"The method of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit—his first masterpiece and the work of his I will be using more than any other—is to examine an idea on its own terms, letting that idea present its best arguments and develop itself until it unwittingly exposes its own limitations and self-contradictions, thus overcoming itself. Rather than refuting a theory from the outside, employing external criteria it never intended to meet and would not accept, Hegel’s technique is to show how theories fail to meet their own standards, thus begging no questions. “If the refutation is thorough, it is derived and developed from the principle itself, not accomplished by counter-assertions and random thoughts from outside. The refutation would, therefore, properly consist in the further development of the principle, and in thus remedying the defectiveness” (Hegel, PS 13, §24; see also Gadamer 1976a, 5). As with the thought of many of the idealists, much of Hegel’s thought can be viewed as just this kind of internal refutation.through extension of Kant. As Tom Rockmore puts it, “Although he rejects the letter of Kant’s critical philosophy, Hegel participates in the post- Kantian effort … to elaborate its spirit by thinking with Kant against Kant” (Denker and Vater 2003, 339). Hegel starts from Kant’s position, but finds it internally inconsistent as well as unsatisfying for other reasons. He ends up extending it far beyond the limitations Kant imposed, but to where he thinks Kant should have gone had he consistently followed out his own best insights. Hegel’s idealism is less a rejection of Kant’s thought than its completion or fulfillment by working out flaws that even Kant should recognize; in other words, Hegel’s thought is one enormous Aufhebung. According to Merold Westphal, “Hegel’s philosophy [takes] the form of a continuous debate
with the critical philosophy; and we should not be too surprised when
he defines philosophy as the refutation of Kant.”1 Hegel’s task is to be the Kant that Kant should have been were he sufficiently free of presuppositions to follow his own insights to their proper conclusions. Interestingly, Kant himself once described his own project as just this kind of overcomingthrough- extension of his great predecessor, Hume: “If we start from a wellfounded, but undeveloped, thought which another has bequeathed to us, we may well hope by continued reflection to advance farther than the acute man to whom we owe the first spark of light” (Kant, PFM 8/260)."
— Lee Braver - A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism (via anenglishmajorandcoffee)
If you’re poor, the only way you’re likely to injure someone is the old traditional way: artisanal violence, we could call it – by hands, by knife, by club, or maybe modern hands-on violence, by gun or by car.
But if you’re tremendously wealthy, you can practice industrial-scale violence without any manual labor on your own part. You can, say, build a sweatshop factory that will collapse in Bangladesh and kill more people than any hands-on mass murderer ever did, or you can calculate risk and benefit about putting poisons or unsafe machines into the world, as manufacturers do every day. If you’re the leader of a country, you can declare war and kill by the hundreds of thousands or millions. And the nuclear superpowers – the US and Russia – still hold the option of destroying quite a lot of life on Earth.
So do the carbon barons. But when we talk about violence, we almost always talk about violence from below, not above.
— Let’s Call Climate Change What It Really Is—Violence | Alternet (via guerrillamamamedicine)
"…tolerance in our society can be said to be genuinely repressive, in that it offers a means of defusing the most dangerous and subversive ideas: not censorship, but the transformation into a fad, is the most effective way of destroying a potentially threatening movement or revolutionary personality."
— Jameson, Frederic, Marxism and Form: Twentieth-Century Dialectical Theories of Literature (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1971) p.110 (via fuckyeahdialectics)
"Just as early industrial capitalism moved the focus of existence from being to having, post-industrial culture has moved that focus from having to appearing."
— Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle (via zealotry)