iwbcman commented on the blog post Occupy Louisville: A Part of a Movement That is Changing the Conversation
Hey there just a big thanks to Kevin and Patty for the generous donations!. I have been at OccupyLousiville since day 1 and am currently recuperating from a 12 day stint of awesome urban camping. Lots of beautiful people here, getting my batteries recharged for the next 20 years. We are here for the long haul. We may be small but don’t underestimate us!. Hats off to firedoglake for their support…
Well I watched 35 minutes of it. 35 minutes of lame promises, which even if they were doable, which they are not, don’t add up to a hill of beans. I kept imagine hearing him say something that might actually make some real change, each time he would pause just before offering his suggested policies, and in that time period I would sound off, in my own head, what he *could* have said. Of course what came out of his mouth was just one more ineffectual promise. Obama may be eloquent but he is awful damned feckless.
W part II, the obama chronicles- or how a bright and eloquent president can f*ck the left in ways W never even tried.
I fail to see the point in explaining that which is self-explanatory.
but for sh!ts and giggles:
The two alternatives I listed were :
a) surrounding yourself only with those whom you agree or
b) resorting to the use of force to resolve differences
For anyone who has not already excluded the very basis of reason(“all conflict is between equals where the differences can be willingly resolved through discussion”) a priori it is utterly self-explanatory and self-evident that these alternatives are not a viable choice(ie.for society as a whole).
Faith, self-delusion and authoritarian pronouncements play no role here.
Pointing out that your argumentation is sophistic is hardly ad hominem.
The only confusion here stems from your rejection of reason from the outset. Which by the way is an awesome way to start a conversation, if for no other reason than to undermine any possibility of agreement or understanding(hence sophistry). Of course this is just a simple form of diabolis advocatus.
No self-delusional authoritarianism on my behalf. If you reject the preconditions of reasonable discourse and then act “as if” you were being reasonable in further pursuing a discussion, you are being disingenuous.
Of course your only comments to this site were concerning the issue with Jon Stewarts’ rally to restore sanity. Obviously you have some bone to pick with Jon Stewart and anyone who likes/enjoys him. Your penchant for equivocating that which Jon Stewart (and his fans) does with that which Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly(and their fans) does fell mostly on deaf ears here. Primarily because the substance of what you had to say was merely that: equivocation. Just curious- do you think that Tim Profitt should press charges against Lauren Valle for her having pressed her head against the bottom of his shoe?
Color me surprised,you disagree with me ;)
Your skills in sophistry are noticed, if not well taken.
Your contention that I must show why is evidence of a lack of willingness on your behalf.
The nice thing about reason is that it is self-evident ;)
“First, your example suggests all conflict is between equals where the differences can be willingly resolved through discussion.”
This is the basic underlying principle of reason. Reasonable discourse presupposes this. Rational thought, is, by definition, confined within these limitations. One of the most salient points that Jon Stewart makes is that we do not have any viable alternative to being willing to resolve our differences through discussion-not only are there no viable alternatives, but the facticity of our daily lives is by and large determined by our exercising exactly this facility.
One alternative, which is not viable, is to surround ourselves only with those who we agree with-but given our social reality most people cannot ever fully succeed in this and thus are confronted with others with whom we passionately disagree. Another alternative, which is not viable, is to use force against those with whom we disagree, luckily this is-for most of us/most of the time-the exception which proves the rule: social beings must find in themselves the willingness to resolve our differences in discourse with one another.
Reason has its limits. Rational discourse is, by it’s nature, exclusive and self-limiting-rational discourse is normative. Sometimes being unreasonable is the only right thing to do. Sometimes one must challenge rational discourse, shatter the normativity and point out that enemy number one is common-sense. Humor functions on the basis of embarrassment, someone or something is always the butt of the joke. People who you can’t reason with are the subject of ridicule. A general of pervasive unwillingness to reason is a sign of fanaticism. Politics descends into insanity when people are forced to hold a public position on issues which are fundamentally private in nature- the violence of the discourse itself(the raping of the self) becomes a source of irrationality, unreasonableness and outbreaks of physical violence.
Jon Stewart is not a leftist, not a progressive. He is an educated liberal. He cares just enough about politics to inform himself about certain issues, policies and political happenings to call patent absurdity when he sees it and to mock how utterly inane American politics is as delivered to us by the pathetic joke of a media which we call Main Stream Media. This does not require any deep political insight, political passion or even genuine concern-it does however require a degree of intelligence, willingness to educate ones self and a larger degree of wit and charm. Looking for depth of political analysis in Jon Stewart is misplaced- people confuse depth of analysis with the ability to recognize and mock absurdity and inanity.
Personally, I like his show and I enjoy Stephen Colbert frequently even more. But I don’t look to these comedians to provide me with detailed political analysis. Americas MSM has been a pathetic joke for most of my adult life-I stopped watching any of it regularly during the first golf war (1991)-so many lies, so much misinformation. Nowadays I do tune into Rachel Maddow-perhaps one of the brightest minds to grace American MSM in the last 20 years, and of course I lament Bill Moyers retirement. My primary reason for tuning out: tired of my intelligence being insulted, tired of watching reporters reports on cultures and societies which they know virtually nothing about, tired of the insane meme of their being two sides to *any* issue, sick and tired of so much heat and so little light.
There has not been a viable left in America during my lifetime(41 years and counting). What now counts as progressive is almost synonymous with what was called liberal 20 years ago, and what now counts as liberal was called right wing in the 80′s. I was a member of the Progressive Student Network back in the late 80′s and early 90′s- we burned the American Flag at the Pentagon for our nations support of right wing militias in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and the support of the contras in Nicaragua. None of us would have called ourselves Marxists back then-although all of us were versed in neo-marxist(frankfurt school) critique. The viable left that we once had in America died on the cross of the cold war-along with any intellectual culture America ever really had.
I really wish I could I have attended the rally in Washington-humor is perhaps the only thing that can keep one sane, and those who have suffered the most in life tend to have a great sense of humor.
What the tea partiers are doing has been practiced for thousands of years prior to coining of the phrase “deconstruction”. Deconstruction is a term coined be Jacques Derrida, it has nothing to do with Nietzsche, and is but a school in postmodern philosophy. People’s naive belief in absolute truths(“Free Markets is the basis of freedom”), the “absolute truth” of the absolute historical “intentions”(what the 14th Amendment REALLY is about) of our “founding fathers” is part of the reason why people are susceptible to the demagogues and rhetoricians (sophists) who misguide them. Philosophy was born out of the battles against the sophists(the politicians speechwriters and pundits of the time), who were threatening Athenian democracy. Little has changed since then.
Most of post-modern philosophy takes as it’s root the critical reception of Nietzsche’s works by french philosophers in the mid- to second half of the 20th century. The re-discovery of his works and the liberation of his thought from the Nazi perversions was foundational to that which became known as postmodern philosophy. In a very significant sense Nietzsche represents an attempt at breaking with modern philosophy, and his works foreshadow the ending of modern philosophy, which came approximately 50 years after his death(and which many would say came to it’s end in Nietzsche’s works). Many consider him to have been exceptionally prescient.
When a thinker challenges and fundamentally calls into question a major paradigm of philosophical thought which was dominant over 400 years, this is significant. Many criticize him for not having been “systematic”, still others have tried to find some hidden system in Nietzsche. But the lack of system by Nietzsche is a fundamental aspect of his critique against any kind of over-arching totality, regardless how totality is conceived, and not just and oversight or symptomatic of some kind of laziness on his behalf.
This critique of totality is the hallmark of thought which ventured beyond “modern” philosophy. No universal truth, no universal knowledge, no universal history-knowledge,truth and history serve a function, a function which must be critiqued and against which all must be ever vigilant. Modern philosophy focused on the perfection of knowledge-the final “truth”, ie. the establishment of universals, totalities, incontrovertible truth’s. Modern philosophy, in essence, wanted to have the last word, perfect knowledge being final knowledge, a knowledge of the world past-the truth of a world which is no longer. To paraphrase, Nietzsche had the last word about any philosophy which portends to have the last word/final say.
sorry, i’ll get off my philosophy soapbox now….
Some people never grow up, libertarianism is an example of de-evolution at work.
Not to defend Rand Paul in anyway, I beseech you to not engage in superfluous Nietzsche bashing. Extreme right wing lunatics have been misappropriating Nietzsche’s works for over 100 years now, attempting to find justification and legitimization for their insanity in Nietzsche’s writings. As someone who has invested the better part of the last 20 years in studying philosophy, including the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, it pains me greatly to see people attempting to slander one through association with Nietzsche.
Forcing anyone to listen to someone else reading any work by anyone out loud, is the absurdity at hand here. This kind of behavior is akin to brainwashing and such behavior is pathetic.
The tale of the Uebermensch is a kind of nightmare-foreboding which Nietzsche saw as the inevitable result of the fundamental hypocrisy and contradictions of Christianity. Nietzsche did not call for people to self-identify themselves as Uebermenschen, as the Nazi’s claimed in their misappropriation and raping of meaning of that which Nietzsche wrote, rather he decried the, for him apparent, necessity of such a figure to resolve the hypocritical/self-contradictory “values” of Christianity. The tone which Nietzsche used is extremely harsh, sarcastic and self-ironic-the extremity of which is measured by the degree of injustice against which Nietzsche was lashing out. Taking his statements at “face-value” is about as intellectually dishonest as can be conceived, much akin to “fundamentalist” “literal” interpretations of the Bible.
Rand Paul was/is probably sufficiently intellectually dishonest to completely misread and misapply the soul-wrenching intellect of Nietzsche to further his own dishonest ends. Let us not re-commit the same crime in an attempt to vilify Rand Paul-his own actions, words, and ways of thinking are sufficiently damnable, in and of themselves.