False Consciousness, blaming just one single cog in the machine (Government) for the faults of the entirety of the out-dated and completely obsolete machine (Capitalism)... We need to build more True Class Consciousness, and be more widely recognised. And more widely understood. And heard. That's never going to happen with Competition... Only way to solve to solve our problems is Co-Operation.
Just finished the video! The whole idea that false consciousness, f.c., whichever it may be, (and there are many intersecting types of f.c.) is the pleasant lie, the one which is easier to believe and thus self perpetuating.... that is very well stated. I will admit I kind of attributed much of false consciousness to a conspiracy of the whitre, rich, het, cis in power. Never realized just how deeply they must be entrenched in believing and perpetuating the comfortable lie.... 🖤💜💙💚💙💜🖤 Thanks so much for making this video! Appreciate all that you do, Much Love!!
I'm only 3 minutes into the video, but those examples of false consciousness you used were fantastic. It was so validating to hear a trans person with internalized transphobia used as an example, It made me tear up! 🖤💜💙💚💙💜🖤 Thank you for being you, and having a channel which unequivocally educates with trans acceptance as a pillar of your intersectional beliefs. Can't wait for the rest of the video!!
As a recent convert into anarchy/libertarian socialism, you help me gain a better understanding of this fascinating system while bringing me hope. Thank you.
What defines ideology is not that it is a false consciousness but that it is a symbolic construct with a social function. Ideology can contradict reality or it can rely on reality. Consciousness, in general, is mediated by ideology, but it may not be so in certain types of sensitive experiences. The experience of being exploited generates a physical and emotional reaction prior to the mediation of ideology. This sensation can be blurred by the ideology of the ruling class (which for the worker is alienating and yes, a form of false consciousness, as it erases objective experience) or it can contribute to the development of a proletarian and libertarian ideology. However, the ideological character of the ruling class ideology is not defined by being true or false, but rather by being the expression of the consciousness of the ruling class.
Really like your videos, could you do a video about Michel Foucault? My lecturers love him, but I know that he divides opinion and is often regarded as unacademic.
This at the beginning seems to assume some kind of materialist reductionism. Why not think that new ideas are connected to old ideas, instead of to society. I get the suggestion that eg ideas of Enlightenment thinkers were maybe thought of by some other people before them, but those earlier people were maybe poorer or lived in a more repressive or non-receptive environment so they didnt express those ideas, of if they did express them they didnt spread among other people and 'died out', so we dont even know they expressed them; but i dont see why to assume that the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers were caused by the society they lived in..
You can read Engels in a crude materialist way, or you can read him as saying something that is now mainstream intellectual history. According to the ‘Cambridge school’ of intellectual history texts of political theory are always produced by people who, since they live in a given historic situation, are responding to a given intellectual context - previous texts, the inherited assumptions from previous thinkers, and contemporary texts and debates - and the wider social and political reality which confronts them each day. Thinkers must, to quote the Marxist historian Ellen Wood, “be treated as living and engaged human beings immersed. . . in the context of the social and political processes that shaped their immediate world”. If “different historical settings pose different sets of questions” then in order to understand a political theorist we must historically locate them through an understanding of the kind of society they lived in. For example, it will be important to know what the relations between those who produced and those who appropriated what others produced were, how violence was institutionally organised, or how it was that people gained access to the means of existence, such as food, clothing and shelter. Quintin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Volume One: The Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), x-xi, xiii Ellen Meiksins Wood, Citizens to Lords: A Social History of Western Political Thought From Antiquity to the Middle Ages (London: Verso, 2011), 12
i think the problem here that material here means mostly economic situation. Im pretty sure people gets inspired and/or effected by ideas but not because ideas themselves are active. Person's material condition and place in society in general affect him/her thought.Tho not determines. Since engels himself was a rich kid xD in the end one is free at the core, one can choose to inspired or not. But theres no causal link between ideas, a body has to pick up the link.
I think it is also worth pointing out the difference between the genesis or innovation of said ideas, and the fostering of a particular sociopolitical zeitgeist that might inform them. For example, if we purely observed history as being driven by the fabric of its ideas, then we would have to account for whether society then reflects that propulsion. But if this were the case we would struggle to explain why any particular narrative thread of progress; such as why a line from Democritus (460 BC) to Lucretius (~94 BC) didn't ignite an Enlightenment period before the 18th century; anybody who has read "On The Nature of Things" can attest to the astonishing preeminence and foresight of such a work, that even lays down a few basic planks for the wave/particle duality theory of light. But of course we do know *why* this didn't happen, and that is because individual thinkers and subsequent paradigm shifts are rarely neatly aligned, and when we look at this example we can easily recall the persistent domination of religion and its regressive views towards science, the class disparity in the access to information affecting which views were dominant and why, and the general struggles between groups that provided the necessary fuel for both the revolts, and the exposure that ushered in era of appropriate access/ relative freedom to re-examine these ideas and question established knowledge. If we looked at history as purely the progression of ideas, we would have a Whig-like overestimation of the progress achieved. If we looked purely at society as the barometer of progress, then we get a better understanding, but not one that teaches us the important lessons of identifying and respecting innovation when we *should* see it. The latter is one of the main reasons I still enjoy reading some of Foucault's works that question traditional Western views of progress even when overemphasising such points can risk devolving into relativism.
Now, "responding to a given intellectual context - previous texts, the inherited assumptions from previous thinkers, and contemporary texts and debates" - sounds like something a marxist might call "idealist" thinking, connecting ideas to ideas instead of to the material bases. Saying that eg the Enlightenment in some way builds on developments made in medieval philosophy is different than saying that the Enlightenment was caused by emerging capitalism.
A Marxist who rejected the role of previous ideas in intellectual history wouldn't understand Marx himself since Marx himself was responding to Hegel, republicanism, the enlightenment, classical political economy etc. Ellen Wood is one of the most famous marxist historians and she has written a two volume intellectual history of the west in which she talks about how previous ideas shaped future ideas.
@Diogenes TheDog I've heard Chomsky's critique of Rawls and honestly I think it is a misunderstanding. From what I remember he says that Rawl's politics is good for armchair liberal political philosophy but not much else. In my opinion, just because Rawl's ideas have been discussed mostly by philosophers that doesn't mean thats all his ideas are good for or that the core principles can't be applied in real life situations.
How does this fals consciousness not represent Gnostic concepts from Marx and just reflect the simulacrum of Socialism layered though culture? How can any of this be proven correct in reality instead of just a belief of the accuser of false consciousness on the acusee? How is this entire concept not predicated on the idea that you as the person claiming others have false conscious have a divine understanding about what the real world is and that it's being correctly represented by you?
1:13 "Someone who ascribed to this view of history" Sorry, I know I am a nitpicker, a naysayer, and a Nasty Little Troll for this, but "ascribe" is to attribute to someone else. You meant "subscribe" I think. If I ascribe X to YOU, it means I am saying that YOU believe X. If I SUBscribe to X, it means I believe X myself. Sorry, just had to point it out....
I just can't help pointing little things out, in hopes that correcting someone will make it easier to avoid that same mistake in the future. Also, because I'm Nasty Little Trolls. Please don't take it personally, I mean no harm, and I have deeply appreciated your work for years.
@@anarchozoe but you just told him to not notice AND you told him you are dyslexic! now you say sure go right ahead i dont have a problem. Im confused, Should i not notice or go right ahead? Sorry, I know I am a nitpicker, a naysayer, and a Nasty Little Troll for this, but i think you should say Am dyslexic so please ignore these kinda mistakes. don't notice these kinda mistakes sounds like youre trying to jedi mind trick him.
An emotional response (3) is a pure feeling. It does not conform to the exemple you give, which is a thought. An emotion is not a thought or system of thought. This is explained adequately in Harriet Goldhor Lerner's The Dance of Anger, though perhaps there are much better sources elsewhere. I do not know. Also: it is raw data, of which the problem is interpretation, treatment, processing and functional utility, at an instant in any case, even though over time, sometimes s split second, sometimes years, everyone rational person works towards having all emotions which form more useful data. There are forms of neuralgia where the pain is delocalised from its actual point of pathological origin. This does not mean the delocalised pain is not real, nor that it is inappropriate. It just is. So it is with emotion, which is data our brain provides to us. Once the true point of origin of this delocalised pain can be found, either it is treatable and can be eliminated or reduced, or at least the person has the correct cognition in knowing where the pain originates, which may affect behaviour. Similar stratagems apply to emotion. Thus either Finlayson has a local definition which differs substantially from the dictionary meaning of these terms, or what she asserts is false. You also continue to systematically misrepresent and misguide concerning Karen Straughan, and to assert the myth at the very least in the West of the patriarchy, which is itself an illustration of false consciousness. Why not take an agnostic position on which agnosticism is in fact the only rational one, regard the whole problem as one of actual unfathomable complexity to be regarded as a black box where what must be improved are the inputs and outputs. for mean and women (in alphabetical order) and recommend the Icelandic model of the treatment of relations of the sexes, or Scandinavian in general, but I am thinking above all of the Icelandic one, which although it reposes on much mythology, which might in time be subdued, in fact even more than there is in England or France or Germany, leads to in practise at least better outcomes according to such measures as the the I.H.D.I. and G.P.I., though not necessarily according to the dogmatic slumbers of what certain feminists would claim should be the result of certain policies? In Norway, for example, the result of the measures has been for women to make more choices in alignment with the science of sex differences would predict, than in Iran or China, which it is hard to see anyway to accommodate within your mythology. Nowhere, ever, have you listed, addressed, and offered solutions for the grievances of anti-feminists, or simply human rights activists's concerning men as well as women, as if it is quite impossible for you to apply Chomsky's dictum that all pain and injustice matters equally. In your spoken and published views, you do not do this. As usual the approach favoured seems to be the negligence of the facts and the assertions of truths in that indifference. Also the dichotomy you assume, or seem to assume, since you never discuss this anywhere known, between culture and biology, is scientifically untenable and philosophically religious, the last two terms are deliberately possibly antinomic. Considering the incredibly rich interplay and complexity of the relationship between these, developed for example in Jacques Ruffié's De la biologie à la culture (formerly in one volume, now new only in two volumes), it seems a sacrifice to irrationality not worth the loss. Also, what objections do you have to the rationalistic accounts of sex differences by Nicolas Gauvrit and Frank Ramuz, or the rationalistic anti-feminism of Peggy Sastre? Even whilst it remains, as it should be, an open question for science and philosophy of science, but ultimately the question is empirical, whether it terms of determinism, culture is possibly even entirely determined by biology, and then biology by chemistry, and chemistry by physics, you discuss the them as if they are non-overlapping magisteria. Why? And on what basis, given that it can be reasonably be doubted that you even know off the top of your head, how many neurons and how many synapses humans have, according to what we know in 2017, not to speak of the rest of the knowledge of biology you have? As usual this will receive no response, or if a response an extremely brief one, and no extended discussion until the issues are at least a little clarified, via the reply, response, reply, and so on, format, on this platform, or any other, but such is the only method of protection of beliefs which are rationally untenable. Apart from the peculiar stance then of choosing an example of false consciousness to show how false consciousness could be lifted and affects us, and the fiction of the patriarchy, instead of the fiction of the free market or the fiction of the fiction of the compatibility of capitalism with ethics, your video illustrates all your usual clarity and rigour, which make the ever-increasing religiosity of the beliefs then defended all the more tragically incomprehensible. The only trouble with the last aspect, though this is speaking on the basis of impressions not science, and the data I should indeed find out on this question, otherwise I will be inconsistent, is that it is much harder for people to leave religions, from the standards ones to homeopathy, acupuncture, psychoanalysis, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, capitalism, statism, Europeanism, American exceptionalism, Zizekism, Hegelianism, holders of the fact/value dichotomy, holders that counterfactuals are meaningless, postmodernism, relativism, than to enter them. In general, they are recalcitrant to reading counter-evidence to their beliefs, to exposing themselves to people they disagree with, and the hold the religion has on them is not rational thus rendering it impervious to rational challenge. Also, in a set of influences you would set yourself amidst, from analytic philosophy to rationalistic anarchism, you have decided to differ them on no good grounds whatsoever, in knowing as little science and mathematics as possible, that could sap your capacity for holding beliefs not founded upon reason and evidence, alone.
Way too much to respond to here as I ain't gonna write an essay in response. So I'll just respond to the first point. I've experienced self-blame as an emotional feeling and when you venerate an abuser it is experienced as an emotional attitude toward them. These emotions often go alongside thoughts, but they're also their own thing.
If they're in fact wrong then it is false consciousness. Obvs you can have meta false consciousness - having false consciousness about someone else having false-consciousness e.g. a stalinist who thinks people who oppose the USSR have false consciousness themselves has false consciousness
it just feels like an easy tool for propaganda. It entails a claim to the absolute truth which I have a problem with. I don't want to be all postfactual, but to me the term just does not seem helpful. It's not "wrong" in its being but it implies an absolute authority on the part of the speaker. A discussion involving the term would only end in two people pointing at each other and saying "false conciousness" and there would be no way out. It's a reduction of societal perception/consensus on one individual. It's not "misconception", it's "false conciousness", as in "your conciousness, the very essence of your being, is wrong". Misconception on the other hand can be partly externalised. "False conciousness" is an automatic ad hominem.
Isn't that more a reason to be careful how you use the concept false consciousness, rather than a reason to not use it at all? Its clear, for example, that a slave who thinks slavery is good for them and that their master loves them has false consciousness. The fact that there are cases where it isn't clear that something is false consciousness, and so we shouldn't use the term as we're not in a position to know, doesn't mean we shouldn't use the term in the slavery case.
Yes, but do we need the notion of false conciousness when it is so authoritarian and the notion of being wrong already exists? Is false conciousness more than an academic "you're wrong"? Is there something I'm missing?
It talks about things which are beyond just being wrong in the sense of "you believe a false proposition". As I said in the vid it includes a broader notion of wrong, such as your emotions, what you notice/don't notice, how you mentally experience your environment and yourself. It then in turn ties these experiences to social structures and the role these experiences have in reproducing domination and how they are themselves produced by domination.
Most all you parrot is clearly of the intellectually useful variety and I commend your chooseing to share and reveal uour personal life for all our benefit freely. I'm going to argue with you about one point and that is what is much like capitalism the intention perhaps to create an equality of Liberty and sovereignty or in another sense Equity among human beings. It has been my experience that is searching out for or seeking out equality is inherently a Pursuit that is illegitimate at best and frankly illogical on a whole. Mary argument uses several examples the latest being feminism and what most believe it to be. In general a search or a movement for equality is unobtainable and not in a utopian way. Though the desire is there amongst the masses in my personal experience I have found only equity to be obtainable. A Pursuit ofequality has far too many unobtainable goals and becomes an ideology quickly after its Inception. Feminism's original ideology brought about by its Core Group clearly stating its goals as the destruction of the family unit. The subversion of the male role model the Father the oppressor the patriarch what have you. Bringing equality to the female by not changing her to a family or her role as life-giver or mother. That if a female is free to choose her lot in life as if she wasn't before this would bring equality across the board. I know this may sound strange but it is clear after several people dropping out of the feminist movement early on quietly living their lives as if they didn't know what was going on. I would place the Duluth model the billions of dollars sought after bye the core hierarchy of feminist. moreover they have sought Authority was the illegitimate manufactured authority of the state that is inherently no good at doing good. I don't believe I need to convince anyone watching this channel just how vile and corrupt the state can be not to mention the use of violence as a threat for moral Behavior mental manipulation and the like. I have to say it's much like the Inception of smartphones and all of this information that we are allowed to gather allowed I say is if it isn't clear to everyone now censorship indeed fascism of a totalitarian state is in your face up your ass and everywhere in between. I can sum up the absolute Idiocracy the blank face in feminism without extrapolating actual facts the typical problem with the liberal mindset of we will create actions to help people without looking at the outcome at all. I'm going to generalize and say that most liberals do not do their homework to do not do their homework in a scientific manner did you not compare apples and apples and oranges and oranges they compare apples and oranges and cucumbers and cauliflower and broccoli and all kinds of shit and that leads to all kinds of shit. I typically start my searches for economical advantages or disadvantages historically someone so logical is ThomasSowell and move forward from there. I digress the only evidence I would present is the Duluth model. The Duluth model Dean the end-all-be-all document that has been pushed into every single corner of illegitimate Authority the standing army that we know as the police the military industrial complex Google RUclips and I would venture to Guess that there has been no one below the highest ends of the hierarchy that I've read this document and exactly what it states choosing to oppress demonize and literally tear down everything that is male masculinity Behavior and indeed seek out a guilty judgment upon every man everywhere at any age any status financially etcetera and leave that man in the gutter a heap I'm trash for all to spit on energy for the state to incarcerate at will for there is no option but. I would be happy to debate this with anyone and we can put that document in front of us and debated in equity and in no way shape or form has anyone ever come up with a positive light much less a quality derived from a document in which men are evil violence oppressive subversive extortive you name an evil and by God men are born with it. now I don't know where your Narco pack exactly you stand on this search this is ridiculous search for equality I would challenge you to read the Duluth model and come back with a legitimate love for feminism? I honestly the older I get becoming more spiteful towards any form of liberalism or other idiotic pursuit of the quality for anything I am not the same as you nor you or the same as me and there is no room for judgement beyond the principles of non-aggression. I will pursue my logical open minded love for human beings knowing wholeheartedly that an equity between two people between any people is all that can be achieved and indeed it is achievable. I would be happy to do a debate live with you or what not was anyone with any single other human being based on the subverted evil of feminism. I I am no voice extolling the virtues of capitalism as it is today and that is what we need to base our definitions on if we're ever going to overcome this idiotic English language that one word means fifteen different things. one must look at the words they used to Liberal ideology and look at the action the causality of these things not feminism is not good because you wanted to be good there is not equality because you want equality there are trade-offs in this world there are natural laws and we must abide by them the more we don't the more suppressed are oppressed we will be.
Is women doing more reproductive work really inherently patriarchal? What if it was a Communist society where Mothers and their children could freely satisfy their needs, so basically it would be paid properly such that women wouldn't have to rely on men to have enough access to wealth in order to properly raise children, and if women had equal ownership rights and thus equal power in the home. Also, what if naturally more women want to voluntarily partake in reproductive work than men due to some natural inclination even in an ideal egalitarian society?
I guess this depends on what you call "reproductive work" and "natural". People do all kinds of things culturally. If things in your society appear to have the patriarichal norms, it might not be "nature" it could just be cultural inertia.
As a traditionalist antifeminist I am interested in hearing your defence of feminist ideology against the ideas promoted by the mens rights movement, specifically the idea that women have lots of power and privilege over men under traditional gender roles.
Traditional 1950s gender roles include the idea that domestic abuse is ok and marital rape isn't rape. If you can't by yourself see that 1950s gender roles are abhorrent, I don't know what argument could persuade you.
Question: Why is it false consciousness to deny that Capitalism oppresses workers, but it is NOT false consciousness to deny that Marxism has produced the most cruel and tyrannical regimes in modern history?
Ever since the emergence of ideologies there have been tyrants claiming they stand for that. Cromwell in the name of anti-monarchism/republicanism, Robespierre and Napoleon in the name of liberalism, etc. It is simply unfair to single out marxism in that regard.
@@ArgaJacint By that logic it's equally unfair to judge capitalism in that way. But unlike capitalism, Marxism has produced dictatorships in nearly 100% of cases.
@@topster888 A little bit of conflation is going on here i think Capitalism is a specific economic system that by its nature demands class differences. What i was trying to point out is that those tyrants i listed were tyrannical despite what those ideologies claimed. I'm not a marxiat fyi but it's reductive to say that it would always produce dictatorships. Lenin was always a highly controversial chatacter among communists, some going as far as to say he wasn't even a proper marxist. There have been many democratic marxists but they not, yet have had the chance to take power proper (and early liberalism was full of failures too). Rosa Luxemburg and the council communists for example, Thomas Sankara, Salvador Allende. All of whom were coup'd or murdered before they could establish their systems proper. Allende in specific was constantly disrupted by the USA and USA backed fascists, and some theorise that Sankara's murder also had something to do with USA meddling.
Why did you place Engels on that side. If you had put him on the left they would have been facing each other. They agreed on most things, and Engels was arguably as great a thinker as Marx.
I feel like you're one of the most underrated leftist channels. You deserve way more recognition.
False Consciousness, blaming just one single cog in the machine (Government) for the faults of the entirety of the out-dated and completely obsolete machine (Capitalism)... We need to build more True Class Consciousness, and be more widely recognised. And more widely understood. And heard. That's never going to happen with Competition... Only way to solve to solve our problems is Co-Operation.
Just finished the video!
The whole idea that false consciousness, f.c., whichever it may be, (and there are many intersecting types of f.c.) is the pleasant lie, the one which is easier to believe and thus self perpetuating.... that is very well stated.
I will admit I kind of attributed much of false consciousness to a conspiracy of the whitre, rich, het, cis in power. Never realized just how deeply they must be entrenched in believing and perpetuating the comfortable lie....
🖤💜💙💚💙💜🖤
Thanks so much for making this video!
Appreciate all that you do, Much Love!!
youre really good at describing these marxist concepts in a way thats both easy to understand and interesting!
I love your channel.
I'm only 3 minutes into the video, but those examples of false consciousness you used were fantastic.
It was so validating to hear a trans person with internalized transphobia used as an example, It made me tear up!
🖤💜💙💚💙💜🖤
Thank you for being you, and having a channel which unequivocally educates with trans acceptance as a pillar of your intersectional beliefs.
Can't wait for the rest of the video!!
As a recent convert into anarchy/libertarian socialism, you help me gain a better understanding of this fascinating system while bringing me hope. Thank you.
Would love to see a follow up video about False Consciousness and Statism.
Great work, as usual.
Thanks for being more helpful than my college prof
_Spread the bread, comrade!_
Thank you! Great food for thought as always.
Anarchopac, have you ever read any Althusser? And if yes, what do you think of his conception of ideology and interpellation?
Have only read some of his stuff on young vs old Marx. Haven't read his stuff on ideology etc
Really good explanation of false consciousness. Kudos to you. Liked and subbed.
What defines ideology is not that it is a false consciousness but that it is a symbolic construct with a social function. Ideology can contradict reality or it can rely on reality. Consciousness, in general, is mediated by ideology, but it may not be so in certain types of sensitive experiences. The experience of being exploited generates a physical and emotional reaction prior to the mediation of ideology. This sensation can be blurred by the ideology of the ruling class (which for the worker is alienating and yes, a form of false consciousness, as it erases objective experience) or it can contribute to the development of a proletarian and libertarian ideology. However, the ideological character of the ruling class ideology is not defined by being true or false, but rather by being the expression of the consciousness of the ruling class.
Really like your videos, could you do a video about Michel Foucault? My lecturers love him, but I know that he divides opinion and is often regarded as unacademic.
I don't really know much about Foucault, so can't.
what happened to your video on Berlin's theory on positive/negative freedom ?
Made it private. But the script can be found here -anarchopac.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/is-positive-liberty-dangerious/
Is that what zizek is talking about all the time?
This at the beginning seems to assume some kind of materialist reductionism. Why not think that new ideas are connected to old ideas, instead of to society. I get the suggestion that eg ideas of Enlightenment thinkers were maybe thought of by some other people before them, but those earlier people were maybe poorer or lived in a more repressive or non-receptive environment so they didnt express those ideas, of if they did express them they didnt spread among other people and 'died out', so we dont even know they expressed them; but i dont see why to assume that the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers were caused by the society they lived in..
You can read Engels in a crude materialist way, or you can read him as saying something that is now mainstream intellectual history. According to the ‘Cambridge school’ of intellectual history texts of political theory are always produced by people who, since they live in a given historic situation, are responding to a given intellectual context - previous texts, the inherited assumptions from previous thinkers, and contemporary texts and debates - and the wider social and political reality which confronts them each day. Thinkers must, to quote the Marxist historian Ellen Wood, “be treated as living and engaged human beings immersed. . . in the context of the social and political processes that shaped their immediate world”. If “different historical settings pose different sets of questions” then in order to understand a political theorist we must historically locate them through an understanding of the kind of society they lived in. For example, it will be important to know what the relations between those who produced and those who appropriated what others produced were, how violence was institutionally organised, or how it was that people gained access to the means of existence, such as food, clothing and shelter.
Quintin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Volume One: The Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), x-xi, xiii
Ellen Meiksins Wood, Citizens to Lords: A Social History of Western Political Thought From Antiquity to the Middle Ages (London: Verso, 2011), 12
i think the problem here that material here means mostly economic situation. Im pretty sure people gets inspired and/or effected by ideas but not because ideas themselves are active. Person's material condition and place in society in general affect him/her thought.Tho not determines. Since engels himself was a rich kid xD in the end one is free at the core, one can choose to inspired or not. But theres no causal link between ideas, a body has to pick up the link.
I think it is also worth pointing out the difference between the genesis or innovation of said ideas, and the fostering of a particular sociopolitical zeitgeist that might inform them. For example, if we purely observed history as being driven by the fabric of its ideas, then we would have to account for whether society then reflects that propulsion. But if this were the case we would struggle to explain why any particular narrative thread of progress; such as why a line from Democritus (460 BC) to Lucretius (~94 BC) didn't ignite an Enlightenment period before the 18th century; anybody who has read "On The Nature of Things" can attest to the astonishing preeminence and foresight of such a work, that even lays down a few basic planks for the wave/particle duality theory of light.
But of course we do know *why* this didn't happen, and that is because individual thinkers and subsequent paradigm shifts are rarely neatly aligned, and when we look at this example we can easily recall the persistent domination of religion and its regressive views towards science, the class disparity in the access to information affecting which views were dominant and why, and the general struggles between groups that provided the necessary fuel for both the revolts, and the exposure that ushered in era of appropriate access/ relative freedom to re-examine these ideas and question established knowledge.
If we looked at history as purely the progression of ideas, we would have a Whig-like overestimation of the progress achieved. If we looked purely at society as the barometer of progress, then we get a better understanding, but not one that teaches us the important lessons of identifying and respecting innovation when we *should* see it. The latter is one of the main reasons I still enjoy reading some of Foucault's works that question traditional Western views of progress even when overemphasising such points can risk devolving into relativism.
Now, "responding to a given intellectual context - previous texts, the inherited assumptions from previous thinkers, and contemporary texts and debates" - sounds like something a marxist might call "idealist" thinking, connecting ideas to ideas instead of to the material bases. Saying that eg the Enlightenment in some way builds on developments made in medieval philosophy is different than saying that the Enlightenment was caused by emerging capitalism.
A Marxist who rejected the role of previous ideas in intellectual history wouldn't understand Marx himself since Marx himself was responding to Hegel, republicanism, the enlightenment, classical political economy etc.
Ellen Wood is one of the most famous marxist historians and she has written a two volume intellectual history of the west in which she talks about how previous ideas shaped future ideas.
You use they/them pronouns, right? Just checking
I use he/they pronouns. Pronouns aren't a big deal for me personally.
Oh, okay, thanks! I use she/her, you prob won't recognize me if you see me again tho lol!
Hey anarchopac, I have a question I would really like you to answer.
Why do you think Rawls is a bad framework for politcal philosophy?
@Diogenes TheDog
I've heard Chomsky's critique of Rawls and honestly I think it is a misunderstanding. From what I remember he says that Rawl's politics is good for armchair liberal political philosophy but not much else.
In my opinion, just because Rawl's ideas have been discussed mostly by philosophers that doesn't mean thats all his ideas are good for or that the core principles can't be applied in real life situations.
How does this fals consciousness not represent Gnostic concepts from Marx and just reflect the simulacrum of Socialism layered though culture? How can any of this be proven correct in reality instead of just a belief of the accuser of false consciousness on the acusee? How is this entire concept not predicated on the idea that you as the person claiming others have false conscious have a divine understanding about what the real world is and that it's being correctly represented by you?
Brilliant
1:13 "Someone who ascribed to this view of history"
Sorry, I know I am a nitpicker, a naysayer, and a Nasty Little Troll for this, but "ascribe" is to attribute to someone else. You meant "subscribe" I think. If I ascribe X to YOU, it means I am saying that YOU believe X. If I SUBscribe to X, it means I believe X myself. Sorry, just had to point it out....
Am dyslexic so don't notice these kinda mistakes
I just can't help pointing little things out, in hopes that correcting someone will make it easier to avoid that same mistake in the future. Also, because I'm Nasty Little Trolls. Please don't take it personally, I mean no harm, and I have deeply appreciated your work for years.
I don't have a problem with people correcting my grammar.
@@anarchozoe but you just told him to not notice AND you told him you are dyslexic! now you say sure go right ahead i dont have a problem. Im confused, Should i not notice or go right ahead?
Sorry, I know I am a nitpicker, a naysayer, and a Nasty Little Troll for this, but i think you should say Am dyslexic so please ignore these kinda mistakes. don't notice these kinda mistakes sounds like youre trying to jedi mind trick him.
More on this topic here; ruclips.net/video/YYi7Npx2ucs/видео.html
İdeology for em were literally, seing logos in ideas, being idealist. Not in the modern sense.
And bad faith is basically this too. But sartre made a metaphysical base for it.
Just saying the autoplay takes you to david icke :O
0:02 Battle of the Beards
An emotional response (3) is a pure feeling. It does not conform to the exemple you give, which is a thought. An emotion is not a thought or system of thought.
This is explained adequately in Harriet Goldhor Lerner's The Dance of Anger, though perhaps there are much better sources elsewhere. I do not know.
Also: it is raw data, of which the problem is interpretation, treatment, processing and functional utility, at an instant in any case, even though over time, sometimes s split second, sometimes years, everyone rational person works towards having all emotions which form more useful data.
There are forms of neuralgia where the pain is delocalised from its actual point of pathological origin. This does not mean the delocalised pain is not real, nor that it is inappropriate. It just is. So it is with emotion, which is data our brain provides to us. Once the true point of origin of this delocalised pain can be found, either it is treatable and can be eliminated or reduced, or at least the person has the correct cognition in knowing where the pain originates, which may affect behaviour. Similar stratagems apply to emotion.
Thus either Finlayson has a local definition which differs substantially from the dictionary meaning of these terms, or what she asserts is false.
You also continue to systematically misrepresent and misguide concerning Karen Straughan, and to assert the myth at the very least in the West of the patriarchy, which is itself an illustration of false consciousness.
Why not take an agnostic position on which agnosticism is in fact the only rational one, regard the whole problem as one of actual unfathomable complexity to be regarded as a black box where what must be improved are the inputs and outputs. for mean and women (in alphabetical order) and recommend the Icelandic model of the treatment of relations of the sexes, or Scandinavian in general, but I am thinking above all of the Icelandic one, which although it reposes on much mythology, which might in time be subdued, in fact even more than there is in England or France or Germany, leads to in practise at least better outcomes according to such measures as the the I.H.D.I. and G.P.I., though not necessarily according to the dogmatic slumbers of what certain feminists would claim should be the result of certain policies? In Norway, for example, the result of the measures has been for women to make more choices in alignment with the science of sex differences would predict, than in Iran or China, which it is hard to see anyway to accommodate within your mythology.
Nowhere, ever, have you listed, addressed, and offered solutions for the grievances of anti-feminists, or simply human rights activists's concerning men as well as women, as if it is quite impossible for you to apply Chomsky's dictum that all pain and injustice matters equally. In your spoken and published views, you do not do this.
As usual the approach favoured seems to be the negligence of the facts and the assertions of truths in that indifference.
Also the dichotomy you assume, or seem to assume, since you never discuss this anywhere known, between culture and biology, is scientifically untenable and philosophically religious, the last two terms are deliberately possibly antinomic.
Considering the incredibly rich interplay and complexity of the relationship between these, developed for example in Jacques Ruffié's De la biologie à la culture (formerly in one volume, now new only in two volumes), it seems a sacrifice to irrationality not worth the loss.
Also, what objections do you have to the rationalistic accounts of sex differences by Nicolas Gauvrit and Frank Ramuz, or the rationalistic anti-feminism of Peggy Sastre?
Even whilst it remains, as it should be, an open question for science and philosophy of science, but ultimately the question is empirical, whether it terms of determinism, culture is possibly even entirely determined by biology, and then biology by chemistry, and chemistry by physics, you discuss the them as if they are non-overlapping magisteria. Why? And on what basis, given that it can be reasonably be doubted that you even know off the top of your head, how many neurons and how many synapses humans have, according to what we know in 2017, not to speak of the rest of the knowledge of biology you have?
As usual this will receive no response, or if a response an extremely brief one, and no extended discussion until the issues are at least a little clarified, via the reply, response, reply, and so on, format, on this platform, or any other, but such is the only method of protection of beliefs which are rationally untenable.
Apart from the peculiar stance then of choosing an example of false consciousness to show how false consciousness could be lifted and affects us, and the fiction of the patriarchy, instead of the fiction of the free market or the fiction of the fiction of the compatibility of capitalism with ethics, your video illustrates all your usual clarity and rigour, which make the ever-increasing religiosity of the beliefs then defended all the more tragically incomprehensible.
The only trouble with the last aspect, though this is speaking on the basis of impressions not science, and the data I should indeed find out on this question, otherwise I will be inconsistent, is that it is much harder for people to leave religions, from the standards ones to homeopathy, acupuncture, psychoanalysis, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, capitalism, statism, Europeanism, American exceptionalism, Zizekism, Hegelianism, holders of the fact/value dichotomy, holders that counterfactuals are meaningless, postmodernism, relativism, than to enter them.
In general, they are recalcitrant to reading counter-evidence to their beliefs, to exposing themselves to people they disagree with, and the hold the religion has on them is not rational thus rendering it impervious to rational challenge.
Also, in a set of influences you would set yourself amidst, from analytic philosophy to rationalistic anarchism, you have decided to differ them on no good grounds whatsoever, in knowing as little science and mathematics as possible, that could sap your capacity for holding beliefs not founded upon reason and evidence, alone.
Way too much to respond to here as I ain't gonna write an essay in response. So I'll just respond to the first point. I've experienced self-blame as an emotional feeling and when you venerate an abuser it is experienced as an emotional attitude toward them. These emotions often go alongside thoughts, but they're also their own thing.
Christ, and people say *women* talk too much. Men will use so many words only to say nothing of any value whatsoever
So, if someone has an opinion different from mine, I can just diagnose them with false consciousness?!
If they're in fact wrong then it is false consciousness. Obvs you can have meta false consciousness - having false consciousness about someone else having false-consciousness e.g. a stalinist who thinks people who oppose the USSR have false consciousness themselves has false consciousness
it just feels like an easy tool for propaganda. It entails a claim to the absolute truth which I have a problem with. I don't want to be all postfactual, but to me the term just does not seem helpful. It's not "wrong" in its being but it implies an absolute authority on the part of the speaker. A discussion involving the term would only end in two people pointing at each other and saying "false conciousness" and there would be no way out. It's a reduction of societal perception/consensus on one individual. It's not "misconception", it's "false conciousness", as in "your conciousness, the very essence of your being, is wrong". Misconception on the other hand can be partly externalised. "False conciousness" is an automatic ad hominem.
Isn't that more a reason to be careful how you use the concept false consciousness, rather than a reason to not use it at all?
Its clear, for example, that a slave who thinks slavery is good for them and that their master loves them has false consciousness. The fact that there are cases where it isn't clear that something is false consciousness, and so we shouldn't use the term as we're not in a position to know, doesn't mean we shouldn't use the term in the slavery case.
Yes, but do we need the notion of false conciousness when it is so authoritarian and the notion of being wrong already exists?
Is false conciousness more than an academic "you're wrong"? Is there something I'm missing?
It talks about things which are beyond just being wrong in the sense of "you believe a false proposition". As I said in the vid it includes a broader notion of wrong, such as your emotions, what you notice/don't notice, how you mentally experience your environment and yourself.
It then in turn ties these experiences to social structures and the role these experiences have in reproducing domination and how they are themselves produced by domination.
Consciousness..... you are getting sleepy.....sleepy ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Most all you parrot is clearly of the intellectually useful variety and I commend your chooseing to share and reveal uour personal life for all our benefit freely.
I'm going to argue with you about one point and that is what is much like capitalism the intention perhaps to create an equality of Liberty and sovereignty or in another sense Equity among human beings. It has been my experience that is searching out for or seeking out equality is inherently a Pursuit that is illegitimate at best and frankly illogical on a whole.
Mary argument uses several examples the latest being feminism and what most believe it to be. In general a search or a movement for equality is unobtainable and not in a utopian way. Though the desire is there amongst the masses in my personal experience I have found only equity to be obtainable. A Pursuit ofequality has far too many unobtainable goals and becomes an ideology quickly after its Inception. Feminism's original ideology brought about by its Core Group clearly stating its goals as the destruction of the family unit.
The subversion of the male role model the Father the oppressor the patriarch what have you.
Bringing equality to the female by not changing her to a family or her role as life-giver or mother. That if a female is free to choose her lot in life as if she wasn't before this would bring equality across the board.
I know this may sound strange but it is clear after several people dropping out of the feminist movement early on quietly living their lives as if they didn't know what was going on. I would place the Duluth model the billions of dollars sought after bye the core hierarchy of feminist. moreover they have sought Authority was the illegitimate manufactured authority of the state that is inherently no good at doing good. I don't believe I need to convince anyone watching this channel just how vile and corrupt the state can be not to mention the use of violence as a threat for moral Behavior mental manipulation and the like. I have to say it's much like the Inception of smartphones and all of this information that we are allowed to gather allowed I say is if it isn't clear to everyone now censorship indeed fascism of a totalitarian state is in your face up your ass and everywhere in between.
I can sum up the absolute Idiocracy the blank face in feminism without extrapolating actual facts the typical problem with the liberal mindset of we will create actions to help people without looking at the outcome at all. I'm going to generalize and say that most liberals do not do their homework to do not do their homework in a scientific manner did you not compare apples and apples and oranges and oranges they compare apples and oranges and cucumbers and cauliflower and broccoli and all kinds of shit and that leads to all kinds of shit.
I typically start my searches for economical advantages or disadvantages historically someone so logical is ThomasSowell and move forward from there.
I digress the only evidence I would present is the Duluth model. The Duluth model Dean the end-all-be-all document that has been pushed into every single corner of illegitimate Authority the standing army that we know as the police the military industrial complex Google RUclips and I would venture to Guess that there has been no one below the highest ends of the hierarchy that I've read this document and exactly what it states choosing to oppress demonize and literally tear down everything that is male masculinity Behavior and indeed seek out a guilty judgment upon every man everywhere at any age any status financially etcetera and leave that man in the gutter a heap I'm trash for all to spit on energy for the state to incarcerate at will for there is no option but. I would be happy to debate this with anyone and we can put that document in front of us and debated in equity and in no way shape or form has anyone ever come up with a positive light much less a quality derived from a document in which men are evil violence oppressive subversive extortive you name an evil and by God men are born with it.
now I don't know where your Narco pack exactly you stand on this search this is ridiculous search for equality I would challenge you to read the Duluth model and come back with a legitimate love for feminism?
I honestly the older I get becoming more spiteful towards any form of liberalism or other idiotic pursuit of the quality for anything I am not the same as you nor you or the same as me and there is no room for judgement beyond the principles of non-aggression.
I will pursue my logical open minded love for human beings knowing wholeheartedly that an equity between two people between any people is all that can be achieved and indeed it is achievable.
I would be happy to do a debate live with you or what not was anyone with any single other human being based on the subverted evil of feminism. I I am no voice extolling the virtues of capitalism as it is today and that is what we need to base our definitions on if we're ever going to overcome this idiotic English language that one word means fifteen different things.
one must look at the words they used to Liberal ideology and look at the action the causality of these things not feminism is not good because you wanted to be good there is not equality because you want equality there are trade-offs in this world there are natural laws and we must abide by them the more we don't the more suppressed are oppressed we will be.
UwU
Is women doing more reproductive work really inherently patriarchal? What if it was a Communist society where Mothers and their children could freely satisfy their needs, so basically it would be paid properly such that women wouldn't have to rely on men to have enough access to wealth in order to properly raise children, and if women had equal ownership rights and thus equal power in the home. Also, what if naturally more women want to voluntarily partake in reproductive work than men due to some natural inclination even in an ideal egalitarian society?
The norm of women doing more reproductive labor being enforced is patriarchal, not the occurrence of it per se.
I guess this depends on what you call "reproductive work" and "natural". People do all kinds of things culturally. If things in your society appear to have the patriarichal norms, it might not be "nature" it could just be cultural inertia.
Ben-tham Shapiro
As a traditionalist antifeminist I am interested in hearing your defence of feminist ideology against the ideas promoted by the mens rights movement, specifically the idea that women have lots of power and privilege over men under traditional gender roles.
Traditionalist of which tradition exactly?
Don't see the point as people can just watch garratt, contrapoints and shawn and jen.
Traditional western gender roles. Basically 1950's USA.
Traditional 1950s gender roles include the idea that domestic abuse is ok and marital rape isn't rape. If you can't by yourself see that 1950s gender roles are abhorrent, I don't know what argument could persuade you.
I doubt fifties usa was same as fourties france. So west isnt that much of a unified tradition.
Question: Why is it false consciousness to deny that Capitalism oppresses workers, but it is NOT false consciousness to deny that Marxism has produced the most cruel and tyrannical regimes in modern history?
Marxism hasn't. Imperialism and authoritarianism has.
(Also Communism =/= Marxism. The Communism most of us know of is Maoism or Trotskyism)
Ever since the emergence of ideologies there have been tyrants claiming they stand for that. Cromwell in the name of anti-monarchism/republicanism, Robespierre and Napoleon in the name of liberalism, etc. It is simply unfair to single out marxism in that regard.
@@ArgaJacint By that logic it's equally unfair to judge capitalism in that way. But unlike capitalism, Marxism has produced dictatorships in nearly 100% of cases.
@@topster888 A little bit of conflation is going on here i think
Capitalism is a specific economic system that by its nature demands class differences. What i was trying to point out is that those tyrants i listed were tyrannical despite what those ideologies claimed. I'm not a marxiat fyi but it's reductive to say that it would always produce dictatorships. Lenin was always a highly controversial chatacter among communists, some going as far as to say he wasn't even a proper marxist. There have been many democratic marxists but they not, yet have had the chance to take power proper (and early liberalism was full of failures too). Rosa Luxemburg and the council communists for example, Thomas Sankara, Salvador Allende. All of whom were coup'd or murdered before they could establish their systems proper. Allende in specific was constantly disrupted by the USA and USA backed fascists, and some theorise that Sankara's murder also had something to do with USA meddling.
Amazingly wrong
arguments, not assertions!
Matthew Pendleton I'm sorry. I usually argue. But in this case, I would need a livestream.
Why did you place Engels on that side. If you had put him on the left they would have been facing each other. They agreed on most things, and Engels was arguably as great a thinker as Marx.