U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
i do feel like the so-called “soft left” joining forces with the pol profs to try and start a vendetta with, checks notes, the entire discipline of philosophy is revealing of something quite important. sorry lads it’s a thread.
if you go back far enough in pol theory you end up at philosophy, right? locke is a decent example here; likewise marx (& there’s an enormous amount of philosophy #content in his work; yes, even capital). even more recently: althusser was a philosopher. fanon was, too.
moreover, everything has a philosophical underpinning. everything has its assumptions about things like knowing & being. so, given all this, what does it mean for them to claim, with false-maturity jaded affect, that “philosophers have nothing to say about political theory”?
i think it reveals a deep technocracy: politics defined narrowly as the machinations of procedure within a given framework, within which small reforms might be enacted, but no significant change is possible. to legitimately talk about politics,one must only talk about the machine
so the only acceptable forms of analysis become pol-proffery: “hard data”, polls, numbers; everything quantified & classified according to the laws of western empiricism. the questions that philosophy can ask (“why this framework? who built this machine, & for what?”) are useless
the entire work of the political is thus reduced to technics: to a set of qualified mechanics tweaking the machine that’s grinding us all up, so that it maybe plays a soothing tune as we lie on the conveyor belt that’s sliding us into its jaws.
obviously this is rubbish, and revealingly so. what’s also striking, tho, is it reveals a complete lack of curiosity about *what might count as data*. only the analytic process of Political Science™ can say anything about the political! other ways of knowing are razzed off.
this basically means that pol prof technocracy can have nothing to say about liberation. it remains trapped in the restrictive frame of a very narrow portion of western european thought, and it takes that frame for all there is. this philosopher says we can do better.
wow édouard glissant predicted this whole thing https://twitter.com/glissantbot/status/1224297257593442312?s=21 …https://twitter.com/GlissantBot/status/1224297257593442312 …
should go without saying btw that the practice of philosophy is also inextricably political! not making any Ultimate Knowledge Claim here (i don’t believe in that shit anyway).
I have never studied philosophy, yet as a reasonably informed person I would think that this is the very business of philosophy? Is this parody?pic.twitter.com/YyoWhfK3uJ
this is exactly what motivated this thread. what on earth.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
