- 19 Nov 2011 15:36
#13835187
To be upfront, I've blamed pragmatism pretty much forever, Sus, whether on this forum or others or RL. My father was anti-social and concretely emotional, and a lot of the reason I'm so goddamn socially awkward is his refusal to engage me while belaying the responsibility of bringing me up to my mother and school.
In any case, I agree with everything you've said (especially about externalism, bureaucracy, and socializing) except the historicist foundation. Pragmatism bounces back and forth with historicism because both ideas are concretely emotional. With pragmatism, we do what feels good in the moment. With historicism, we only reflect on those memories which give us a feel good vibe.
In order to escape pragmatism, people have to decide to be openminded and complete in analyzing their environments instead of merely acting out. That's the difference between acting out and sublimination. When you really care about the future and can see necessity-possibility relationships, that's when a priori synthesis happens. Quite literally, completeness lets us put things together before we can experience what they look like after the fact of experience. It does this by considering everything that happens, and operating by process of elimination.
This is especially vital as it pertains to family structure because without completeness, we can't define an appropriate duty of care towards children. Children don't ask to be born, yet still, the working class is stuck in this idea that children are servants first, students second.
I guess that's what makes the real difference between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie cares about its children. The proletariat does not. It's really no surprise when we hear bourgeois clamors for redistributive justice because that perpetuates the social alienation process and social hierarchy structure. The only difference is it transitions the economic center of gravity away from industrial and financial capital towards political and cultural capital.
Suska wrote:Interesting how you place the blame square on pragmatism. Probably the first time I've heard you say something useful, clear and direct. I can only sort of agree though. As I see it the problem of pragmatism is that it suggests we can quantify and communicate all the factors as though nothing can be unprecedented or too subtle or interdependent to explain. It consists of the externalization of thinking processes and therefore the bureaucraticization and socialization of personal factors of life. Rather than assume there's more going on than we can bring out into the light - in days of yore the assumption was that only the greatest writers could even get close to a relatively complete description of things. It seems to me there is a connection here with coercion, yes. But I just call it all ignorance or assumption. To call it pragmatism makes it seem like one of several possibly valid choices.
To be upfront, I've blamed pragmatism pretty much forever, Sus, whether on this forum or others or RL. My father was anti-social and concretely emotional, and a lot of the reason I'm so goddamn socially awkward is his refusal to engage me while belaying the responsibility of bringing me up to my mother and school.
In any case, I agree with everything you've said (especially about externalism, bureaucracy, and socializing) except the historicist foundation. Pragmatism bounces back and forth with historicism because both ideas are concretely emotional. With pragmatism, we do what feels good in the moment. With historicism, we only reflect on those memories which give us a feel good vibe.
In order to escape pragmatism, people have to decide to be openminded and complete in analyzing their environments instead of merely acting out. That's the difference between acting out and sublimination. When you really care about the future and can see necessity-possibility relationships, that's when a priori synthesis happens. Quite literally, completeness lets us put things together before we can experience what they look like after the fact of experience. It does this by considering everything that happens, and operating by process of elimination.
This is especially vital as it pertains to family structure because without completeness, we can't define an appropriate duty of care towards children. Children don't ask to be born, yet still, the working class is stuck in this idea that children are servants first, students second.
I guess that's what makes the real difference between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie cares about its children. The proletariat does not. It's really no surprise when we hear bourgeois clamors for redistributive justice because that perpetuates the social alienation process and social hierarchy structure. The only difference is it transitions the economic center of gravity away from industrial and financial capital towards political and cultural capital.
______________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.