than a middle schooler
The abstract:
Due to chronic high densities and preferential browsing, white-tailed deer have significant impacts on woody and herbaceous plants. These impacts have ramifications for animals that share resources and across trophic levels. High deer densities result from an absence of predators or high plant productivity, often due to human habitat modifications, and from the desires of stakeholders that set deer management goals based on cultural, rather than biological, carrying capacity. Success at maintaining forest ecosystems require regulating deer below biological carrying capacity, as measured by ecological impacts. Control methods limit reproduction through modifications in habitat productivity or increase mortality through increasing predators or hunting. Hunting is the primary deer management tool and relies on active participation of citizens. Hunters are capable of reducing deer densities but struggle with creating densities sufficiently low to ensure the persistence of rare species. Alternative management models may be necessary to achieve densities sufficiently below biological carrying capacity. Regardless of the population control adopted, success should be measured by ecological benchmarks and not solely by cultural acceptance.
As this ecologist notes, hunters are essential parts of maintaining healthy, biodiverse ecosystems.
Oh I see, thanks for clarifying, I think I misunderstood your point about ontological uncertainty, that makes a lot of sense
Nothing is pre-determined per se
I don’t think too hard about how everything that happens is inevitable, but that is the logical conclusion
These seem to be saying the exact opposite of each other - if everything is inevitable, it is therefore pre-determined.
As for the relation between the physical (chemical, biological, etc) processes of the brain and consciousness, you’re absolutely right that the latter necessarily arises from the former, but that does not mean that our consciousness is reducible to just those processes. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and, even if we were able to trace all the physical processes of the brain, we would still not be able to entirely explain our subjective experience.
For scientific socialism, I think relying too much on a deterministic outlook creates a very sterile, complacent ideology. Look at the pre-WWII communist parties of Europe, who were positivistic determinists par excellence. They believed wholeheartedly in the inevitability of a socialist revolution, and look where that got them. I think a more productive view would be to embrace the inherent unpredictability of human action, our capacity to break out of a given historical moment. Nothing is guaranteed or pre-determined (however probable), and it is precisely because of that fact that our actions are meaningful, that praxis is a worthwhile endeavor.
I hope this doesn’t come off as too critical, I appreciate you sharing your views comrade
ok so where is the line between what’s been pre-determined and what hasn’t been? Or is everything that is to happen already guaranteed to happen, down to the smallest possible action?
the above quote is very clearly anti-determinist: we may act within a web of social-economic conditions, and may have our actions altered by said conditions, but we still actively choose within those conditions
you’re missing the best exchange from that episode:
Elaine (gifting Ned a shirt, which he says is ‘too fancy’): Just because you’re a communist, does that mean you can’t wear anything nice? You look like Trotsky
Ned (excitedly): Good!
I always thought that pre-Socratic wasn’t really a temporal boundary (after all, Aristotle and Plato were alive at the same time, so pre-Aristotelian also doesn’t work in that regard), but rather one of method. My understanding was that most pre-Socratic (sorry) philosophers were essentially speculative, whereas Socrates (or Plato’s Socrates) was the first to establish the need for a far more rigorous approach, which all subsequent philosophy is indebted to. So the division, while obviously still artificial, is useful in defining certain trends in philosophy. In any case, Plato (or the Neoplatonists for that matter) is hardly the one to blame for Christianity getting co-opted, that’s almost entirely on Paul and Constantine
I’m genuinely curious - why pre-Aristotelians and not pre-Socratic? Wouldn’t they have similar problems as terms?
That last point is definitely something I worry about a lot, and I’ve always thought this Brecht poem phrased it well:
It is true: I work for a living But, believe me, that is a coincidence. Nothing That I do gives me the right to eat my fill. By chance I have been spared. (If my luck does not hold, I am lost.)
They tell me: eat and drink. Be glad to be among the haves! But how can I eat and drink When I take what I eat from the starving And those who thirst do not have my glass of water? And yet I eat and drink.
unfortunately I do not have any actual answers for this lol
This has to just be a child right? There’s no way an actual adult would be this oblivious to how the world works