Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Antihuman

Interzone / Power Struggles
« on: March 10, 2010, 09:10:37 AM »
This term came up in another thread, anecdotally, and I would like a discussion about this concept.

I have had many classes in which the theorists studied view power struggles as the primary motivation for all human behavior.  It is true in one sense, meaning that, yes, we want to reach a point in which we do not have to submit directly to the will of others.  However, the emphasis placed on this concept seems to foster a sense of oppression within many which, while not entriely false, as we are all bound to the contract of our society, undermines the idea that any sort of mutual dependance can exist.  Or, rather, that mutual dependance exists between tiers of power, and that there is a constant struggle between these levels which keeps everything in balance for a time, only to be gradually reversed, at which point the cycle is repeated.

While it is difficult to argue against this ideology, it seems to me important that we do not place utmost value on this relationship, as tends to be the case in much mainstream academia, where feminism, Marx, and Foucault are the basis for all arguments.  For example, I just read a text arguing for a feminist reading of Darwin, basically emphasizing points in his writing that undermine determinism, and saying that because evolution accounts for change, and does not assume inherent superiority, we can act upon the shifting of power and almost force gender equality despite biological differences.

I like this argument not because of what it attempts, but because of two points it raises:

-There will never be a point in which all people are equal.
-Human nature/ biology can be affected by ideological shifts.

My main question is this:  Should we view society (capitalism) as some form of institution, within which the major motivation for change is feelings of opression/ worthlessness/ inferiority?  Does this justify or undermine our search for something more transcendental?

Interzone / Sartre
« on: February 08, 2010, 07:34:31 PM »
What are some opinions on this guy?

I am familiar with the general concepts surrounding his thought.  There are certain things I like, such as the idea that in choosing to live one's life a certain way, one strives to create the ideal image of life for all.  At least, this is the way life should be approached.  His take on free will is interesting as well.  That being, as far as I understand it, that we are condemned to be free, and that this freedom is a terrifying force.

I am curious as to any major contributions Sartre has made to philosophy, as well as reccomended reading.

Interzone / The soul is the prison of the body
« on: November 12, 2008, 05:16:05 AM »
We just finished reading Foucault in my college critical theory course, and I could not help but be reminded of some of the discussion that goes on here and metal in general.  His use of violent language, metaphors of grotesque beasts, writing about torture, and concept overall are all gorgeous.  The way he describes society's inability to judge a man it deems "insane" because he exists outside its system of established organization was wonderful.  Then, I hit this and everything clicked.

"It would be wrong to say that the soul is an illusion, or an ideological effect...  The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body."

Granted, it is something I had thought about before my reading, but to have that simple inversion of modern/ Judeo-Christian thought inverted so plainly in words got me thinking.  Is the belief of the opposite, the belief in a metaphysical soul imprisoned in some rotting, worthless body, not the basis for individualism?  To realize that we are only individuals on a molecular, bodily level would help the world at large immensely right now.

But this also got me thinking about aesthetics.  In metal, there is a lot of discussion about "transcending aesthetics", about finding a new path for the same concepts.  Can we say that the aesthetics of metal are its soul and therefore merely an effect of a certain point in time?  Maybe the body of metal is imprisoned in the idea that it has a soul called Metal (which it clearly does), and is therefore unwilling to admit that there are ways of making crushing music about the sublime beauty of nature or the  abstracted human being without resorting to some parameters imposed upon the genre by other forces in the past.

Just a few thoughts, hoping to get a good discussion of my assessment or Foucault in general.

Interzone / The Content of Character
« on: September 15, 2008, 06:23:47 AM »
I've had this on my mind for a while now, and I feel that this forum is a good place to get a discussion going.

We're all aware that our society operates based on a careful balance of clashing ideas which cannot be justified except through severe abstractions.  Anything that sounds good is right, even if it contradicts something else which is also considered right.

Of course it doesn't work.  One thing falls slightly out of place and you end up with a huge conflict for no reason.  The United States here is basically a monstrous construction waiting to topple.  We're trying to mix Legos, K'nex, and Mega Bloks or something.  You can't just put random pieces together and call it a day.  We are a nation that hates itself.  Everyone here has their complaints.  Fat morons like Michael Moore blabber on about nonsense while I sit here and theorize about my own nation's stupidity for other reasons.  Every race hates each other, and it's punishable by law to hurt someone's feelings by dropping a certain word based on their skin color.  Our worship of diversity is ridiculous.  We basically lay our lives on the altar to attain mediocrity, instead of forging a new path and taking a few blows on the way.

There's a few points people typically assert/ wholeheartedly believe because they have been force fed garbage through school.  These points become absolutes; they cannot be argued no matter what.  These include beliefs such as slavery was the worst example of the dark side of human nature in history, it's unthinkable that woman didn't have the right to vote from the start and so on.  The thing is, people ramble this stuff off without ever thinking about where such events are leading.  We are not becoming more tolerant or open-minded at all.  The ideal mind of today's society is, in fact, the most pompous, closed-minded thing I can imagine.  Nothing is acceptable outside of the All Things Are Equally Good, But Some Things Are More Equal Than Others motto.  All we are embracing is our own decline.  Humans are animals, that's all we are.  We cannot demolish/ equalize the roles of men and women.  We must recognize that people have certain roles and some are better than others.  In order for the world to function, we cannot all consider each other equal.

But this hints at racism, so maybe we should just sit around and talk about Martin Luther King.  Well, even Dr. King dreamt of a world where people were "judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." And though the colored almighty hath spoken, we are still not allowed to judge whatsoever.  Why is it so terrible to assume a sort of hierarchy among our species based on genetics?  Why can't a certain race of people be superior to another?  We are a result of evolution.  Doesn't it make sense that evolution is not complete?

Each man judges himself, and we merely perceive the results.  The content of a man's character truly is important, and not something we can overlook based on one's race/ gender/ religion etc.  It's a shame such things serve to cover up the genuine worth of a man.