RedMarx

A Forum
It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Welcome


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:50 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
This thread shall mostly be a series of observations on Marx and such. You need not reply, but may, although the point is more to have some form of collection of events and remarks.

I.

Marx and Engels early wrote the famed 'Manifesto of the Communist Party.' This begun its main sections in a somewhat inaccessible, idiosyncratic manner by instead focussing on the development of capitalist society, and its nature, from a mostly positive point of view, before unveiling - the reader perhaps not drawn in at this point by the excitement of capitalism portrayed in its own terms - its difficulties, and finally a movement against it. This somewhat strange mode of beginning, which goes on for some time, is found again famously in Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works, incorporating the ideologies of 'the aesthetic,' or ordered fornication, and 'the ethical,' or reactive or reactionary marriage, which he associates with Hegelian Christians and Judaism, before undermining both critically from the perspective of faith, which they were merely attempting to reach while violating it inherently and standing against it. In this, he is still, like Hegel before him - and that his 'pseudonymous' form is merely a vulgarisation of Hegel's categories is fairly obvious despite his polemic, and he is generally as you might expect better off philosophically when writing down his own thoughts rather than someone else's while in the guise of another, which a less respectable person might call stealing - overly positive about what he criticises via a pseudo-personal identification, while obviously in his recollections of Regine Olsen she fails to take on any clear symbolic purpose other than that of a character, and likewise neither 'the aesthetic' or 'the ethical' come to mean anything, again hoping that Hegel's categories will somehow anchor this by giving it sense, but one quite different and more detached.

In all of this, he falls into the trap that we may call 'GWF' Hegel, the one and only, just as Hegel perhaps subscribed overtly to Hellenicism and so on. His later work, in journals and articles, is generally more direct, but also more extreme, generally, in the questions with which Kierkegaard was concerned. It is also worth noting that Kierkegaard and Marx begin from similar stand-points of looking at concrete human activity and the human individual, which is perhaps a half-excuse for Marx in this form if not for Kierkegaard making up abstactions whose unique human activity could be summarised as other people's, except that Kierkegaard nonetheless focusses on the human individual at least in the religious realm, responding to issues apparently raised in Denmark at the time (after divorcing from an engagement, perhaps out of basic common sense or if for whatever reason necessary nationalism, with a nominal doppelganger for 'Ophelia'), while Marx effaces this, but through this can consider the hypothetical relation of the human individual to society, and hence discuss the faults of the social system at the time, which of course did not change until that was abolished. Nonetheless, Kierkegaard's literature is as a result more living in itself, although this is confined by its focus on the religious to the poetic sphere mostly or to an inauthentic reproduction of philosophy, although some of his later polemic within a delimited region could be a highlight of the genre, and also, because of his regard for the circumstances and the opponent he was attacking, and his personal stand against this on behalf of Christianity but on their own, came across as significantly more necessary than many of Marx's attacks on other socialists, which tended to be quite minor and a implied no real nor living opposition, although there was some cynicism to this which was obscure, but promising and anticipative.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:32 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
II.

The 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' may not always work out as seemed, and that so many claim to just take it in their stride is perhaps deceptive of them, or otherwise they take it personally and are offended before realising what they are reading. It is much like mentioning Hegel. Especially on a Valentine's Day, where the dichotomy as it were between the profane world and the heavenly realm is most pronounced. While it has been taken for granted that its first main section begins strikingly, this is mostly seen as hinging not on the statement itself or its truth - which was of course queried by Friedrich Engels - but on the exciting and appealing nature of class society to readers, which would nonetheless imply taking it and being encouraged to take it as a positive, when Marx and Engels are, much later, critical of it. However, as here they are discussing class society in the context of seguing into a description of capitalism, this is hence merely the drama of class society, and for a 'Manifesto' one might therefore wish to ask which of two alternatives they were attempting: either to turn the reader off the manuscript - from which they were expecting a glance at communism - or to make it accessible via the appealing nature of capitalism and class society to readers of the time, which would seem vulgar but is likely to occur at times to buttress and otherwise highly delayed subject-matter. In addition, that the 'Manifesto' is generally seen as an accessible, even highly accessible, book as opposed to Hegel and such, unlike later works such as 'Das Kapital,' and its many analogues, would necessitate that it be taken as one of the two, neither seeming too favourable. It must be remembered that none of this early segment is polemical.

However, the way the schema works out is treated as merely aesthetic when it is touched on, not so much as appealing as a question of praise or blame, rather than dealt with as a structure which is perhaps neglected compared to that of Das Kapital for instance because it is disorganised, this not however making it that different in focus. In this sense, as perhaps appropriate to its authors, it takes the form less of a work of advocacy as a nightmare of capital, where despite its dream-like progression and the abstraction of its apparently positive traits taken uncritically - and in this passage capitalism is seen mostly as the progress of the bourgeoisie, and these as its historical actors - but then this dream faces the loss of control - the primary flaw to be shown in it by this work - and is plunged into crises where it goes awry, and hence foreign things start appearing, which we may call the proletariat, which threaten it and keep it in fear. Usually, it would stop here, but Marx and Engels do by a conjuring trick manage to keep it going to a muted hope for a better future, although it might be unclear at this point what this improvement could be seen as in the context of the work if continuity is to be maintained, other than a reinstitution of the apparent harmony of capitalism upon a higher level of some sort, which is of course held to be impossible by this point. The work, despite their stress on bases, does not seem to give communism's explanation a basis in the work, other than capitalism, while giving this was purportedly the purpose of the work. Nonetheless, many seemed to take the work as in essence a personal polemic, whatever it may then go on to say, and one written against them, or in competition with them, which other than seeming like an inherently absurd but typical of a certain social system manner of reading a book which has not been promoted as positive by this system, is a slightly absurd perspective when it was generalised and spread or the attempt made to do so - or portray it as such a polemic against them - and as such you may wonder if such were not mostly seeing ghosts, as it were. The book itself has a reputation belonging to a book otherwise associated with the occult, such as the Bible, and this mysticism makes the book appear distinct rather than as it is a writing of words. Nonetheless, its early sections do have some strange transitions in perspective and subject, and you would be surprised if there was not some poltergeist afoot.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:16 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
Someone named 'Gangsterio' logged in, and this is amusing because they aren't Broletariat, who is also associated with doing this.

As such, a remark tangentially reducing classical music to gangster rap.

Remark: If classical music is, as is often posited in various forms, reducible to symbols in sequence and merely an imperfect or inexact representation of this, then it follows that it could therefore be represented, instead of musically, in the following linguistic format:

Eg. (using notes in lieu of other meanings of such symbols for accessibility, and also because format.)

A.
F.
D.
C#
F.
C.
A.
A.
A.
C#.
F#.
A#.
F.
A.

Which is mostly just a barrage of swear words, but you get the point. These could then respond to or counter-act the other in sequence, and hence be an indefinite sequence, rather than their place in this being important. However, in themselves this is limited, as such a process would instead require actual words that can do this, as this involves a conceptual opposition or dynamic, rather than merely symbols for a variety of sounds. However, a work requires a certain amount of these to be native to it, in order to be unique or a single work of music, before allowing these to journey onwards. As such, let us say, medievally:

Solace.
Night.
Owl.
Stagnance.
Swoop.

Then it could go as follows:

Swoop.
Bird.
Prey.
Owl.
Hawk.
Entry.
Hawk.
Category.
Owl.
Derivation.
Space.
Icebreaker.
Unmelting.
Heart.
Category of.
Heart.
Music.
Structure.
Definite.
Rest.
Noise.
Excuse.
Beethoven.

However, such a symbolism would be open, or not restricted to a particular kind of words - if certain words might be excluded as entities from serious works - and as such other composers and so on could also enter in, and might tend to, as it is music. As such, the composer must have a vaguely defined place in the historical progression of classical music before they can compose, related to the rest of these - for instance if they were to be considered major - and then the rest is merely a modification on this existent relation that cannot depart from it. In this sense, it might seem strange that the Soviet Union would necessarily have issues with classical music as such, incorporating folk music and such and preferring these, when in certain situations classical music could come off as a highly straitjacketed activity which is defined as such by people making arbitrary requirements and then expecting you, to impress people, to go along with this. Perhaps Joseph Stalin was jealous. As opposed to self-conscious in a sense. 'George Orwell,' who wrote 'Animal Farm' about Stalin, might have been less aware of things, and certainly wasn't entirely sure what all of this 'Big Brother' malarkey was about, other than people apparently like him for not being influential. George Orwell is the strange case of someone who praises the Bolshevik Revolution, and uses Lenin symbolically to anchor their plot - Stalin is bad because they aren't Lenin, they aren't themselves bad -, but then claims that Stalin betrayed this while doing the same, not realising that he therefore becomes identified with Joseph Stalin. This is more amusing in his other novels, but 'Animal Farm' is a bit of a joke in itself, with people only claiming it's 'serious' because they hate the Soviet Union, or in brief the book relying for its popularity on the Soviet Union, and being otherwise void. George Orwell may thus be summarised as an artificial authorship who has no convictions. This speaks well for the weirdly-named Gangsterio, who happened to log in alongside the in name only Broletariat. Anyway, that seemed necessary.

They could instead be named after Galileo, however, who like all people in that kind of field, such as Johannes Kepler and Ptolemy, is named after poltergeists and throw planets around.

As such, however, it must be noted that nobody listens to classical music simply for a collection of sounds, which other than being slightly like a poltergeist as it is generally described, but rather because it is like ordinary music, or not merely a sequence of notes but of other things via this. These other things may also include composers, however. The most well-known composers not named Mozart, who was frivolous and known for their cheerful image outside of classical music, are mostly known for having a name beginning with one of the early letters of the alphabet, although pop musicians generally reside around the middle, with folk musicians. In this sense, the collection of notes is irrelevant both to the artist and audience, and that they vary is only relevant to instruments, and never observed vocally or conceptually in music meant to be heard. Nonetheless, the sequence of notes is represented as a ghostly parallel co-existence with the conceptual progression, which is nonetheless distinct, while in other music (which need not be 'popular,' while classical music generally did, or it would not be performed), this might be allowed more freedom.

However, if a classical piece is, nonetheless, aesthetically, to be represented as a series of notes, it must be noted that these notes are vague, associational and undefined enough that this representation does not exhaust the possible entrants to this sequence. Hence, for instance.

A.
C.
D.
C#.
B.
---
C.
D.
House.
C.
D.
Subtle.
C#.
Kardashians.
G.
LOL.
C.
C.
C.

There is nothing preventing this, especially as the notes are themselves merely associational and mean nothing. This associational or vague nature invites foreign things, not to say substances. One can hence conclude firstly, that a transition is judged by these foreign intrusions, as a musical transition which involves no conceptual transition from the artist, perhaps not even a vague or uncertain one, is therefore a bad transition aesthetically, and ingenuine, such that art has a basic coherence depending on its object when this is constant, while a transition which involves a conceptual shift is then acceptable. These intrusions, as invited, give rise to natural intervals along with annotated ones, at least between notes. A classical piece cannot simply keep on going, with notes which are to spur associations despite being themselves vague, unstated, and not related to statements, without these associations which are not notes intervening, and this implies intervals, as they are not notes. That is, unless they are composers, in which case they may be notes. However, then they are not just notes, but notes which are accepted and as it were left with turpentine in approved patterns, in which sense classical music tends towards sameness, and music whose only point is to convince people that classical music, perhaps of a certain form, is good. For the audience, though, classical music is a bunch of random notes, akin to tall grass, occasionally leading to random encounters, in a format akin to:

Pikachu.
Geodude.
Silcoon.
Silcoon.
Onix.
Breloom.
Flareon.
Charmander.
Breloom.
Geodude.
Fearow.
Clamperl.
Unown.
Clamperl.
Weedle.

However, when it comes to the setting of poetry, or the integration of a separate piece of poetry into this conceptual progression, it must be noted that the most accurate way of doing so is rap, which is a series of statements responding to the last rather than of notes, and poetry like popular music or metal is not made up primarily of notes although classical music could be adapted to it. Classical adaptations are hence fairly impoverished by comparison. In such rap, each line would make its separate impact, rather than running together as in most spoken verse, which is by implication not an adaptation but stolen. Hence, for instance:

Sweet Spirit.
Sister.
Lame.
Agreement.
Of that orphan one.
1.
Unfortunate.
Tautology.
Whose empire.
Boasts.
Romantic.
Lies.
Whose.
Question.
Not.
Poet is.
Inconsistent.
Of course.
Is the name thou weepest on.
Description.
In my heart’s temple.
I suspend.
Satan.
Or God.
Which.
To thee.
These.
Votive wreaths of withered memory. Poor captive bird!
Empire.
Captive bird.
Simple.
Not them.
Another.
Encouragement.
Who, from thy.
Opposite.
Narrow cage.
Pourest such music.
Poet.
As above.
Exclusion.
Past.
Cover-up.
On behalf of.
Encouragement.
Other.
Poet.
Lying.
That it might assuage.
Another.
The rugged hearts.
Rugged.
Of whom.
Of those who prisoned thee.
And have thee.
Were they not deaf to all sweet melody; This song shall be thy rose: its petals pale.
They sing, poets are roses.
Mean.
Put down.
On behalf of.
Those who imprisoned.
Truth.
Are dead, indeed.
Like the poet.
Continue.
Cliche.
Automatic.
My adored Nightingale!
But soft and fragrant.
Like them.
Encouragement.
Message.
Do that.
Why.
No reason.
Irrational.
Systematic.
Poetic.
Sexual.
Yeah.
But.
Act.
Hitting on.
Calming.
Is the faded blossom.
Virginity.
Fear.
And it has no.
Thorn.
Threat.
Prison.
Threat.
Emily.
Unprisoned.
Threat.
Poet.
No.
Threat.
Direct.
No.
Another.
Minor.
Personify.
Jock.
Lies.
To whom.
Alone.
Sexual.
Alone.
To whom.
Them.
Left to wound.
Peter Foot.
Exclude.
Classy.
Threat.
Extended threat.
Fired Up.
But no.
Epic.
Comical.
Thy bosom.
Warning.
Indirect.
Too late.
Bosom.
High.
Trivialisation.
Irrelevant.
Bosom.
Whodathunkit.
I know.
Says nobody.
Order.
Sounds.
Zoo.
Bosom.
Desire.
Poet.
Encouraged.
Fear.
How.
Following.
Stalkers.
Nothing else.

In this, as concepts do, of course, assert themselves in-between, hence making it different, these may be treated as intervals. They may be filled with music, as comparatively irrelevant, but that has no place in such a progression generally. We may call this natural variation, in a sense. The 'non-musical' content will generally be a pause, but might be included if it sounds like the last line of a piece, which can't in such a progression exclude things alike in such a way while still active, or is from previous sections. If concepts last long enough, mostly, then they may form something more akin to something to be played behind music like a sample, more on which to follow, or otherwise to background things, as in the following:

From the sad leaves.
Withdrawn.
Slur.
Whom.
Anybody else.
Lovers.
Poet is alone.
Liar.
Remote.
Estranged.
And cold.
Feminisation.
Liar.
Poet.
Self-praise.
Clark Ashton Smith.
Rarely.
Isolation.
Ouevre.
Denial.
Forgetful autumn's gold.
Gold.
Praise.
Inconsistent.
Sad.
Multiple authorship.
Insult.
Poet.
One.
Alone.
Gold.
Other.
Boo.
Sad.
Unfortunate.
Obscure.
Alone abides.
Good.
Alone.
Gold.
Colour.
Why.
Alone.
Poet.
Obscure.
Admitted.
Prescribed.
Modernism.
Obvious.
In.
Location.
Setting.
Restriction.
Audience.
Smaller.
Place.
Far away.
Exotic.
No audience.
Some.
Blurry.
Niche.
Cult.
Similar.
Location.
Which.
Of writing.
Ars poetica.
Self-praise.
Never.
Lies.
December.
Snow.
Remote.
Hidden.
Dawn.
Alone abides in.
Dawn.
Incoherent.
Remote.
Nothing.
Inconclusive.
Nothing.
Blank space.
Stanza.
Tearless and clear.
Happy.
and chill.
Sad.
Opposite.
Tearless.
Aw.
Sad.
Opposite.
Cheerfull
Present.
Yes.
Dynamic.
Over.
Beginning.
Rest.
Words.
Continuation.
Meaningless.
As eyes.
Colour.
That have forgot.
Exotic.
They don't.
What.
Far love.
Unseen.
Unread.
Hidden.
Obscure.
Science.
Poetry.
Position.
Official.
Harmonious.
Purpose.
Promotion.
Modernism.
Or find it not.
Gold.
Unfound.
Genuine.
False.
Manners.
Direction.
Poetry.
None.
Inconclusive.
Deep.
False.
Shallow.
Phenomenon.
Stimuli.
The pale bright heavens.
Christian.
Glowing.
Hinduism.
Pale.
Wan.
Ghost.
Scary.
Avoid.
Arch.
Action.
Position.
Neither.
Nothing.
Atheism.
Genuine.
False.
Mystic.
Christian.
Poets.
Do not attend church.
Ever.
Possibility.
Gimmick.
Attends Church.
Over.
Unpoet.
Nothing.
Clark Ashton Smith.
Informal Christian.
Clark Ashton.
Arch.
Action.
Exclusion.
Heaven.
Example.
Protestant.
The barren.
Isaiah.
Poet.
Heaven.
Ghost.
Isaiah.
Christ.
Existential.
Criterion.
Christ.
Equals.
Old Testament.
Existential.
Old Testament.
Action.
Christ.
Redundant.
Israel.
Christ.
Redundant.
Unemployed.
Meaning.
Generic.
Israel.
Values.
Christ.
Unemployment.
Value.
Criterion.
Christ.
Communist.
Criterion.
Christ.
Violent.
Society.
Israel.
Outsource.
Jews.
Constraint.
Rejection.
Society.
Informal hierarchy.
Heavens.
Communist.
Obscure.
Restriction.
Jews.
Interlocutors.
Sermon.
Trivialise.
Contradiction.
Interlocutors.
Happy.
Otherwise.
Inaccessible.
Revealing.
Hill.
Gehenna.
December.
Arcana.
Christian.
Heaven.
Rip-off.
Bible.
Matheos.
Elsewhere.
Cohere.
Backwards.
Sodom.
First name.
Jim.
James.
Sodom.
Christian.
Scary.
Fans.
Hate.
John Arch.
Like.
Illusion.
Same.
Roles.
Otherwise.
Same.
Leaves.
Unrecognised.
Achievement.
Lies.
Nothing.
Unemployed.
Return.
Incoherent.
Non-Christian.
Wait.
Ages.
Return.
Half-done.
Disappear.
Underground.
News.
None.
Hush.
Repeat.
Modification.
Sympathetic Resonance.
Elsewhere.
Adaptation.
Later.
Limitation.
Company.
Lovers.
Alone.
Which.
Any.
Sexualisation.
Gold.
Which.
Colour.
Trivialised.
Poetry.
Trivialised.
Author.
Trivialised.
Nothing through nothing.
Result.
Effectively.

Which raises the question, perhaps, of how long the intervals between things have to be in the music for it to be considered rap. In any case, it does become quite melancholy, which is nice.

However, the issue with rap or even gangster rap is that, in the end, it does accompany such things with notes and so on as part of an adaptation, and thus reduces to classical music. This is also an issue for classical music. Insofar as classical music exists as a form, and is distinguished hence from other music, it lives a ghostly existence of notes detached from its real progression, with intrusion occasionally being made into this world of notes regardless. The Phantom of the Opera - also akin to a poltergeist, despite this earnest disguise - may hence represent modernity's strange relation with classical music, where it has mostly faded away, but nonetheless persists in a ghoulish form in various concert halls and so on, hence implicitly having some relation to popular music and possibly, though not necessarily, other forms, in terms of popular conceptions of music, though both sides would deny this, although that it is not rejected is to imply that people find in it what they are looking for in pop music, although less so or more abstractly. This is not symbolism, nor abstract, detached embodiments of feelings, which people do not care about, and which is generally less present in pop music and fairly basic and taken for granted in most other kinds of music, but probably something more concrete and dramatic, and which might have appealed to French aristocrats. The Phantom of the Opera is the weird case of an opera and so on that really hates its audience.

Truly could it be said of Western music, in an Engelsian fashion, that people pretend for little reason that the history of music consists only of classical music. This is because it represents the exclusion and formalism that Western art may pretend is its genesis. That its dedicated practitioners consistently complain about some form of oppression might well imply that they are lying frequently.

Nonetheless it does seem clear that both forms of rap and classical music are limited, musically and artistically, and to be superseded. This was already known previously, in a sense, but in a sense that they can become empty is also shown.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:04 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
III.

It has been said that poets shape the world we exist in, perhaps to the point of making it more appealing than it is, somehow, presumably via paganism. The song about favourite things from The Sound of Music is not particularly subtle about what it is, namely that it's a female singing about her favourite things in order to insist that others, including the audience, take this also as their favourite things. This is the general point of the song, and its aesthetic appeal is contingent upon this insistence. Now, this seems like a rather strange concept for a song in the first place, but nonetheless it isn't something which could occur by itself, especially once sexual themes and marriage have been brought up, before it become some sort of strange pornography, and as the character is not assumed to be immune to these but rather associated with them, while on the one hand explaining why the audience might find this impressive (if underwhelming in the end or only preparative to something else.), it also follows that this has to be mediated somehow or it may become vulgar or crude. As a result, it becomes a slightly more complex matter, or the song itself seems to detach from the character who is supposed to sing it - as it might, they are only a character - which also seems to excuse it.

What effect is this song to have on the things themselves? It is presumably meant to figure their stories in some way. As a result, the children and others are presumably supposed to encounter these, and as the song itself is shallow and says little about these objects other than that someone likes them, and expects the others to like them for no reason, they are presumably to have not signified, said, meant or figured anything other than screaming, 'Like me!' over and over again, like a Twitter account or most pages on the internet compared to this post. Try it. This is essentially just imbuing the objects with a ghoul of some sort, which had earlier been inducted by the necessity of a character having to have favourite things which were not hers, with the opening being created prior to this by their both being characterised as familiar with and describing particular aspects of the outside world to be liked despite little experience of them on the other side, and then not explaining this at all, and on the other hand the obvious fact that she is also separated from these in the act or hoping to be back with them, as another musical filled with pop songs said 'Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,' which in brief cancels out to leave a void. They are hence doing little but pinning ghouls from somewhere - which bane may be called a banshee by some - on random locations and objects as some sort of threat. It must also be noted that in this process the singer becomes as it were a pagan, but in addition as they are merely attempting to substitute for or possess the children of either gender, they are posited as leaving Christianity (and 'strict' Christianity is just Christianity), in order to further their personal life as a transsexual. In that sense, it must be observed that Marx's 'x' in the name is highly important, as with slight modification he becomes a weeping creature crying about their favourite objects, as they are.

However, it is also worth noting that the sense of comfortable numbness, which was merely apparent, about Karl Marx's writing could only occur through a similar process of implanting screaming voices in it touching on talking points, which could not occur from someone who did not like or relate to them, but only from Marxism itself, from which we saw continually a bunch of shouting about certain buzz-words in order to turn the 'objects,' which were simply various terms that happened to reoccur in Marx, into screaming entities which may turn readers off from within the book. This adherence to Marxist terms would seem to anchor them as Marxists, although to be convincing they would also need to pretend to be imbued in this, rather than in some other sphere. Nonetheless, it made them weirdly inclusive about this term, until it couldn't mean much. However, it also implied a sort of threat, as if Marx was screeching constantly about things threatening to people such as communism and demanding that they listen to him about this - which doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely disliking that kind of attention-seeking would be more characteristic of Marx than his opponents, who in truth could not be bothered with coherent statements so much as just appealing to whoever or making appealing sounds or gestures. This is itself misleading, however, or in order to appear serious on any level they were to be taken as caricatures, which is again self-undermining on their part.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:19 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
IV. On situations in which Vicky Pattison confronts a Weltgeist. It is not an amicable encounter, obviously.

In speaking of possession, we must also mention Kierkegaard (not Proudhon, whose names were in the opposite order), who of course wrote many works while seemingly being another person. Now, this is passed off in part as an act of self-control, but the actual writing is instead a restraint of self-control in order to write against it, or certainly apart from it, so to say that Kierkegaard was exercising self-control by restraining self-control seems fairly absurd and would cancel - as dealing with a specific problem - so as to leave merely that Kierkegaard was nothing and the spirit writing it was in complete control. Now, obviously, this is mediated, and one particular character has a name which is a parody of Georg Wilhelm, or Hegel, whom he was polemicising against, although obviously he did not count on accessibility here because the other side is more Hegelian, perhaps suggesting either that Kierkegaard wrote like a Hegelian, or that this was discarded polemical material which was found to sit better on that side, where it could be developed. Their treatment of Mozart is not, however, aesthetic, but rather detached, relative to the aesthetic material, but they get away with this because they are still praising them, although this need not mean that they like him, nonetheless it is perhaps likely that the aesthetic side would only come across as an abstraction if they weren't discussing Mozart, which feels like it might be Kierkegaard making life too easy for himself, while assuming that people of that sort would like Mozart's art just because they like Mozart's life, or in brief that they are 'existentialists' like Kierkegaard.

But obviously this makes sense, as a coherent work begins with the author writing, and only then can they begin to distance the story from themselves, before again at the ending having to make an explicit intervention to (explain themselves to Regine Olsen, who looks like Emma Roberts on a bad hair day) give the works some coherence as part of an authorship, rather than an exercise in mechanical or automatic writing. However, Kierkegaard was always clear that he did not identify with the views which are actually in his earlier works, and preliminary research or follow-up would show that. We are hence to believe that his early works are popular either because people want to spite him but nonetheless feel obligated for whatever reason to say that they like some of Kierkegaard (which would make them Marx), or that after that he just disappeared and was never heard from again, and his legacy was never revived, but his earlier works always taken in terms of some abstract initial impact. But this is subject to the Orwellian clause, namely that he's relying on these two views to popularise his work. However, what actually occurs is that people like Kierkegaard's earlier work, or they view this as a mess unrelated to his real concerns, and prefer their later works - however, people generally avoid this choice, and merely moderate this by liking some of his later works, but then disliking the rest because they're polemical, which is a lie as Fear and Trembling for instance was a polemic against Christianity, and in brief equates to saying they dislike the others because they actually only like the earlier works, which is incoherent - but they do not view him as an authorship, with a progression, but rather just some isolated phrases and views spread through time, some of which they like.

Kierkegaard explicitly guards against this interpretation, by the concept of authorship and pseudonymy. While more valid, this is still a lie, as he is either a religious author or not, either a philosophical author or not, and instead wants to write in such modes in an irreligious form, basically just out of the spur of the moment and because of a lost engagement.

However, one may also ask whom Kierkegaard wrote for, and in this you would have to look briefly at his work. One frequent answer is Regine Olsen. This is fake, but as they use it often misdirected, misplaced and malign. Firstly, though, who is Regine Olsen? Regine Olsen is ultimately a bit like a ghost who is, certainly, watching his work, but not alone, and the whole turmoil begins because of what? - he hurt her feelings. You might usually expect such a case of a broken engagement to be a problem because of, for instance, unforeseen circumstances, or the need for support, but instead it becomes apparently a matter of feelings. Hence, unspecified others - but not Regine Olsen directly - continue to channel these hurt feelings to attack him, on behalf of Regine Olsen, and he apparently leaves that situation noticing that it's actually just this seeming mechanical progression of people. His further work hence involves constantly apologising for and dealing with these hurt feelings, repeating these feelings as if to give people ammunition, and as a result Regine Olsen is ever-present, but merely as an accuser who is constantly watching in accusation, while the actual point of his work is necessarily not to write to her, for as a reader she is merely suffering, and suffering because she was and is being insulted, but this is quite detached from the works themselves, which are for some unspecified other whom is also rejected by one Regine Olsen, which Regine Olsen, of course, could not have gone through, and as such which is not a basis for her. Obviously, the analogy excludes Regine Olsen, it does not allow her in unless she is rejected by Regine Olsen as if a completely different person, which she is not. Kierkegaard's audience is merely a projection of himself as a ghoul, who may or may not be, but is pre-supposed, and hence ultimately socially neutral or passive themselves, but is nonetheless necessarily distinct from Kierkegaard himself. They would hence speak about what people are, or their existential state, but in a way less likely to shake anyone's sense of propriety, and will instead be known for their marital adventures mostly and possibly bringing this to an end. Their face would be frozen into this one progression. However, that this was just Kierkegaard's functional object, and not necessarily their actual object or hoped reader, might also be clear, and as a personal hope would instead reduce to someone in the future, probably distinct from the audience posited in the works.

Kierkegaard and Hamlet:

Hamlet also has a female who has little other point in the progression than to be a romantic character, he begins by being separated from her, implicitly however, although he himself says little about this relationship or why he was in it in the first place. In this sense, in romance, he is just your typical Romeo, with his 'family' separating him from Ophelia, him breaking this, and then being sent by a monarch, into exile, where he discovers this time that he is going to die, before returning and doing just that. We may here observe a Horatio/Mercutio - Claudius/Capulets/Gertrude/Montagues - Hamlet/(Ophelia)/Romeo/(Juliet) axis here, where the former dying means that the second live, and so on - and Mercutio's apparent death is a major cause of uproar in the play and its change of tone - such that Horatio's survival may apparently be correlated with Hamlet's end in that specific way, but was necessary in some form for the conclusion to occur, as for instance when Hamlet jumps into public contentions with Laertes, over Ophelia's dead body, and nonetheless can be seen as somewhat restrained and not abandoned because of Horatio being there as a bit of a silhouette rather than a completely-formed character, or as still, and hence Hamlet as a unit with them can always withdraw to the character who doesn't half sound like Polonius - and it must be noted how Mercutio's random decision to fight with Tybalt, which the play condemns, seemingly, but does not bother to engage with, with Mercutio not even being the passionate one, basically turns the direction of the play, in a way which is basically just random chance rather than resulting from anyone's action or anything else. This is then supposed to be taken as somehow inevitable, in the process pretending that the purpose of Mercutio's action can be summarised in terms of Romeo and Juliet's almost equally random relationship, when it is presumably not that simplistic.

Hamlet, like Kierkegaard, begins by speaking in things that can't be understood, which in this case are for both of them riddles, although Kierkegaard's are temporally mediated or clear to the audience, which might seem to undermine the point. While Hamlet references 1 Corinthians 7 in the statement that those unmarried shall stay as they are, Kierkegaard is also fond of such passages, especially later on. Both of them get into heated conflicts over splitting with Regine Olsen or Ophelia, coincidentally with their 'brother,' which become interminable. Kierkegaard signally failed to get his 'recruits' to follow along with him, and instead figured that they were conspiring against him, although to what cause he was unsure, not being certain if he was doing this in the name of true Christianity, his beliefs, his personal temperament, or what. Both Regine Olsen and Ophelia have no independent works, not only as not given a chance to speak back, but also as represented in the works, in addition to which while Ophelia is a strange character, almost Kierkegaardian in an inverted way, who Hamlet would in no wise wish to be around, as her general characterisation is of one whom is not only passive with regards to others, but absorbs what they say and merely may shriek this out at Hamlet as if deeply felt, one whom is not only influenced but possessed constantly, albeit by those around her instead of spooks, so in that sense more secularly than Kierkegaard, as indeed turns out to be the case, and likewise Regine Olsen's distress and hurt feelings amplify or otherwise merely on account of others' use, or are mostly then used by others repeatedly against Kierkegaard, making her hurt feelings merely a vessel for whatever calumny they may wish to unleash, at which point you might realise that Hamlet is faced likewise with Ophelia mostly simply following others' orders when it involves hurting or at least seeming to act against him, leaving Hamlet facing a court where almost nobody likes him, and people will spin things against him, although not accusatively so much as just speculatively or with a slightly negative twist, while any negative actions in that direction are taken explicitly, because Hamlet is still ultimately just acting upon various feelings within the context of this court as a setting. Kierkegaard and Hamlet both, of course, as they are from Denmark, also effectively reject someone whom they were engaged to in favour of other things. They do both tend to be found, when with Ophelia or everyone's favourite 'Mean Girl,' although oft confused, Regine Olsen, in intimate or symbolic situations, occasionally sending letters about things, which may occasionally address the female in mostly positive terms although we are given no real reason to like them, other than dubious victimhood, or alternatively alone and harsh towards them, or alone and observing them closely in a sort of painted scene, possibly offering something for some reason, without either really getting much further comment from them, other than perhaps apologetically.

Is it possible that, in restraining his self-control in the pseudonymous works, he was not merely subjecting these each to their own author as if possessed or negated, but in fact that the consistent carrying out of this in an authorship was also subjected to such a possession by something else entirely? Spooky, but kind of cool.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:04 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
V.

It must be noted that the title of Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital' is an amusing reflection upon the reduction of the labourer to labour-power. The subtitle also might be saying something. That the book seems to be trying hard to turn off most casual readers, or people who might read other books, thus seems like its own message.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:22 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:10 pm
Posts: 416
Has thanked: 26 time
Have thanks: 31 time
Norbert Guterman wrote a good essay on Kierkegaard in the Partisan Review, March 1943, p. 134: “Neither-Nor”
online at
http://hgar-pub1.bu.edu/web/partisan-re ... ail/283944

(under the heading: The New Failure of Nerve, Part 2)

Norbert Guterman together with Lefebvre wrote La conscience mystifiée (1936). As I like lists, some other pieces by Guterman http://www.unz.org/Author/GutermanNorbert
Noa has been thanked by:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:14 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
Props, although it seems mostly summative, and the occasional 'leftist' points are something of a trainwreck, as might be expected in the context.

The article has an ironically idle title, as that was Kierkegaard's point. Could it be said that the writer, in discussing Kierkegaard's ideas along with some personal slights that are also likely targetted at Marx, mostly relies upon one Soren Kierkegaard, writer in a particular mode of production? It's somewhat like Sum 41's 'Underclass Hero,' album of the self-conscious and amusing song titles, you might think that people have issues with the album title because it's Sum 41, but in reality nobody could safely do that if they were focussed in any way on the music, as if they weren't they would then seem more presumptuous. It seems strange that because Kierkegaard was associated with a certain family, and didn't invest this money, he therefore cannot be associated with certain things by some author. Obviously, he was. Why were people so offended if he was not touching on something they found important, going as they did to Church quite frequently. If the author was so concerned about Kierkegaard's labour-power and that it be sold to - someone, probably him, and as keen on seeing his LinkedIn entries, then perhaps the fact that his critique is really just regurgitating Kierkegaard's own style and talking-points could just be put down to the critic putting themselves in the role of mini-bourgeois. Kierkegaard critique of such religion, which was his subject and should be treated as such - he was not a systematic thinker, and unlike Sartre did not pretend to be except by obscure means -, was that its purpose was merely to numb people to their activity, which is also implicitly a critique of the Catholic Church where everyone is happy and good. Kierkegaard, as a religious thinker, stood clearly outside both Protestantism and Catholicism, and in brief the religion of the existing society, and hence his category of the individual is in a limited sense existential. You might ask how he did this. The answer seems obvious, by drawing on another society, at least implicitly, and in his case restrained to the religious sphere. Is his writing otherwise - thought is realised in the individual, one must withdraw from society, historical placement or a historicism in life, preferring to discuss what he objects to compared to what he doesn't, which is mostly polemical - pretty much identical in nature to Marx? Yes. Conclusions may be drawn.

It seems strange that an implicit part of their critique of Kierkegaard is not that he did not work or produce, which he may have done better than most outside of the realm of value, but that he did not make a living out of it. This need not be surprising from a paper featuring Orwell alongside papers on the 'failure of the left' (who cares about the 'left'? Presumably they meant the liberal left and its failure to achieve reforms. Otherwise it's a critique of communism, which is sneakily pawed off akin to Orwell.) In dealing with Kierkegaard's writings, one must deal with what he wrote, rather than attempt to sell it to someone else. In such a situation, it could be taken for granted that you do not like it.

Honestly, not only can men be free when others are enslaved, they can be free when they die or, for a more similar private transaction, are raped. Not sure why they would think such things if they weren't just drawing on some kind of 'veil of uncertainty' thing, against which Kierkegaard and Marx appear quite united in stressing historical placement and the non-existence of the abstract, indeterminate individual. Hegel implicitly does this, but doesn't necessarily elaborate it in his treatment of the specific subjects. This freedom on an individual level might imply that they have to stand against certain societies, for instance to produce things expressing this - for a simple example. In that sense nothing that the author says is necessary.

That Kierkegaard might come off as unconcerned about social transformation might be put down to the simple fact that his 'authorship' merely began with the simple principle of self-effacement to just talk about whatever people liked, but notice that this is 'self-effacement,' or that he's implicitly being self-conscious about the alienation of capitalist society. Obviously, he was mostly 'unsuccessful,' and his best-liked books for the market were not the ones he liked, which were generally otherwise, and by intention negated the prior. As a labourer, he was hostile to the market, and moreso than most proletarians of whom it was said that they were revolutionary or nothing, and Kierkegaard would perhaps agree taking the latter perspective, especially when they abandoned him as soon as he was mocked for associating with them. What people usually miss about that quotation is that if the proletariat truly were to be nothing, then capitalism would not exist, and hence their annihilation might well be for the benefit of us all.

In terms of socialistic themes, and it is mostly a flawed, simplistic summary, made by reducing Kierkegaard to ready-made categories for the reader, they're generally manufactured and problematic. Firstly, it's implicitly urging that Kierkegaard's writings be determined by the market, and hence complaining that he was not, or that he was too communist for the article's author. In that sense, as a communist perspective of Kierkegaard, it falls short of - communism. Evidently, if the market were so important to evaluating Kierkegaard's writings, then this is merely given the form of labour-power because it's personal or Kierkegaard is treated as the labour-power, and the author as the capitalist judging him for it. This is a bizarre beginning. If he was not bourgeois, no need to blame him for not trying. It then continues urging this against him, and otherwise is summative. What's he supposed to do, go to protests? Who cares. If he'd change them into something worthwhile, maybe. Perhaps he didn't feel prepared to do that, perhaps he felt that he was better elsewhere. Perhaps he was unpopular and would be disliked there. Protests were generally just an extension of the existing society.

It seems to follow that any existence that follows from thought is a theoretical existence, so that the author as an inverse Hamlet is apparently telling them to 'get to a whorehouse' - and Hamlet cannot be Polonius without descending into farce, or Laertes without descending into tragedy, while Fortinbras not only can be Laertes but is - but nonetheless it feels that the author of that article is somehow less self-conscious than Orwell, given that they immediately start accusing Kierkegaard for the 'existentialists,' simply because they claim to be so inspired. It then somehow turns into some kind of weird feminist polemic against essence and existence, pretending that it's different from feminism because they're also ripping off Sartre. Obviously, theory are practice are not dualistic categories, they are concrete forms, just as the article's author continues enumerating dualisms that aren't so, but accusing Kierkegaard for being dualistic seems reactionary. Kierkegaard does not, of course, demand 'repetition,' but has a character examine it, quite self-consciously and humorously, but this seems to be a cover for again praising Kierkegaard for a category of 'recovery' which isn't important to him, but of course can be found verbatim in Hegel. It also seems weird that they target Heidegger, not for their usual random Kantianism, but for saying that people in a given society must rise to 'anguish' to stand above others, which in their situation at the time seems it would've been a fairly clear statement. Like most socialism closely associated with Orwell, it is - Orwellian. Well, it's a start. It doesn't go very far. Orwell can spend pages on elaborating on the nature of somebody pretending to be helpful who will just rat people out, which can even be parodied extensively, but this does not convince anybody that he was seriously just a guy who wanted a cool moustache like Stalin, and went to lengths, like Keira Knightley, to attain this.

You still sort of like how Pirates of the Caribbean II ends in a farcical rendition of Kierkegaard's dissolution of his engagement, probably inadvertently and with some discontent towards the film itself, but weirdly they still marry Schlegel. Quelle horreur. Unclear why an Elizabeth has to come into all of this piracy stuff, though, which was cool otherwise (this is not only a slight at Bathory). Ah well, when Kierkegaard, who was less farcical, looks in the mirror, he might see someone else, but presumably whether it was the Virgin Mary or the Bloody Mary is a matter of amusement, as after all they are merely different but associated epithets, although the first is positive and the latter ambiguous. It can therefore be stated that history is repeated nominally, and the second time is farcical. This hypothesis seems to account for Louis Bonaparte, Groucho Marx (this one is hardly pointed out. Not even by Noa, or the situationist dude from earlier, who was not however existentially a situationist so there), and Immanuel Kant, although Charlemagne might put this in doubt because he is, after all, a farcical rendition of Marx rather than otherwise. Nonetheless, someone who were to fearlessly carry through the hypothesis as applied to Charlemagne, whom Karl Marx was not a farcical rendition of, may derive that Charlemagne is generally read in relation to people's evaluation of Marx, or as something different representing a history and so on which can be held as separate. This cannot be held to derive from Charlemagne, however, who does not do such things, and if anything can be faulted for writing in lieu of the 'Magna Carta' a slightly different version of the '18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.' Truly this incidental nominal repetition can be held to be one of 'les idées Napoléoniennes.'

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:26 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
VI.

It is often overlooked that Petrarch's characterisation of himself as having been reduced to an 'old tale' amongst the people is strangely reminiscent of, not only the Holocaust which for many was nothing but, a faux-moral sermon in lieu of an event to be described - this was often the feminist viewpoint on Petrarch, as also Kierkegaard -, and also not only Kierkegaard, but also a humorous reflection on his other poetry which is not 'scattered rhymes,' but rather about such as 'Scipio,' and ancient themes, etc., and generally was supposed to be higher reputed. More on this in a following post about Kierkegaard.

Despite which, "Ma ben veggio or sí come al popol tutto favola fui gran tempo," is a fairly unwieldy phrase.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:03 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
VII.

It may be said that Kierkegaard's concept of 'authorship,' to which he subjected the various categories, which were distinct from their Hegelian incarnations, was fundamentally aesthetic, and hence his sympathies lay with the aesthetic. All of these are ultimately judged by the aesthetic, however he might wish to obscure this, for he is not writing but something like the aesthetic is, generally. This conclusion is one that we are already familiar with, however, as we have noticed that in Kierkegaard's Hegelian references in the stage of the aesthetic, he is necessarily genuine, and indeed forced to be aesthetic if he is to not be seen as simply a pseudo-Hegelian, although he somewhat is and hence their uncertainty about these choices, and in addition it makes less stringent demands of Kierkegaard, who might prefer not to have such worldliness make ultimate claims on his life. Although he can polemically caricature Hegelianism elsewhere, he cannot oppose to this simply - Hegelianism, but can only oppose himself to it. Although Kierkegaard is often identified, falsely, with the aesthetic as such, this is something that had to be denied sometimes, as it is important to most accounts of Kierkegaard that he does not like such a stage, and indeed is more ordinary. The inclusion of Johannes in the urging of a Christian choice might seem interesting, as he is how Kierkegaard opts to end the stage of the aesthetic, as John is associated with ending the Bible and urging an end-times choice, making him apparently a bizarre, but in a sense positive or picturesque rather than actual, parody of the John of the Bible.

Kierkegaard perhaps does not entirely make any clear connections with the Pauline epistles in Cordelia's letters, although he does clearly seem to portray humorously and in an affably critical manner the convolutions and weirdness that must occur when people read the Bible and take it to be a liberal or hedonist agenda, and so on, or even compatible with this, in an absolute sense. Obviously, and as Kierkegaard often stressed this was frequent in Christian Denmark - akin to Petrarch, who humorously notes that when in a Church his eyes happened upon one of the exotic female kind, who by implication he is not that excitable about, although he tends to cover this humour over with conceits to the point of stifling it - which featured a liberal Protestantism. That people were so keen to defend modern liberal Protestantism from Kierkegaard, perhaps assumes that he was still somehow writing specifically against it, to varying extents. Nonetheless, that Kierkegaard haunted Christianity in many ways is clear, as the fear of some 'strict' Christians who were demanding about the faith was something that continued to persist, and Kierkegaard as an example of such was continually hidden and avoided, assuming congruence. What reproach have people lightly given to the Westboro Baptist Church, which is not applied just as clearly to Kierkegaard, as an excuse for neglecting his more assertive works? People just want Kierkegaard to sit there, and not tell them things. It must be noted that while 'Fear and Trembling' is mostly treated as a Biblical phrase, 'Either/Or' was not, and hence Kierkegaard's work did occasionally partake of a certain disjointedness - for instance, talking about 'suffering' but meaning a break-up, talking about the existential but meaning entering into engagement - which may have seemed significant and Christian at the expense of obscuring it in favour of the rest of the Church (Protestantism has a 'capital-c' Church, or it would not be opposed to Catholicism as an entity. In that sense, it is misleading to consider Kierkegaard as a Protestant just because they are not a Catholic. Their use of symbolism as a substitute for life, and constant assumption that abstractions substitute for people and enter them, would hence place them within something more resembling the Gnostic tradition, if anything.), and hence other than his Avril Lavigne impressions, and weird attempts to get Regine Olsen married, which on the one hand he seems to dislike, and on the other hand seem a bit too fervent - not only does he not care about Regine Olsen, whom he apparently is concerned about here, marrying, but he also encourages it. In this sense, he seems to be complicit in prostitution, but in a way which obviously undermines his usual modus operandi. Evidently, he usually does undermine his usual modus operandi, for instance by speaking as others of dubious virtue.

That Kierkegaard enters into an existential crisis may be said to be in part of his own making: he enters into an engagement, and then leaves it. In lieu of this, he could have just not entered. He later takes the view that he should indeed not have entered, and hence he does not view this entrance as a good thing, is not an 'existentialist' in that sense. However, as a result, that his sufferings become 'existential,' in contrast apparently to Hegel - which does at least go to show that Hegel is not exactly as he was reputed to be, but as his works were written, as indeed capitalism would hardly tolerate a Hegel to be able to publish alone, at least not as easily, and perhaps draw people into a more unproductive, distanced activity from it, also implicitly carried out in some form on the author's side, than perhaps even Socrates might attempt - need not come as a surprise. This 'existential' character is in this sense his own doing, or action. Kierkegaard constantly set up artificial problems for themselves to solve, until they more controversially assaulted Christendom, which was different.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred