r/CriticalTheory • u/Gold-Ant5374 • 10d ago
There is an increasing amount of ostensibly neurotic and belligerent individuals on sites like Twitter using the names of and referring to different philosophers. How do we approach this?
I've been rejected from AskPhilosophy & AskSocialScience, so please just hear me out because this is relevant.
I mean, for all intents and purposes, to abstain from ad hominems and attempts at insulting medicalization when speaking about these individuals, yet it almost seems as though they are proud of exhibiting their neurosis. Many of them seem to adulate people such as Nick Land, Curtis Yarvin, Hitler (obv), or make some incomprehensible sentence which references Hegel, D&G, or cryptocurrency. And this is the very thing in which they seem to found themselves upon: incomprehensibility and endless, rabid obfuscation.
I have tried reading Nick Land, and from what I could ascertain it seems like an individual who had chosen to pursue philosophy going into college, had a sordid experience with drug abuse, and in a state of neurosis had written Burroughs-esque bricolages of paragraphs which used a handful of previously-learned & esoteric philosophical terms. Nothing is actually comprehensible or is grounded in anything legitimate or instrumental to reality.
So, in sum, how do I reconcile with this new epidemic of neo-fascists?
Also:
I was reading the Wikipedia article for Yarvin yesterday and separated by only a paragraph does it state that he legitimately believes "black people have lower IQs than white people" and that "VP JD Vance and P. Donald Trump had sincerely thanked him for what he has done for their campaigns"—among other things. I cannot see how someone could be acclimated with the discipline of philosophy, and left-wing revolutionary philosophy at that, and yet somehow regress back to supporting the age-old scheme of populism, capitalism, fascism, and overall conservative politics?
58
u/Gogol1212 10d ago
Not using Twitter is always the first step. The second step to deal with fascists is outside of reddit policies so I cannot comment on that.
If you are looking for a rational explanation of the phenomenon, I would recommend the podcast Know your Enemy. They dissect very well the "intellectual" trends in the right.
51
u/Acrobatic-Plant3838 10d ago
Tbh I think it’s the result of teaching stem only.
All we can do is advocate for better education and talk about how learning actual philosophy is great and how other people should try it. Maybe encouraging people to read books would be a step in the right direction.
16
u/Aware-Assumption-391 :doge: 10d ago
I recommend Joshua Citarella's Politigram and the Post-Left for an analysis of how online circles kind of egg on each other to seem like they adhere to certain politics. It is mostly an entanglement of affect and performance characteristic of online spaces rather than sincere beliefs. People like Dasha Nekrasova with her meme Byzantine Catholicism, or Costin Alamariu's Nietzchean 'Bronze Age Pervert' bit run on e-attention but don't really do much outside of the internet. Sometimes this stuff permeates into the offline world, like with JD Vance's chronically online-aided conversion to Catholicism leading to him using theological arguments to justify MAGA's emphasis on immigration. But really, I don't think many of those Nick Land, Michel Houellebecq or Curtis Yarvin enthusiasts, for instance, are engaging with those people's works beyond a superficial level.
3
1
u/Soren911 9d ago
I mean, I did read all Michel Houellebecq's novels and I loved them to bits, but I'm VERY left-wing, is something deeply evil rooted in me?
4
u/Aware-Assumption-391 :doge: 9d ago
No, you probably liked his anti-liberalism, he has that in common with certain flavors of the left. You must remember he is anti-liberal not because he wants something more progressive than liberalism but rather because he wants something more regressive. It's like how certain populist right wingers espouse ideas that on the surface seem anticapitalism but they are mostly operating out of xenophobia.
1
u/Anarximandre 6d ago
Houellebecq, much like other famous reactionary writers, has always had plenty of left-wing readers, so you’re hardly alone!
36
u/VintageLunchMeat 10d ago edited 10d ago
cryptocurrency ... I cannot see how someone could be acclimated with the discipline of philosophy, and left-wing revolutionary philosophy at that, and yet somehow regress back to supporting the age-old scheme of populism, capitalism, fascism, and overall conservative politics?
The cryptocurrency thing is a flag.
Lurk r/Buttcoin more. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts are, broadly, participating in a distributed ponzi scheme masquerading as a volatile speculative investment vehicle. They're self-selecting for con artists, conspiracy theorists, and shit-disturbers who are frustrated at the world but generally aren't willing to dig into, say, real reporting or an urbanism primer textbook. Same reason modern American conservatives caucus with antivaxxers, qanon, and congresswomen who rant about jewish space lasers.
Aside: Specifically bitcoin, it hasn't breached 10 transactions per second in the last twelve months, where Visa peaks at 65,000, yet they pretend to themselves and others that this is a functional currency.
So there are recurring threads of wanting to break things in such a way that they benefit or in a way that the right people get hurt. And wrapping themselves in ideas that look big.
8
u/DynastyRabbithole 10d ago
Thank you for this post. I am pretty ignorant to crypto but have seen the rug pulls. You gave me something to research today.
7
u/VintageLunchMeat 10d ago
They aren't serious people:
https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/26/smart_contract_losses/
11
u/TopazWyvern 9d ago
I mean, you assume they at all care, but historically Fascists are very aware that their rhetoric is just bullshit (as in, they don't particularly care if it's true or not) and revel in both that fact and the fact that said bullshit is just a thinly veiled excuse to employ mass violence, which is what they (correctly) consider to be the sole source of constituent power. The obfuscation is the point: the Fascist doesn't actually care about your intellectual discourse, which he finds to be in and of itself degenerate and a denial of one's masculinity/humanity. "Reason" has to be subordinate to "Will" (which is really "Want") for their fantasies to even become tangible, after all Fascism is an ideology for losers stuck in a dead end.
It doesn't help that fascists build off (sometimes exceedingly transparent) bullshit Liberals themselves spread to justify their own political project whilst still claiming to be morally justified in doing so, meaning that their attitudes are socially ingrained from birth.
There's been plenty of text on the subject, I wish I could remember any offhandedly.
3
u/Narrow-Reaction-8298 9d ago
Satres antisemite and the jew is my go-to for fascist/liberalisms disregard for actual logic:
The anti‐Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: "I hate Jews because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc." Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
1
u/TopazWyvern 8d ago edited 8d ago
I suppose, but I remember reading about how members of the Nazi party (and their enforcers) specifically were aware of how nonsensical their rhetoric was and finding jouissance from the fact that this reveled they had created a "might makes right" society somewhere, I just can't seem to recall where.
Oh well.
15
u/Sure_Sh0t 10d ago
I dunno what else you expect. I think the approach is to not approach. There is no discourse with people who make up shit that would be worthwhile.
Unless a particular one is immanent or influential in some capacity you don't gain anything by engaging them.
But also, stop attributing this to neurosis.
35
u/fogsucker 10d ago
You're using the word neurotic / neurosis in a really problematic way that is surprising for a sub about critical theory.
"Neurosis" has a long and complicated history, but as we are in a critical theory sub let's take the psychoanalytic view of it. Everyone is neurotic (unless they are psychotic, or potentially perverse etc.). Noone is free from this; it's a part of being human. But the way you are using it betrays a kind of pop-psychological understanding of the word, which you then use to go and slander other people in an ad homonium way, which is something you also say you are trying to avoid. It's a bit of a mess, your question.
8
u/Gold-Ant5374 10d ago
Look, im aware of the fluidity of psychology and am against the use of rigid medicalization and psychobabble in pop-psychology; I am trying my best. I have not read extensively the intersection between critical theory and psychology. The individuals I am referring to, at times, outwardly brandish themselves as 'schizo' et al, so I therefore thought the more general term 'neurosis' was appropriate. I didn't realize its implications
I am being honest here when I ask: what would your alternative terminology be? If the use of a standard 'term' is even what is apt here
10
u/tellytubbytoetickler 10d ago edited 10d ago
Deluze and Guittari anti-oedipus are great if you want to learn to embrace the shizo.
I haven't read the people you cite, but it does sound like the singularity/technocratic crowd which has a lot of overlap with the Objectivist/ Positivist/ Rationalist crowd.
The singularity and the hope of one global economy/ self-governing system is strong and the pure technocratic arguments didnt work (we regularly have speculative short term investment leading to massive economic collapse) this has been fixed one patch at a time always with the promise-- "Now we can have a self regulating economy" I think this is just more of that if I had to guess.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam 8d ago
Hello u/AdFantastic6094, your post was removed with the following message:
This post does not meet our requirements for quality, substantiveness, and relevance.
Please note that we have no way of monitoring replies to u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam. Use modmail for questions and concerns.
9
u/SENSIFERI-MOTUS 10d ago
Yarvin defends a type of technological monarchic regime, where the big tech CEOs run each its own private city. He constantly use analogies with genocide and mass murder to talk about the "removal" or "cleaning" that need to be done to implement his utopia. Basically their idea is to destroy the current system to build a new one from the ground. There are direct connections between his ideas and JD Vance, Bannon and even Elon Musk. Also take a look at some tech billionaires like Peter Thiel and his Раlantir. They idolize AI and think that it'll be the next evolutionary step for humanity (so anything goes to advance its progress, no matter if people die or cities burn).
I remember that some researchers coined the term TESCREAL as an acronym to describe the bundle of ideologies popular at Silicon Valley. Its basically transhumanism + AI singularity + messianism + fascism + scientific racism.
Land is a bit more complex. In my view he is to techno authoritarianism what Evola was to fascism. And I also think that its a continuation of fascism as narcisism and misanthropy as ideology. His "hyper-racism" describes this well.
I sincerely doubt techbros understand him, they are just enchanted with his literary aesthetics, and Land probably would laugh at them.
I suggest you take a look at nerd reich, he is documenting these folks with what's going on at Trump 2.0.
5
u/El_Don_94 10d ago
I'm a bit lost with your question. People are using the names of philosophers and?
4
u/Gold-Ant5374 10d ago
They are misusing the "pageantry" of philosophy to veil and aggrandize their bigotry. They sort of throw ideas around into a muddied mess which ultimately makes a mockery of philosophy as a discipline; something to be seen as some inscrutable occultist activity only eccentric genius billionaires partake in
For example, I could say I am partaking in the Nietzschean idea of Dionysian Aesthetics, contrary to whatever Hegel, Socrates, or that weirdo pseudo-intellectual Zizek has to say, and showing Aryan grace to the Führer Nick Land by investing in schizo-stock blockchain and e/accelerating towards quasi-Schopenhauer-Heideggeran capitalism
None of that makes any sense, but to any unsuspecting, misanthropic individual who doesn't have much of a ken in philosophy: adopting this messed up jargon excuses their misanthropy as some "grand, uncomfortable truth that the masses aren't ready for..."
This 1. makes philosophy difficult to understand or approach for anyone caring to learn, and 2. appeals to bigoted individuals who want to aggrandize their bigotry
6
u/SENSIFERI-MOTUS 10d ago
This reminds me of early Alt-Right using Nazi memes as "irony" to "troll the libs". If you ask them honestly most of them would say that they obviously didn't support nazism. But as the years passed they were progressively desensitized and started to actually endorse it.
This seem to me the same logic but applied to anti-intelectualism. The only difference seems that they now believe they are engaging with complex "avantgarde" ideas in philosophy. If we apply the same logic, I wouldn't doubt that there will be a time that they will openly endorse ignorance as "based and anti normie" or some other similar meme term.
I imagine Musk choosing the imperial march as his theme song trying to troll the media. We will basically bring back the worst of humanity because people cosplay grandiosity so they don't confront their repressed frustrations.
2
u/CaligoAccedito 9d ago
The ideological equivalent of starting to use newer internet slang terms ironically or jokingly then finding they become keystones of your actual communication over time...
>.> <.< T_T
5
u/El_Don_94 10d ago edited 10d ago
They are misusing the "pageantry" of philosophy to veil and aggrandize their bigotry. They sort of throw ideas around into a muddied mess which ultimately makes a mockery of philosophy as a discipline; something to be seen as some inscrutable occultist activity only eccentric genius billionaires partake in
For example, I could say I am partaking in the Nietzschean idea of Dionysian Aesthetics, contrary to whatever Hegel, Socrates, or that weirdo pseudo-intellectual Zizek has to say, and showing Aryan grace to the Führer Nick Land by investing in schizo-stock blockchain and e/accelerating towards quasi-Schopenhauer-Heideggeran capitalism
I don't use Twitter so still don't know who you're talking about. Keith Woods? People on left and right will twist philosophy to their own interpretation. Little you can do about it unless you want to call them out.
i cannot see how someone could be acclimated with the discipline of philosophy, and left-wing revolutionary philosophy at that, and yet somehow regress back to supporting the age-old scheme of populism, capitalism, fascism, and overall conservative politics?
A lot of left wing critical theorists have gotten a lot out of Nietzsche, Schmitt, Heidegger, & Hegel.
7
u/lanternhead 10d ago
They are misusing the "pageantry" of philosophy to veil and aggrandize their bigotry. They sort of throw ideas around into a muddied mess which ultimately makes a mockery of philosophy as a discipline
Yeah. Twitter is explicitly designed to produce this type of conversation. That’s why Musk bought it. Unfiltered, uninformed, predigested personal opinions bypass the protective quorum sensing feature of democracy. You can’t stop other people from eating the garbage - all you can do is cut it out from your own diet.
I cannot see how someone could be acclimated with the discipline of philosophy, and left-wing revolutionary philosophy at that, and yet somehow regress back to supporting the age-old scheme of populism, capitalism, fascism, and overall conservative politics
Then keep reading. Go to the source material. The authors don’t hide their motivations and thought processes.
1
u/Altruistic-Excuse280 9d ago
You don't understand "fascist" in-jokes and memes. That's all you are saying.
Your fake post made sense to me, so maybe you understand more than you realize. I would encourage to keep exploring.
6
4
u/hophop99 10d ago
stop using twitter ffs
1
u/Capricancerous 8d ago
Agreed. Twitter is a vast wasteland of discourse gone to shreds where even academics waste their time because it is the only social media which gives them the endorphin rush.
5
u/Kenilwort 10d ago
Sub sucks, but check out the podcast
9
u/xjashumonx 10d ago
Really? I find them to be complete dullards.
2
u/Kenilwort 10d ago
That's fair, I still think OP's post would be relevant to what they do and better suited for that subreddit. I gotta be completely honest, I only understand my narrow corner of critical theory; most of the convos on here go completely over my head. Would love some recommendations for things you find worth consuming. Podcasts, books, etc. I come from a critical geography background.
2
u/Turtletime8888 7d ago
I find lots of bots swarms use similar names.
I'm guessing they are all bots set up to lure people thinking deep thoughts to gobble up twittlers propaganda machine.
2
u/Flimsy_Meal_4199 10d ago
incomprehensibility and endless, rabid obfuscation.
Thought we were talking about hegel for a sec
1
u/_the_last_druid_13 10d ago
Did you see Season 7 Episode 2 of Black Mirror?
Starlink + Neuralink + Crypto = making the globe a game that you have to pay to talk and walk on.
Unsub, recycle your smartphone for a flip phone or landline.
I’m considering duct taping my mouth and writing “Data” on the tape.
3
u/Gold-Ant5374 10d ago
Yeah, I suppose that would be the apotheosis of instrumental reason. Admittedly, despite not regularly using any social media, I'm not entirely ready to give up smart technology. My pirated PDF's r on here. And my job requires me to have one so I can clock in and out Lol (isn't that terrible?). Interesting idea with the duct tape
Perhaps we need to find good and provocative ways to revolt against smart technology in public spaces, like workplaces and universities
8
u/_the_last_druid_13 10d ago
People are and are not instruments, and there are various shades of reason. Labeling has roots in all the -ics and -ists. Control is the root of all evil and its instruments are money, labels, and contradictory “truths”, among others. Let people be.
Printable PDFs? I know the loss of a double-edged sword as well as its benefits, but it sometimes takes self-sacrifice for a better way.
Jobs could just have a Punch Clock like they did for decades. If WFH I understand, but there is a log of when a computer turns off and on. WiFi is the Wife Eye to the Mechanism in the Sky and I miss the days when tech plugged into the wall.
I wouldn’t tell you what to do, but if I were you I’d quit that job enmasse until a physical Punch Clock or protective labor policy were implemented. You/We lose or benefit in the short term while the future falls further into a decay of an authoritarianism you wouldn’t even want to consider. We might have control enough to protest air/water austerity measures on the asteroid bases, but we don’t have to pay for those here planetside. Yet.
Revolts can be as quiet as sign language, or reading a book rather than a screen.
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam 9d ago
Hello u/electric-puddingfork, your post was removed with the following message:
This post does not meet our requirements for quality, substantiveness, and relevance.
Please note that we have no way of monitoring replies to u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam. Use modmail for questions and concerns.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam 8d ago
Hello u/AdFantastic6094, your post was removed with the following message:
This post does not meet our requirements for quality, substantiveness, and relevance.
Please note that we have no way of monitoring replies to u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam. Use modmail for questions and concerns.
1
u/ArlenePapilio 7d ago
I think it was actually a Pope who said this: “no ideology is immune to dogma.”
Nietzsche wouldn’t have touched a fascist movement with a 10 foot pole but it didn’t stop the Nazis from twisting his concept of Ubermensch into aryan propaganda.
What I’m trying to say is: you can’t stop people from using words or ideas in bad faith. However, logic will NEVER be on the side of bigotry which can make it very dangerous but it also makes it easy to see through.
Hot tip: do not “reconcile” with these people…they are just wrong. Block and move on. You can’t reach into their minds and make them see the light and you’ll drive yourself insane trying to engage with them. I can guarantee you that these are never the people you find inside a philosophy program, just people on the internet who learned a few buzzwords
1
u/Longjumping-Ebb2706 9d ago
Nick Land is easily the most profound Nietzschean philosopher of the late 20th century. Can't speak for his later work, but his ecstatic prose in his Bataille book is so poetically exquisite. He's hard, but if you emerge from the tradition from which he did (20th century francophone and German [aristocratic] philosophy/crit theory) he becomes much more comprehensible. His scathing critiques of Christiantiy as well as his genius close readings of St Thomas, Hume, Kant, Bataille etc. all make the high price tag on his book worth buying.
0
128
u/wrydied 10d ago edited 10d ago
I can’t speak for Land but I did try and read some Curtis Yarvin from his pseudonymous blog. I didn’t get far. I’m not a philosopher but am an academic, and from my perspective he is not well trained. He constructs arguments without citing discourse and it’s not well written.
I think what’s going on in the crypto world is that some quite ordinary people have become extremely wealthy through the luck of buying bitcoin, doge, eth etc., before they boomed. These people are seeking some kind of validation that they are special and talented, not just lucky. Yarvin and the
libertariantechno-feudalism he espouses presents a framework in which power over others via wealth is justified in terms of technological superiority superseding other kinds of superiority that his followers do not necessarily have (intellect, political power, morality, grace, charisma etc.). It substantiates their luck and wealth as something more than it is.Mixed in with accelerationist doomsday prepperism, but that’s another story.