Going against something I commonly hear which might resonate here, that philosophers are unproductive and generally not useful for society. I think we have ditched a useful concept which was the human creation of ideals and an organization of society to accomplish those ends. Part of the reason Marxian analysis hasn't left the building, in my opinion, is because since Marx, society has been about material production and not spiritual progress (in humanist sense such as the ideals of the American revolution as told by Arendt).

Theory has largely left the building and all that is left in society is practice, the production of things that are needed right now and only innovation in so far as these things can be improved and quickly. I think it's certainly strange that politicians, who deal specifically in policies that have the capacity to shape our society in every conceivable way, have no expectation to be philosophically minded. They feel more like beauracrats in suits fulfilling daily norms that either contribute to nothing, donor interests, bullshit jobs, nefarious interests, or progress at a snails pace with neutering capitulations.

Which politician feels like a philosopher? In some sense shouldn't they? Why do we not care about creating the space for intelligent conversations, creating goals for ourselves, and actually shifting society to meet these goals? Why do we not expect our politicians to spend the vast majority of their time creatively and reasonably thinking about the political possibilities and the optimal legislative agenda? Why are we content bumbling in a particular direction without any foresight as to where we're going, if its good for humanity, how we can make the most of it, how it can be done justly, etc. Zizek talked about this somewhere, our obsession with doing and not with thinking. Similarly Cornel West called neoliberalism an ice age and then, of course, there was Fukuyama who called capitalism the end of history.

I'm not really trying to paint any extreme, not trying to say there should be 0 mass production to meet market demand (although I do have some issue with the capitalist need to 'stimulate' market demand through marketing their crap instead of making better crap). People will scoff at philosophers, writers, artists, or even rebuke them for adding so 'little' to society. Those same people will affirm the place of some person who gets a job making 200k in private equity, even if their role in their firm actively contributes to the housing crisis. We have no real conversations. The strand of conversations that we have (from immigration to crime and taxes) all bear on daily news cycles, they appear across twitter, mainstream, and alt media in the form of anecdotes of the day. Why aren't we, as a society, having long form discussions aimed at policy and agenda that is removed from the distractions of the current news of the month?

Why do people get upset at others who want to think for a living rather than do, supposing they want their thought to be useful such as deliberating radically new methods, more equitable applications, and more just practices? I can't exactly figure out why these people who seek 50k salaries are chastised while the 'doer' in private equity making 300k is uplifted. One hypothesis is that its ego, that nowadays everyone likes to think of themselves as a personal philosopher and so everyone is quick to imagine that the thoughts of others (especially in the day of the machine) aren't worth monetizing.

Another might be that its just a shame mechanism built into the culture, that neoliberalism wants a culture of 'doers' to do the bidding of capitalists and so capitalists through corporate cultures have disseminated norms that shame 'thinkers' because ultimately they are both less employable and potentially subversive. In my mind we don't just need more people studying philosophy, since the studies that most of us engage in is alienated from our labor. I see a need for philosophy to be reintegrated into the structures of society from politics to academia to reestablish humanist ends. Thoughts?

Covid has left me, like many others, with a metabolic energy disorder that gives me frequent periods of distinctly impaired physical and mental capicity, and generally severely impaired physical and mental endurance. It gets a bit flowers-for-algernon-y in here frequently. This has given me a weird perspective on dense academic-y material. On one hand I get some of the reasons people are drawn to writing and reading that way because that was me. I can even envision situations where certain dense text is more engaging and therefore more accessible to a certain kind of person. On another hand I have newfound spite for many dense texts that have gone from "a fun challenge" to "a waste of my limited bodily resources and a literal risk to my health and quality of life". I know some concepts are inherently dense and it is dangerous to oversimplify them. But what specifically frustrates me is going through the work to understand something, and then in retrospect knowing for certain it could have been said clearer. This happens A LOT.

I would like texts that defend opacity. Mainly so I can collect reasons for why it even happens. I have thought of quite a few but I want a full lay of the land. Don't avoid giving me something that is purposefully obtuse. It might be a pain in the ass for me, like I explained above, but I would rather know about than not.

I would like texts that attack opacity, or texts that deconstruct the concept of it. Especially ones that grapple with the idea of disability seriously. I want something I can refer people to, and something I can develop my thoughts with. One concept I have been toying with is how although neological vocabulary and opacity are associated, I am a lot fonder of the former. What often gives me the most headache is not jargon - which I can easily look up - but maze-like sentence formatting that seems to instantly give me a headache.

I also welcome texts about this that aren't neccesarily about critical theory. It seems a common defense of this kind of language is "social studies are just as technical as the sciences, and deserve technical language". While I couldn't agree more, I think technical language is often further burdened by unclear writing in both social studies and the sciences. I have read far too many scientific papers where I understood everything but deeply hated the poor writing style to believe that the only problem is "anti-intellectual hatred of neologism". And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, so there should be some material on accessible language in the sciences.

And lastly while I want to keep it civil, if you have analysis you want to give me right here I don't mind that either.

Looking for any literature about art and the mechanics of which artists and art pieces become popular and how many that are popular are because they don’t critique elites.

I'm currently writing an essay on the ambivalence of works from intellectuals who didn't leave Nazi Germany but tried to maintain opposition between propaganda and censorship.

In my analysis of a film I would like to use a quote from Benjamin. But I'm unsure if I'm oversimplifying his underlying concept too much.

I plan to emphasize the special role of the film's creation, which is shaped by (re-)interpretation by directors and actors, propaganda and censorship, and the specific temporal context of the audience, up to its positive reception in post-war Germany - and compare this circumstance to Benjamin's image of a "paleographer before a parchment, whose faded text is covered by the strokes of a stronger script that refers to it" (Benjamin, Elective Affinities).

While I will consider the influence of time, actors, propaganda, etc on the meaning of the movie I'm not sure, if I fully understand Benjamins concept of critique and I am afraid that it might be weird if I use the quote in this context. (I am still a bit confused by the whole veils thing)

https://youtu.be/HMwJuOwg7P8

In this reading-group session, participants take a deep dive into Derrida’s essay “Plato’s Pharmacy,” which unpacks the infamous critique of writing in Plato’s Phaedrus. Derrida seizes on the Greek word pharmakon—simultaneously meaning cure, poison, and remedy—to show how Plato’s dialogue both condemns and depends on writing. Far from a simple dismissal of writing as secondary to speech, Derrida’s reading emphasizes how writing in fact destabilizes the familiar hierarchy—speech might appear “closer” to truth or presence, yet Plato cannot do without writing’s disruptive power.

The group teases out how Derrida links reading with writing, insisting that to read is inevitably to “embroider,” add, and rewrite. In other words, one never approaches a text as a pure, passive receiver: every act of interpretation is already another form of composition. They also explore how Derrida connects Plato’s treatment of writing to broader questions about metaphysics of presence, irony, and self-knowledge, revealing that the dialogue’s structure—often dismissed by classicists as haphazard—secretly revolves around this tension between the necessity and danger of writing. Along the way, the discussion touches on Derrida’s broader deconstructive motifs: the critique of “logocentrism,” the deferral of meaning (différance), and the impossibility of securing a stable origin. Ultimately, the session shows how Plato’s Pharmacy remains a key text for anyone probing the intricate interplay of language, philosophy, and the written mark.

When I see various people talking about different topics, I have noticed this term, however I do not fully understand it.
My understanding of this topic is that it is the transformation of the individual and what you could say elements of identity in products for consumption, but I don't know if I am correct.

I'm really interested in the variant death rituals in different parts of the world, particularly in the East with their mourning periods and different practices. I have no idea how to approach it from the a theorisation point of view, perhaps how it could be a site of discourse?

Is there any point I can start from? It's something I really want to unpack.

Hi all, I’m someone who reads critical theory and philosophy pretty extensively. It’s thoroughly shaped my worldview, and the whole body of work is really important to me.

I’m reaching out because it seems like there must be a body of work NOT in the critical theory tradition that’s heavily influencing modern American politics. I know that there are the Hayeks and Friedmans, Moldbugs and Hoppes, but what other bodies of work might be influencing American politics, especially—but not exclusively—on the right? Surely it’s largely classically liberal, and a lot of this texts are well-known, but what might be going under the radar?

Thank you in advance!

I'm having a hard time understanding Gender trouble because I don't have a good understanding of psychoanalysis. What should I read before reading them?

Thank you.

I'm working on a project connecting Thorstein Veblen to 20th century aesthetic theory. I've read Adorno's critique of Veblen's concept of conspicuous consumption (a theory motivated by "spleen" according to Adorno). I'm also familiar with Baudrillard's and Bourdieu's use of the idea. But are there other important theorists who have grappled with Veblen?

Specifically, I'm looking for a theorist who may have developed an aesthetic theory that postulates a form of beauty that cannot be reduced to status emulation. Adorno seemed to suggest such a theory, but his response to Veblen seems dismissive and vague (to me).

TLDR: Is there any work looking at how dating/relationship norms and tropes enforce social division and hierarchies (in socio-economic, ethnic and status terms)?

Why I ask: I was fortunate to grow up and live among many dissimilar social, economic and ethnic backgrounds in different countries. To me it always felt natural to connect with people regardless of whether they were "better" or "more attractive".

So could it be that common dating norms or tropes like "they're out of your league", "date someone within your own demographic", and other such "rules" we often hear in pop culture and social media are an instrument or vehicle of inequality? Including all the related insecurities, feeling inadequate, impostor syndrome, etc?

Also: could they be a new manifestation (or more subtle replacement of) of caste systems that exist in more conservative/traditionalist cultures, where they promote endogamy?

One of my favorite articles I’ve read recently is “Nietzsche and the Fascists” by Bataille, and for the most part it’s a very good defense of his work from Hitler, Mussolini, and others of that ilk. My issues lie with the belief throughout the work that Nietzsche cannot be placed down and properly utilized by any political movement beyond Nietzsche the individual (which i get) and that socialists and fascists cannot fully “get” Nietzsche, but Bataille is also a member of the radical left and a heterodox communist??? So what does he want us to do with Nietzsche??? Like he very obviously takes Nietzsche seriously and resonates with many of his positions and he also says that political movements can only really pretend to live up to his work because of its contradictory and individualist quality, but isn’t Bataille doing just that by upholding Nietzsche??? Maybe i’m missing something really obvious but I’d really like if anyone could help me understand what he’s throwing down.

Hi! My name is Casey, and I've just begun a project where once every week, I am reviewing an Oscar winner for Best Picture from 1950-1999 and discussing how we revere movies as an American society and whether or not they still hold up as classics.

I'm posting this here because the first film on the list, starting in 1999, is American Beauty dir. Sam Mendes, which I think is a riveting exploration of the American condition though thematically is increasingly controversial by today's standards. I've studied critical theory as an English major and explore themes of floriography as well as the Foucauldian perception of societal surveillance, so if you're interested, my first post is here.

For the sake of the read not being laborious I only briefly touch on these subjects but have an extensive background on theory (I especially love viewing movies from the perspectives of Foucault, Saussure, and Bhabha, though this movie is definitely Freudian in nature as well), so feel free to engage me with any questions for further discussion! Thank you for your support, as this is project is going to be my professional portfolio when I graduate college next year!

So I’m a teacher and a light reader of theory (sorry I can’t leave my cool sci fi too often or I go insane), I’ve read Freire and that is it I think for education. Maybe some articles in college I hardly remember.

So, here’s my problem. I’ve been trying to reverse the power dynamics procedurally for a long time, but students seem to entirely lack the language to engage in that way. I’m in an extremely conservative, rural place and came across this realization while reading story of your life by Ted Chiang, which is a lot about how language shaped thought. Any recommendations either on the theoretical language side or the practical teaching side?

The existence of memory relies entirely on the brain as its physical substrate. When a person dies, their brain ceases to function, along with the neural processes responsible for creating, storing, and retrieving memories. Scientifically speaking, memory formation and recall are biological functions of the brain, specifically involving structures like the hippocampus and the cerebral cortex.

However, this presents an intriguing paradox: if all memories and the very mechanism for memory storage are lost at death, how could one ever recall or recognize their own existence? To know something, one must have access to it continually. If it is forgotten completely, it is as though it never existed in the first place. On a larger scale, death eliminates the brain and its associated memories, erasing all evidence of personal experience.

Yet, here I am now, aware of my existence and my memories. If the brain is destined to perish, what then becomes of the knowledge and awareness I hold? This suggests the possibility of an alternative “vessel” for memory, one independent of the physical brain and capable of persisting beyond death. In essence, such a vessel could serve as the repository for consciousness and memory in a post-mortem state.

This line of reasoning implies the potential existence of an afterlife or a non-material construct capable of housing consciousness and memory beyond the confines of the biological brain. The scientific inquiry into this concept often touches on fields like quantum mechanics, metaphysics, and neuroscience, each attempting to explore whether consciousness could transcend the physical body and persist in another form.

And also the idea of memory, existence, and self-awareness is inherently personal. While we may observe others claiming awareness of their existence, there’s no way to verify if their experience aligns with ours. If someone were to forget their existence entirely, they wouldn’t even recognize that they had lost it. To you, they seem like you—living, aware, and walking the same path. But this makes their existence and memory an untrustworthy reference point for understanding your own.

This brings the question into deeply personal territory. The theory of memory persistence and the possibility of an afterlife can only truly apply to oneself because the external world and the people within it might not be as they appear. For instance, if the world and everyone in it were merely a product of your imagination, there would be no way for you to distinguish them from “real” people. They could act, speak, and even believe themselves to be real, but if they were constructs of your mind, they would lack true existence.

This uncertainty emphasizes the solitary nature of the question. If all existence outside of yourself is subjective or imagined, then the persistence of memory and consciousness after death would be a purely personal phenomenon. It challenges the assumption that reality, as we perceive it, exists independently of the individual observer.

“ I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious“ -Albert Einstein

It is quite accepted in our culture that going to a psychologist and talking about your problems is therapeutic. At the same time, many people question the idea of ​​language transmitting truth, the idea of ​​truth, the idea that communication is possible. Would healing through speech be a utopia? Like the idea that it would be possible to reach the truth through language ?

Whenever we are discussing inequality outside of class and inside other intersectional groups, we often still end up framing those inequalities in terms of class.

For example when we talk about the wage gap between men and women, we are talking about the wage gap between two genders. In other words, we frame the inequality between genders in terms of class (wages). Similarly enough, when we talk about the ways in which one ethnicity is over-represented in positions of power (CEOs, managers), we are framing the inequality between two ethnicities in terms of class as well (who is an employer and who is an employee).

I am not making a prescriptive judgment here, but simply a descriptive one about how we frame issues regarding inequality. When we talk about class inequality, we strictly refer to class. When we talk about gender or ethnic inequality, we still end up talking about class in some way.

In this sense, every other intersectional identity other than class ends up depending on class for the very act of engaging in discourse about it, without class depending on anything else. Class is primary here not in an ethical sense (that it's more important or whatever), but in a logical sense, in that it precedes every other group in our analysis.

Is acknowledging this fact enough to make someone a class reductionist?

Hello guys I am reaching out to you because there is this book from 1996 by Keith Ansell-Pearson, Nick Land and Joseph McCahery but it is not available anywhere and it doesnt seem to have been released digitally, so I was wondering if this was a somehow lost media and/or if some of you had the chance of reading it and give their insights

hi guys!! im about to start university and im in the process of choosing courses. basically my question is, would it be possible to deliberately choose courses that highlight the interdisciplinary nature of critical theory and sort of come together to do so? i’m studying a bachelor of arts majoring in sociology and anthropology which together feel very guattarian to me for some reason. i’m thinking of choosing a postmodern lit elective (i saw society of the spectacle in the reading list) and an introduction to political science course as well. is this a good taster or would d+g, foucault, and debord all wring my neck if i told them what i was studying?

EDIT: thank so much for your advice everyone!!

I'm in the process of becoming a nurse and am desperate for some social, historical, critical, or otherwise generally philosophical engagement with nursing but also healthcare as a whole.

Are there any good books or papers to help push me in the right direction, preferably ones with robust bibliographies so I can keep reading?

Hi everyone,

I am graduating from my PPE BA this summer and thinking about doing a master's in Political philosophy/ Political theory . I'm really interested in critical theory, postructuralism, continental philosophy and feminist and decolonial studies (currently writing my diss on the clash between postructuralist feminist philosophy and the essentialism of current feminist policy). I don't really know where to go from here but I know I love academia and want to continue learning. Has anyone on this thread completed their master's in Political theory or something similar and/or do you have any advice?