Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q5400/dugin - Revision history

Reversedragon: integrated into prototype page

2026-10-24T05:48:30Z

integrated into prototype page

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:48, 24 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~"Can we do Materialism in a world where we have to go through Ideas?"<br/>~~		#redirect[[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q19,80]]
	~~Yes, I think so.~~

	I have a certain beef with Lacanianism because of the way it tries to overlay these weird abstract schemas on top of reality that almost seem divorced from material reality. I have been reading through one of the Lacanian books I thought was the most coherent and promising ({{book\|The Excessive Subject}}) and... it still really just feels like [[E:~~spaghetti philosophy (meta-Marxism)\|spaghetti]] that focuses on arbitrary concepts that don't seem to actually explain or model much.<br~~/>
	~~[...~~]

	Thinking for example of how Dugin removed the suspicious words within his talk to appear less biased while he still had those biases... {{YouTube\|WwMHtg7ouQM}} The problem I see with the ideas in this stream is that I'm not sure it's actually possible to make philosophy that's non-ideological when it's always made by human beings with motivations and biases. Even if you remove them and try to be nonpartisan, it seems to me like every philosophy just turns into an ideology simply because it has assumptions in it that you have to accept, often at the exclusion of other things, to believe it?

	And this is what leads to Lacanianism ending up as a bunch of — in my opinion — meaningless spaghetti that thinks it's become more objective but is just biased against other things in an inoffensive direction of being obsessed with arbitrary concepts like The Symbolic and The Imaginary. (I know that's not the best example of "words that create concept salad", but I don't want to go hunting for a good one right now.)

	I don't say this intending to be mean. But I just, have always felt like whenever Žižek went on about ideologies he was then getting lost in his own ideology not understanding that it was still ideology and bias just like all the other things he was criticizing? Maybe you can improve Lacanianism in a way I did not foresee, but maybe you can think about this

	~~<ins>[This comment was originally heavily censored to avoid YouTube filters (which might have been channel filters) but when I archived it I edited back the edits into what they were meant to say.~~]~~</ins>~~

	Honestly, I think nothing better demonstrates that we mainly just face our material lives being dominated by capitalism intruding into every material activity than me trying to post a thoughtful comment that's not against any rules and having to fight with the platform this much to get it through. This is why I'm an ML. Trying to improve your philosophy and work out all the problems with it is nice and all, but we need to end capitalism Materially with Material strategies simply because if we do not I can't even post a damn comment.
	~~<!--~~
	~~page ends here.~~

	~~comment posted 2022-09-07T19:50H on video posted 2022-05-16T14:00:26Z~~
	~~-->~~

Reversedragon: proofread & un-censor

2026-10-24T04:19:21Z

proofread & un-censor

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:19, 24 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"Can we do Materialism in a world where we have to go through ~~Ideals~~?"		"Can we do Materialism in a world where we have to go through Ideas?"<br/>
	~~yes~~, I think so. 1/		Yes, I think so.

	I have a certain beef with Lacanianism because of the way it tries to overlay these weird abstract schemas on top of reality that almost seem divorced from material reality. I have been reading through one of the Lacanian books I thought was the most coherent and promising (The Excessive Subject) and... it still really just feels like spaghetti that focuses on arbitrary concepts that don't seem to actually explain or model much. 2/		I have a certain beef with Lacanianism because of the way it tries to overlay these weird abstract schemas on top of reality that almost seem divorced from material reality. I have been reading through one of the Lacanian books I thought was the most coherent and promising ({{book\|The Excessive Subject}}) and... it still really just feels like [[E:spaghetti philosophy (meta-Marxism)\|spaghetti]] that focuses on arbitrary concepts that don't seem to actually explain or model much.<br/>
			[...]

	~~I went into this video with low expectations when I saw~~ the ~~name [a certain name starting with D], but~~ I do see~~, you seem to grasp~~ the ~~idea~~ that ~~while~~ it's ~~good~~ to ~~study many [~~that ~~I word for beliefs]~~ and ~~what they believe~~, ~~he is generally~~ just ~~[really really conservative] and [basically afraid~~ of~~] the United States. 3/<br/>~~		Thinking for example of how Dugin removed the suspicious words within his talk to appear less biased while he still had those biases... {{YouTube\|WwMHtg7ouQM}} The problem I see with the ideas in this stream is that I'm not sure it's actually possible to make philosophy that's non-ideological when it's always made by human beings with motivations and biases. Even if you remove them and try to be nonpartisan, it seems to me like every philosophy just turns into an ideology simply because it has assumptions in it that you have to accept, often at the exclusion of other things, to believe it?
	~~[the filter was not at all kind~~ to ~~this one]~~

	~~When he~~'s ~~giving a talk, you will see~~.~~.. [it absolutely wouldn~~'~~t let me say anything else here so~~ I'~~ll just drop the video] watch?v=WwMHtg7ouQM 4/~~		And this is what leads to Lacanianism ending up as a bunch of — in my opinion — meaningless spaghetti that thinks it's become more objective but is just biased against other things in an inoffensive direction of being obsessed with arbitrary concepts like The Symbolic and The Imaginary. (I know that's not the best example of "words that create concept salad", but I don't want to go hunting for a good one right now.)

	~~So, thinking for example of how [that person that starts with D] removed the suspicious words~~ to ~~appear less biased while he still had those biases..~~. ~~The problem~~ I ~~see with the ideas~~ in ~~this stream is that I'm~~ not ~~sure it's actually possible to make philosophy~~ that~~'s non-[the I adjective for sets of beliefs] when~~ it~~'s always made by human beings with motivations~~ and ~~biases. even if you remove them and try to be nonpartisan, it seems to me~~ like ~~every philosophy just turns into an [~~the ~~I word for sets of beliefs] simply because it has assumptions in it that you have to accept, often at the exclusion of~~ other things, ~~to believe it? 5/~~		I don't say this intending to be mean. But I just, have always felt like whenever Žižek went on about ideologies he was then getting lost in his own ideology not understanding that it was still ideology and bias just like all the other things he was criticizing? Maybe you can improve Lacanianism in a way I did not foresee, but maybe you can think about this

	~~And this is what leads~~ to ~~Lacanianism ending up as a bunch of - in my opinion - meaningless spaghetti that thinks~~ it~~'s more objective but is just biased against other things in an inoffensive direction of being obsessed with arbitrary concepts like The Symbolic and The Imaginary. (~~I ~~know that's not~~ the ~~best example of "words that create concept salad", but I don't want~~ to ~~go hunting for a good one right now~~.~~) 6~~/		<ins>[This comment was originally heavily censored to avoid YouTube filters (which might have been channel filters) but when I archived it I edited back the edits into what they were meant to say.]</ins>

	I don't say this intending to be mean. but I just, have always felt like whenever Žižek went on about [the I word for sets of beliefs] he was then getting lost in his own [set of beliefs I word] not understanding that it was still [I word for belief set] and bias just like all the other things he was criticizing? Maybe you can improve Lacanianism in a way I did not foresee, but maybe you can think about this 7/		Honestly, I think nothing better demonstrates that we mainly just face our material lives being dominated by capitalism intruding into every material activity than me trying to post a thoughtful comment that's not against any rules and having to fight with the platform this much to get it through. This is why I'm an ML. Trying to improve your philosophy and work out all the problems with it is nice and all, but we need to end capitalism Materially with Material strategies simply because if we do not I can't even post a damn comment.

	[Edited with all these weird synonyms because this platform is absolutely awful about eating responses containing certain words, phrasings, emphasis, or quotation marks, or sometimes just ones that are really long. Also, it will sometimes take away your ability to respond for months at a time if you retry a false positive too many times.] 8/8

	Honestly, I think nothing better demonstrates that we mainly just face our material lives being dominated by capitalism intruding into every material activity than me trying to post a thoughtful comment that's not against any rules and having to fight with the platform this much to get it through. This is why I'm an ML. ~~trying~~ to improve your philosophy and work out all the problems with it is nice and all, but we need to end capitalism Materially with Material strategies simply because if we do not I can't even post a damn comment. ~~9/9~~
	<!--		<!--
	page ends here.		page ends here.

Reversedragon: archive scrap created in 2022

2026-10-24T04:01:24Z

archive scrap created in 2022

New page

"Can we do Materialism in a world where we have to go through Ideals?"
yes, I think so. 1/

I have a certain beef with Lacanianism because of the way it tries to overlay these weird abstract schemas on top of reality that almost seem divorced from material reality. I have been reading through one of the Lacanian books I thought was the most coherent and promising (The Excessive Subject) and... it still really just feels like spaghetti that focuses on arbitrary concepts that don't seem to actually explain or model much. 2/

I went into this video with low expectations when I saw the name [a certain name starting with D], but I do see, you seem to grasp the idea that while it's good to study many [that I word for beliefs] and what they believe, he is generally just [really really conservative] and [basically afraid of] the United States. 3/<br/>
[the filter was not at all kind to this one]

When he's giving a talk, you will see... [it absolutely wouldn't let me say anything else here so I'll just drop the video] watch?v=WwMHtg7ouQM 4/

So, thinking for example of how [that person that starts with D] removed the suspicious words to appear less biased while he still had those biases... The problem I see with the ideas in this stream is that I'm not sure it's actually possible to make philosophy that's non-[the I adjective for sets of beliefs] when it's always made by human beings with motivations and biases. even if you remove them and try to be nonpartisan, it seems to me like every philosophy just turns into an [the I word for sets of beliefs] simply because it has assumptions in it that you have to accept, often at the exclusion of other things, to believe it? 5/

And this is what leads to Lacanianism ending up as a bunch of - in my opinion - meaningless spaghetti that thinks it's more objective but is just biased against other things in an inoffensive direction of being obsessed with arbitrary concepts like The Symbolic and The Imaginary. (I know that's not the best example of "words that create concept salad", but I don't want to go hunting for a good one right now.) 6/

I don't say this intending to be mean. but I just, have always felt like whenever Žižek went on about [the I word for sets of beliefs] he was then getting lost in his own [set of beliefs I word] not understanding that it was still [I word for belief set] and bias just like all the other things he was criticizing? Maybe you can improve Lacanianism in a way I did not foresee, but maybe you can think about this 7/

[Edited with all these weird synonyms because this platform is absolutely awful about eating responses containing certain words, phrasings, emphasis, or quotation marks, or sometimes just ones that are really long. Also, it will sometimes take away your ability to respond for months at a time if you retry a false positive too many times.] 8/8

Honestly, I think nothing better demonstrates that we mainly just face our material lives being dominated by capitalism intruding into every material activity than me trying to post a thoughtful comment that's not against any rules and having to fight with the platform this much to get it through. This is why I'm an ML. trying to improve your philosophy and work out all the problems with it is nice and all, but we need to end capitalism Materially with Material strategies simply because if we do not I can't even post a damn comment. 9/9