i'm realizing i have made shockingly little progress on the science wars

i made my way through hegel faster than this

kasey is wrong i have to finish and make myself miserable

oh my god bruh 😭

there's unfortunately only one phrase for this

we're gonna have to unpack antirealism2 a lot more, and i have a feeling we're lumping a lot of distinct views in this one bucket, some of which are more or less defensible

i will note though that at least the gesture of general disaggregation is appreciated, a lot of my complaining so far has been trying to figure out what exactly he's even talking about

i dont really think we landed on anything definitive with the kant discussion, which is kinda unfortunate considering its obviously massive implications

like fair enough, i'd be more offended if you half-assed an attempt to seriously engage with what he was saying in a couple pages and then acted like you defeated him once and for all

which like he kind of did but, shrug. idk i can't be offended anymore

antirealism5 is just more ramblez

ngl i think philosophy of science is hella boring blawg, i don't even wanna be here why am i reading this

just as an aside, the discussion on arrogance is weird, especially considering his prior invocations of the term.

gah now that we're in more moral territory i'm gonna be groaning a lot

it's so funny to hear him argue for epistemic rigor and when it comes to morality, which ostensibly he also cares a great deal about, he just completely gives up on it

authoritarians (like engels [remember engels guys, im super heccin anarkist]) say violence is equivalent to domination, but we wise anarchists say "there are clear differences around the total amount of freedom provided to folks". so yeah. boom.

sometimes i see things on puter

(sometimes i see things on puter that make me laugh like lain's dad)

it's funnier when there's no proximate inducing object, my thoughts are usually my entertainment

lol cute i had a wordpress account

holy shit its marxist william gillis

genuinely this tickles me so much, you could find-replace and slot this into the blurb on the back cover

You can argue that, but it doesn't negate what I'm saying: it’s not an atproto app in the slightest

retard

willy gilly chapter 2. i made it though half a paragraph and im rolling my eyes already

if an anarchist says "i think freedom is good and oppression is bad" the postmodernist should smirk like they just said "my mom is kind of homeless" and ignore them, it has nothing to do with metanarratives

dude who is he arguing against 😭😭😭😭 anti-humanists who are anti-truth and anti-freedom but also somehow maintain this incredibly thin moralism and strongly believe in Leftism

those people exist but like, is that really the triumph of this book? i know i know, let him cook. its just so hard

bruh im gonna crash out lmfao, why are we dragging naive second-international marxism into this?

look i kinda get it, pomos are marx-influenced and the kind in the air, especially at the time, was something more akin to that silly orthodox. like i can trace back what he's getting at, but there are so few people nowadays that like that and he's acting like its the most widespread contemporary

thing. idk we're hopping in relevance a lot by saying things like "younger generations of academics" which imply a group but is vague enough to retreat to.

maybe i'd stop getting one-guy'd if i just gave up a little more and accepted it as this very nebulous ideal-typic construction but he doesn't speak that way and is very smug about the whole thing

maybe this is the reaction some people have to nietzsche, like am i being PhilosophyTube rn? the curse of abigail thorn

bro im gonna cry, i can't even make it one sentence without triggering myself. the pro-moralist anarchists are so fucking annoying man 😭 waow dude tell me more how everyone evaluates things no thats super interesting

yea "totalitarianism" sucks, good discussion i say, holding my breath for the inevitable usage of this point into a complete non sequitur and of course i am rewarded for my patience. now we're arguing against "left unity" types

like maybe im just being incredulous or simply wasn't there for the undocumented history of this sub-culture. but this reads less like a coherent position or group of people and just disagreement with a grab-bag of tendencies on the left that don't form any coherent group at all

lol this is just the laziest, ugliest genealogical strand of ideological critique. people that don't like universalism are privileged, boom mic drop

gonna cry dude like even when we're stating a fine position (anti-anti-legibility) we're all awkward and stilted with it. like what are these random quotes. it's just so weird to see an eagleton sentence where democracy is taken for granted as good

we're so messy and all over the place, a hodge-podge of concepts and they don't paint a very pretty picture

"the nouveau riche might be crass and arrogant, and the poor - usually more tightly tied to objective materiality - might be obliged to speak plainly and directly of practical factuality, but today’s ossified and comfortable middle classes prefer indirectness."

i don't even have to say anything right

OKAY STOP NO THERES NO WAY

literally i will not allow you to loop in an anti-berlinian critique of negative freedom into the same crowd

okay okay from this point on i am making a vow to interpret this as a free association session where he lists out everything he doesn't like

"bookchin was notoriously crude in lumping together a variety of anti-modern subcultural strands" wow that sounds really annoying i bet

oh my god i just saw the phrase “money dysmorphia”

coming to a DSM near you

alright what we reading gals

(read in tone of fortnite “where we dropping boys”)