Partiucarly whats killing me is Barthes explaining systems of opposition. I understnad this just means a system of word/word, not an opposition as the two words are "against each other", but the types of opposition are really confusing me. for each one, heres my vague ideas.

Bilateral and Multilateral- have an aspect in common/have no aspects in common

proportional and isolated oppositions- have a segment of a word in common, and the latter expands upon it. For example "Young/Younger." isolated are not like this?

privative oppositions- no idea by what the absence of a mark could indicate, and the zero degree completely confuses me.

equipollent opposition- refer to the same concept but are not built on the same phonetic stylings??? (mare/stallion)

constant oppositions- completely lost here.

oppositions which can be eliminated or neutralized- lost here.

really confused and would love any help i could get.

additionally, what does he mean that bilateral and constant oppositions would rigidify the fashion industry?

I've been thinking about getting into Norbet Elias because I have a lot of interest about how regimes of morals evolve over time and over different eras of political-economy. His ideas about how bourgeois morals descend from medieval court society seem to be thinking towards that but having begun to brush with his ideas, I get the sense it's a bit more complicated than that.

So I was wondering if he ever considered himself a materialist and how much he was deriving his ideas from that of Marx or marxists in general.

If he doesn't fit that description and I'm not looking for the right thinker, don't hesitate to point me in the direction of one who does.

Cheers.

I’m two years into my phd program and have obviously read a lot of theory by now, however, i have a difficult time making sense of it all or remembering it so i can discuss some of the ideas with my peers. i guess i have difficulty picking up on some of the nuances and why these texts matter. i tend to take them for face value and just accept them as they are because i feel like i don’t know any better… are there any tips to work on this? i watch youtube videos, take notes, highlight etc. but can’t engage in a dialogue for the life of me

I'm really interested in Julia Kristeva's Powers of Horror, but after reading the first chapter it's clear to me that I don't have a good base understanding of psychoanalysis to fully grasp what she's trying to convey. I saw a couple of Lacan readings listed in the about page that I'm going to check out, but I would really appreciate some more reccomendations that could help me effectively understand her writing! For context, I'm not a student studying this for school, just reading out of my own interest, so there is a lot of foundational stuff I'm likely totally ignorant of. I need the basics! Thank you!

Edit: typos :(

I was watching a video about non-album musical "albums". Like The Caretaker's End of Time (might be something you're familiar with) or this year's Diamond Jubilee by Cindy Lee: a collection of an ambient continuum of two hours, and I started to think about how these rigid forms of understanding mediums and media have been shifting into more abstraction and a lack of definition, no matter how much intent we try to put into naming things. Another example I hold close are writing generes not being as a solid of a rock as before. I can write a short story that has poetic language intertwined with essay tendencies and maybe I won't know how to call it. Certainly this feels like a phenomenon happening in my circles but at the same time, in a personal level, our whole move towards identities and being recognized as one thing, thinking about TikTok aesthetic trends or gender/sexuality/cultural heritage makes me wonder if as outwards we're moving into abstraction, inwards we're doing the opposite and what might be the reason. How both movements in our relationship with everything and anything is affecting life. Something that sticks out a lot to me is this idea that what isn't named doesn't exist, that in a personal or communal identification makes sense to stand for but what happens with the things we create and experience (art, culture, etc) as we care less and less about their names?

I don't have anything clear, but it is a situation I would love to hear others about and read so...I'm here wondering who and how has this been tackled in CT. I hope my mess of an explanation works. Thank you. I'll read y'all gladly!

Basically, I notice a number of people I interact with take it for granted that "closure", which apparently results from certain philosophical theories, is something bad that should be avoided. My vague understanding is that "closure" here means that a particular system of interpretation or science insists that is has the only correct interpretation of something. Is this "closure"? Can anyone help me to identify where skepticism about closure comes from (certain thinkers, certain arguments) and what it means?

Looking for recs (books or short texts) that deal with solitude and the physical and mental intersections on the state of being alone. Thinking of something like Adorno’s “Free Time” essay as one example that is somewhat tangentially related. Who has cracked the code on “alone time” whether it be voluntary or involuntary? Lmk!

ive heard quite a few say that our scenario (u.s.) could end up looking like orban's hungary. i personally thought it might resemble life under woodrow wilson during the 'spanish' influenza, because we're gonna have bird flu and its not gonna look pretty... Then i realized jim crow (which was also mentioned a lot as what our society is gonna look like) was also still happening under wilson.

i say this all as a giant preface, because... there's plenty of reading lists on fascism, or pre-fascism if that's the better label, but

is there anything better tailored for right now given the nature of social media's speed and the way that's exacerbated the isolating and (materially) disenfranchising nature of parasocial relationships (again, via social media, but maybe being part of a pop idol fandom counts) these days?

like books on what to do or what helps stop fascism/restore democracy, etc

So, I am diagnosed with Nonverbal Learning Disability, but we thought it was Autism for the longest time. I'm interested in the intersection of neurodiversity and gender studies/men's studies/women's studies lit. Where should I go to find good essays or articles or videos about the intersection of Autism and the Construct of Masculinity or the Lived Existence of Autism and Masculinity, and the sort of categorical paradoxes that present themselves regarding the topic of marginalization (because of a disability) and privilege (because of a gender)?

looking for something unique. for reference, im aware of foucault’s “omnes et singulatim,” + shepherd-flock stuff, d&g’s “apparatus of capture,” weber, james scott’s “seeing like a state,” tilly’s “war making and state making,” bourdieu, virilio, agamben.

I'm a little confused by what he means for either. Here's what he writes on each on page 40:

substance of content: this includes for instance, the emotional, ideological, or simply notional aspects of the signified, its 'positive meaning'

form of content: the formal organization of the signified among themselves through the absence or presence of a semantic mark.

my interpretation

substance of content: the emotional or ideological nature of a signified meaning maybe "the signified concept of a cross carries the ideological basis of christianity"? but i feel im way off base

Form of content: a form of content maybe meaning the signifiers organized in a sign system or being completely disconnected from one another?

i feel completely out of depth here.

I’m looking for North American PhD programs that study Deleuze, particularly outside traditional philosophy departments due to the scarcity of faculty in strong philosophy programs.

As an international student, I value a competitive diploma so am considering related fields like critical theory.

My background is too philosophical (focused on univocity of being and immanence), and that's why I'm a little worried.

In the wake of the 2024 US Elections, a lot has been written about the influence of social media, the ‘manosphere’, Joe Rogan and other podcasters, etc as playing a role in the election’s results. Though I haven’t found much writing connecting them with Gramsci’s idea of cultural hegemony, and I wonder, how does the Left overcome it?

It seems as though current politics have foreclosed the possibility of genuine Left politics, leaving Democratic neoliberalism and reactionary politics as the only options. We see examples of blame being cast on ‘woke’ politics as well. I also think about the failure of the Gaza protests in stopping the war.

Thoughts?

Hi there. beginning my read of mythologies and confused by this paragraph on page 18:

"There is another figure, more spectacular still than a hold; it is the forearm smash, this loud slap of the forearm, this embryonic punch with which one clouts the chest of one's adversary, and which is accompanied by a dull noise and the exaggerated sagging of a vanquished body. In the forearm smash, catastrophe is brought to the point of maximum obviousness, so much so that ultimately the gesture appears as no more than a symbol; this is going too far, this is transgressing the moral rules of wrestling, where all signs must be excessively clear, but must not let the intention of clarity be seen. The public then shouts 'He's laying it on!', not because it regrets the absence of real suffering, but because it condemns artifice: as in the theatre, one fails to put the part across as much by an excess of sincerity as by an excess of formalism."

I'm confused by what he means in "so much so that ultimately the gesture appears as no more than a symbol; this is going too far, this is transgressing the moral rules of wrestling, wher all signs must be excessively clear, but must not let the intention of clarity be seen." is he saying that by forearm slamming someone, the wrestler reveals too much what he is doing is a sign or a false act, and as such, violates the rules of wrestling?

much appreciated for any advice anyone can give me.

The mind rules over the body; the mind is the master of the body. This, Aristotle argues, is natural. The difference between an animal and a human lies in intellect and the ability to speak.

Natural slaves - According to Aristotle, a person can be considered a natural slave if the difference between them and other humans is as significant as the difference between a human and a wild animal or the distinction between the mind and the body. This explains why the master is superior to the slave, but Aristotle justifies the master’s ownership of the slave by claiming that it is “good for the slave.” He provides the example of domesticated animals being in a better position than wild ones.

Let’s call the mind’s superiority over the body x and a human’s superiority over a wild animal y. If the difference between one person and other humans is only equivalent to x and y, Aristotle asserts that this person is a slave. In other words, Aristotle claims that if your intellect only governs your physical body without serving any higher purpose, and your only distinction from animals is your capacity to speak and comprehend, then you are a natural slave.

But is such a person truly possible? Moreover, Aristotle suggests this idea doesn’t merely refer to someone’s present state but to their fully actualized form, their realized potential, the maximum of what they are able to do. How, then, can we determine the full potential of someone who has already been born (if we can decide this as natural)? Another critical point is whether ruling over such a person is genuinely for their benefit. In most cases, it is not.

While it may be true that a wild animal is worse off than a domesticated one, would a person defined as a slave (but not truly a slave) be worse off than a person who is defined as natural slave but havent enslaved? And even if its for the good of the natural slave, do we have the right to that good on behalf of the slave. Or is there a link to the good of the city/community?

(Aristotle Politics, 1254b)

Hi all, I am trying to start a new research project where I would look into the concept of alienation, its different forms and theories, with a special focus on alienation from others and self (rather than products/process of labor). So far, I would start with Marx (Economic and Political Manuscripts of 1844), Weber (Economy and Society), Fromm (The Sane Society), but I would also like to look into similar concepts - Durkheim's anomie, Nietzsche's last man, Marcuse's one dimensional man etc. Any other ideas does this overview work, am I missing something significant for the older writings?

Second, I am completely baffled when it comes to contemporary writings - we ended our university studies with Heidegger unfortunately. Is there any current scholar that works on this issue specifically (not just mentions it in passing)? Any schools/universities/journals I could check for their publications, conferences etc? Whenever I google it I get mostly liberal theories of loneliness rather than more critical literature.

As this was basically just an idea/research interest I have (and I currently have 0 social capital here), any recommendations would be very useful!

I watched Derek Jarman’s Jubilee recently. It’s very much a queer film and it’s very much a film obsessed with royalty and the absolute power that a Royal can wield.

Anyway it got me thinking about this connection to between the Queer and the Royal. Of course there are “Drag Queens”. The glamour and high dress of royals can be easily made camp. There’s “Prince”. Theres the Smiths record Queen is Dead. There’s Lorde’s song Royals and Sophia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette both of which have been cultural references held in vogue by queer communities of late.

Any good books or essays on this connection? I have read hardly any gender or queer theory, apologies if the connection is obvious.

I’m looking to do some research on different philosophies of self, especially philosophies that challenge unitarian identity and instead stress the fractured, disunified and dissociated self. Deleuze and Guattari’s multiplicities in A Thousand Plateaus comes to mind — any others you can think of? I’ve heard Derrida might be useful but I’m not sure where to look.

Looking for more books written by culture critics? Really enjoyed Jia Tolentino's Trick Mirror, Kyle Chayka's Filterworld, Claire Dederer's Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma; and not so much written by culture critics but I also recently read Naomi Kline's Doppelganger, Autocracy Inc by Anne Applebaum, & Quiet Damage by Jesselyn Cook. I found them riveting. So yeah, guess I'm looking for interesting books written by culture critics, journalists, & thinkers covering a broad range of culture, politics, society, gender, and so on. Any recommendations?

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster.

I compete in college NDT debate where a lot of critical (called kritikal in this context to differentiate between it and standard “critique” which is common in debate) literature has found its place over the last ~25+ years.

There is a pretty large disconnect between traditional “policy” debaters that think these individual rounds should have a common, agreed upon stasis point for discussion to ensure there is clashing of ideas and “kritikal” debaters who think discussion of their literature is most important for [insert xyz reason.]

That brings me to the point of the post. In trying to prepare for these types of debates that are focused around critical theory of some kind, most of the time you’ll find that the critical author they cite for their idea usually ends up disagreeing with their interpretation or reasoning for doing xyz. I’d be interested in reading any type of “meta” critical theory about critical theory and its position in academia as sort of a critique of this style or anything similar.

More than happy to go in depth on the types of arguments and theory being read commonly if it would help or if anyone is interested in knowing more about how it works in this context.

I am writing something on the West's response to terrorism/terrorist. And this image of an exorcist ridding the afflicted of a demon, kinda propped up in mind. Are there any resources I could refer to? Thanks in advance.

Edit: I am thinking about how the West (especially the US) thinks of themselves.

With the decline of religion and the rise of nihilism and ennui, I argue in this piece that both modern psychology and ancient philosophy supports the use of awe as something that can shake us from our funks.

Even without traditional religions, one can generate awe via the virtues of others, nature, and "ensmallification." I talk about each of these approaches, and how to overcome habituation.

What do you guys think? Do you see awe as useful?