Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Which political thinkers Rock your Boat?

Indeed. As Heidegger would say, we are always beings-in-the-world, and cannot remove ourselves from that context.

Utopia is a useful idea though, but it should always be in the distance. For every step we make towards it, it should move a step further away. What is the point? To make us walk.
 
Can I ask how Karl Popper influenced you, politically?

'The Open Society and Its Enemies' - primarily the volume on Marx and Plato. It was a real turning point for me as I read it shortly after I first took an interest in activism at a tender age and had been collared by the SWP - I'd been reading a lot about Marxist theory at the time. I'd also been doing an A-Level in philosophy and having covered Plato in fairly sympathetic terms, it was quite a shock to encounter Popper's critique.

It's one of those things that made me glad to continue the habit of always reading random books that came my way, whether by gift, loan, accident or otherwise, regardless of whether my ideological and philosophical prejudices at the time dictated that it was a pointless read.
 
Ah yes, for some reason open society... passed me by. Its late.

Nah, it's not that interesting. It's like earlier Fukuyama's End of History an attempt to justify or universalise Liberal Capitalism. Made of fail. Worth seeing what the enemy think like though.
 
Friedrich Nietzsche
Max Stirner
Robert Anton Wilson
Karl Popper
Bertrand Russell
Wendy McElroy
Rudolf Steiner
William Morris
Marjorie Kelly
Butler Shaffer
Ursula LeGuin
Murray Rothbard
Roy Childs
Adam Smith
Justin Raimondo
Lysander Spooner
Benjamin Tucker
plus several already mentioned in this thread....

i cant believe so many people influence you. are you a genius?
 
to be honest, i am not into political theory at all, i prefer to think in musical terms i find slaving over political analysis really boring, and am an amateur. Punk defines my views really.
 
to be honest, i am not into political theory at all, i prefer to think in musical terms i find slaving over political analysis really boring, and am an amateur. Punk defines my views really.

But Punk was Political. It's all political. About how you live your life. How you're taxed. How long the pubs stay open! You cannot avoid it.

The social relationships that you form. We are artificial... animals and artifacts. Honestly.
 
Nah, it's not that interesting. It's like earlier Fukuyama's End of History an attempt to justify or universalise Liberal Capitalism. Made of fail. Worth seeing what the enemy think like though.

You don't think he made any valid criticisms of Hegel, Marx and Plato?
 
But Punk was Political. It's all political. About how you live your life. How you're taxed. How long the pubs stay open! You cannot avoid it.

thats my 'politics' is what i mean. I completely understand punk, and live by it through every sinew, my blood and my bones. Its the only movement i firmly believe in because its about respect for being an individual.
 
You don't think he made any valid criticisms of Hegel, Marx and Plato?

Yes. Completely. But they'd been said before and better. That they are anti-democratic and authoritarian? The same could be said about Popper if you took it to its logical extreme. He may criticise but I think he was in love.

thats my 'politics' is what i mean. I completely understand punk, and live by it through every sinew, my blood and my bones. Its the only movement i firmly believe in because its about respect for being an individual.

Ahhh! Individuality.. see D4 on another thread.
 
thats my 'politics' is what i mean. I completely understand punk, and live by it through every sinew, my blood and my bones. Its the only movement i firmly believe in because its about respect for being an individual.

your are either a dead pan genuis or an even bigger fuckwit than I suspected.
 
Not to mention that the Marx and Hegel he knocked down were the crudest strawmen i think i've ever encountered. A big pile of dishonest crap is the open society - in more ways than one.
 
Neitzche

When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?

Fucking love him.
 
thats my 'politics' is what i mean. I completely understand punk, and live by it through every sinew, my blood and my bones. Its the only movement i firmly believe in because its about respect for being an individual.

Cheesy, you're blowing smoke-rings out of your arse again. Nobody can "completely understand" punk because it isn't a codified philosophy of being, it's a personalised take on an aggregation of ideas. Therefore the only "Punk" you (or anyone else for that matter) can "completely understand" is your own personal take on punk. :D :D
 
I am enjoying Sartre, Heidegger and Husserl at the moment.

Whilst not strictly political in their philosophy, I think it has implications for political themes.

"When a peasant falls in his rice paddy, mowed down by a machine gun, every one of us is hit. The Vietnamese fight for all men and the American forces against all men. Neither figuratively nor abstractly" _ JP Sartre


Sartre was intensely political in his philosophy. See particularly, SEARCH FOR A METHOD and CRITIQUE OF DIALECTICAL REASON which are attempts to create a new humanist marxism. But more powerful are his shorter works such as ANTI-SEMITE AND JEW, essentially a psycho-political interpretation of racism that influenced Fanon and those collected in a great anthology of Sartre's political writings: BETWEEN MARXISM AND EXISTENTIALISM that includes his essay on socialism from below written in the wake of soviet tanks rollin' into Czechoslovaki: THE SOCIALISM THAT CAME IN FROM THE COLD, his introduction to Fanon's WRETCHED OF THE EARTH, but perhaps most powerful is his searing indictment of US imperialism: VIETNAM: IMPERIALISM AND GENOCIDE, see: http://www.sartre.org/Writings/genocide.htm
 
Oh I know Sartre was political.

I meant its a bit harder to see the political implications of Heidegger, and maybe even harder to see any political implications from Husserl.

It all goes together though.
 
I think I have a very basic grasp.

It is such a different step away from most other philosophy. I am finding it ridiculously fascinating. And quite brilliant.

Interestingly, phenomenology became very popular among eastern bloc dissidents as a philosophy of resistance and an alternative to stalinist marxism. One of the most accesible works of phenomenology, in my opinion, is RD Laing's THE DIVIDED SELF, which attempts to give a phenomenological interpretation of how the mad experience the world. A good introduction to phenomenology (in my opinion) is by the existential psychiatrist, Ernesto Spinelli called THE INTERPRETED WORLD.

More intriguingly, many catholic thinkers have been attracted to phenomenology, obviously Husserl converted on his death bed, before becoming Pope John Paul II, as a professor of Philosophy, Karol Wojtyla wrote a book, THE ACTING PERSON that is a kind of attempt to counter the cartesian idea that human beings are defined by cognition and instead argue that we need to understand the human person as a person-in-action engaged in the world. But in a sense this emphasis on experience, of being-in-the-world does have a certain affinity with marxism as a philosophy of action and praxis.
 
Nobody can "completely understand" punk because it isn't a codified philosophy of being, it's a personalised take on an aggregation of ideas. Therefore the only "Punk" you (or anyone else for that matter) can "completely understand" is your own personal take on punk. :D :D

fair dues, if you want to analyse, as you certainly tend to do its a 'personal take on an aggregation take on ideas.' I think the word for that is 'ethos.' that ethos is about being completely individual for me, and not following the crowd like a sheep, but really thinking for oneself, and being true to oneself, without fear.
 
Back
Top Bottom