I think Wittgenstein was on to a lot with language and social acquisition of languages in the philosophical investigations. In fact his idea of ostension goes quite some way as a fascinating basis for formal language signaling games, and similar models in the philosophy of language. And also I think his work was quite insightful for the formation of pigeon languages in their early stages. But I think y’all were too harsh on debord, I think with respect to aspects of social construction, including the social relations in the productive process, debord touches upon alienation and the weird manners in which it is filled in through this grand spectacle we call culture. Like for instance, the sense of nationalism heavily informed by media coverage, movies music etc. I think he really spoke a lot to the sensationalization of culture. Rather than coke as it’s method of production and output coke is this brand, which has these ads etc. but that this also extends so deeply into politics that we get a former actor as president while he has dementia. Or whole demographic groups understood to most in the country as stereotypes. How our psychology is also programmed in this manner. Putting a face on crime and “so on”. I think it brought some of these things into consideration in a very digestible way for a particular type of audience, and a lot about this book is it’s aesthetic/it’s own spectacle (with the name, the cover image, debord being French and “so on”).
In Spain we are kinda experts of the dinamization of "what should keep repressed", talking the criminal fellas to films then joyfully consumed for the upper classes as soberb modernity pieces.
I think Butler talked about the non ontological necesity on the acts of lenguage (false promesses, or even being given the preconditions to an act of lenguage, It might be uneffective anyway.) For It has to be shown that the mere intention of the subject-actor of lenguage to fully realize certain ontic virtualities or the presumption of effordesness on doing so is not linked to the proper dispositives of power, the kind heideggerian identity call, ontological jump, as a perfect (onto-)taxonomic dialectical circularity.
La fuente de la normatividad es, por tanto, la documentalidad, y la base de la documentalidad es el mecanismo de emersión social que examiné en el capítulo anterior. Obviamente, podría objetarse que una inscripción en sentido estricto es inerte y solo adquiere significado si es interpretada por un sujeto cualquiera dotado de intencionalidad. La objeción se articularía del siguiente modo. Admitiendo que la mente sea una tabla de inscripciones, si las inscripciones son inertes, entonces es preciso postular un sujeto intencional que las interprete; si, por el contrario, no son inertes y están dirigidas desde sí mismas hacia su propio significado, entonces están dotadas de intencionalidad. " Maurizio Ferraris.
@@bernatsanroma4037 I really follow carnaps principle of charitability. So even when something isn’t exactly right, or fascinating or really worth believing in (like his seemingly realist concept of truth and mystification of propositions and with it the logical framework he draws out in tractus). But his learning by ostension I think works really well for meaning acquisition socially I reckon (and he rejected the possibility of private languages in the philosophical investigations). But I also found his style of getting towards philosophy very refreshing, especially the use of dialogue in the philosophical investigations, or writing in propositions purely in the tractatus. Also his approach to philosophy of not reading much philosophy and jumping into life as best he can brings a refreshing contrast of approach and belief about philosophy, which he carried out to the best of his ability, and he got life experience (which Aristotle called for as a prerequisite before one starts philosophy - I outright disagree with this thought). But his contributions are highly valued. And if you don’t like his work there are tons of other theorists, philosophers and so on to pick from, we really are spoiled for choice. Perhaps read Fanon, or Leibniz there are so many options.
Could you talk about Baudrillards critique of this book, for example in „in the shadow of the silent majorities?“, I particularly didn‘t get his „in the end, socialism will win (necessarily)“ (more or less), which he also repeats in other texts, for example his essay on the centre pompedu (not googling, how to spell that), mostly out of context though.
I enjoy Pills but I always enjoy Victors (I hope thats the right persons name) skepticism about alienation, I think he allows makes the exchanges more interesting. Wish more people watched this.
I started reading the consumer society by baudriallard. I think it follows the theme of the spectacle quite closely and more throughly. I enjoyed the society of the spectacle too. Some theory is really enjoyable, like a gripping novel about real life 💀
One philosopher or intellectual that I can really recommend for you to dive into is Noam Chomsky. I know he is basically the exact opposite of any continental philosopher, but his scientific and philosophical thinking is really fascinating. There are four recent interviews with him on the Closer to Truth UA-cam channel, which I can really recommend.
Stay off of Anti social media like Twitter, Facebook, etc. Boring, what happened to an intellectual conversation. Life not likes -- Get back to the real world. Boring too bad over 8 min an nothing about the Society of the Spectacle.
![Sociological Theory: A Skeleton Key to Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle (1967), [© Dan Krier]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EpFyQEL-3tM/mqdefault.jpg)
Meoists unite! Spectacular episode fellas.
Comment, much engagement.
Fantastic podcasts. ❤
I think Wittgenstein was on to a lot with language and social acquisition of languages in the philosophical investigations. In fact his idea of ostension goes quite some way as a fascinating basis for formal language signaling games, and similar models in the philosophy of language. And also I think his work was quite insightful for the formation of pigeon languages in their early stages. But I think y’all were too harsh on debord, I think with respect to aspects of social construction, including the social relations in the productive process, debord touches upon alienation and the weird manners in which it is filled in through this grand spectacle we call culture. Like for instance, the sense of nationalism heavily informed by media coverage, movies music etc. I think he really spoke a lot to the sensationalization of culture. Rather than coke as it’s method of production and output coke is this brand, which has these ads etc. but that this also extends so deeply into politics that we get a former actor as president while he has dementia. Or whole demographic groups understood to most in the country as stereotypes. How our psychology is also programmed in this manner. Putting a face on crime and “so on”. I think it brought some of these things into consideration in a very digestible way for a particular type of audience, and a lot about this book is it’s aesthetic/it’s own spectacle (with the name, the cover image, debord being French and “so on”).
In Spain we are kinda experts of the dinamization of "what should keep repressed", talking the criminal fellas to films then joyfully consumed for the upper classes as soberb modernity pieces.
But, could you go deeper to concrete the connection between wittgenstein's concept of ostension and his dry logical framework?
I think Butler talked about the non ontological necesity on the acts of lenguage (false promesses, or even being given the preconditions to an act of lenguage, It might be uneffective anyway.) For It has to be shown that the mere intention of the subject-actor of lenguage to fully realize certain ontic virtualities or the presumption of effordesness on doing so is not linked to the proper dispositives of power, the kind heideggerian identity call, ontological jump, as a perfect (onto-)taxonomic dialectical circularity.
La fuente de la normatividad es, por tanto, la documentalidad, y la base de la documentalidad es el mecanismo de emersión social que examiné en el capítulo anterior. Obviamente, podría objetarse que una inscripción en sentido estricto es inerte y solo adquiere significado si es interpretada por un sujeto cualquiera dotado de intencionalidad. La objeción se articularía del siguiente modo. Admitiendo que la mente sea una tabla de inscripciones, si las inscripciones son inertes, entonces es preciso postular un sujeto intencional que las interprete; si, por el contrario, no son inertes y están dirigidas desde sí mismas hacia su propio significado, entonces están dotadas de intencionalidad. " Maurizio Ferraris.
@@bernatsanroma4037 I really follow carnaps principle of charitability. So even when something isn’t exactly right, or fascinating or really worth believing in (like his seemingly realist concept of truth and mystification of propositions and with it the logical framework he draws out in tractus). But his learning by ostension I think works really well for meaning acquisition socially I reckon (and he rejected the possibility of private languages in the philosophical investigations). But I also found his style of getting towards philosophy very refreshing, especially the use of dialogue in the philosophical investigations, or writing in propositions purely in the tractatus. Also his approach to philosophy of not reading much philosophy and jumping into life as best he can brings a refreshing contrast of approach and belief about philosophy, which he carried out to the best of his ability, and he got life experience (which Aristotle called for as a prerequisite before one starts philosophy - I outright disagree with this thought). But his contributions are highly valued. And if you don’t like his work there are tons of other theorists, philosophers and so on to pick from, we really are spoiled for choice. Perhaps read Fanon, or Leibniz there are so many options.
Would you say this is an essay on the superstructure?
Could you talk about Baudrillards critique of this book, for example in „in the shadow of the silent majorities?“, I particularly didn‘t get his „in the end, socialism will win (necessarily)“ (more or less), which he also repeats in other texts, for example his essay on the centre pompedu (not googling, how to spell that), mostly out of context though.
these opening comments remind me of Nick Cave apologising for his song Stagger Lee recently, and having to admit that Stagger has "issues"..
I enjoy Pills but I always enjoy Victors (I hope thats the right persons name) skepticism about alienation, I think he allows makes the exchanges more interesting. Wish more people watched this.
34:48 bookmark
This makes our coming fascist dystopia less scary. Thank you
Quick note on checking after wiping: psychology term - anality
10:38 Capitalist Realism
38:21 😂😂😂😂😂42:57🤔
This is a book I really enjoyed though still don’t completely understand even after finishing the podcast. Really enjoyed it though
I started reading the consumer society by baudriallard. I think it follows the theme of the spectacle quite closely and more throughly. I enjoyed the society of the spectacle too. Some theory is really enjoyable, like a gripping novel about real life 💀
47:31 🤔53:48🤔
One philosopher or intellectual that I can really recommend for you to dive into is Noam Chomsky. I know he is basically the exact opposite of any continental philosopher, but his scientific and philosophical thinking is really fascinating. There are four recent interviews with him on the Closer to Truth UA-cam channel, which I can really recommend.
gey
Stay off of Anti social media like Twitter, Facebook, etc. Boring, what happened to an intellectual conversation. Life not likes -- Get back to the real world. Boring too bad over 8 min an nothing about the Society of the Spectacle.