You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
There is a very basic confusion of the level where determinism is in u/acc. But let's assume that her critique is actually connecting to something. Here is her couple de gras (2/9):pic.twitter.com/iEgJUMtucf
To be plain, this is an intro to philosophy critique of determinism. But again, benefit of the doubt, right? Here is a question, if we determined (at the level that the author is critique) how could we decide NOT to write a blog? (3/9)
It would not be as though one group of people are determined and another not. One person is determined to write and one person is not. But this is not what is discussed in u/acc. There the question is whether humans are capable of interceding in the movement of capital. (4/9)
U/acc is a theory of capital, or a meta-theory of capital. There are questions about the human subject and Capital-as-subject but those questions are so easily dismissed. The author is incapable of function at the intellectual level necessary to think these things through. (5/9)
Her latching on to Noys' 'post-grad' ridiculousness is evidence enough for that. Such critiques are not serious and she confuses Noys' rhetorical flourish for actual thought. As for the article, there is simply no there there. (6/9)
Her discussion of Land is equally stupid. There are places to hit Land but she never even approaches them, preferring instead to remain in the safe embrace "but he's a racist!" (7/9)
Hell even the article that is cited for evidence that tech has slowed is a book review where is no mention of AI or automation Instead Tech is critiqued because it isn't bringing prosperity to the poor. Which accelerationist said it would? (8/9 )
I will grant one point. Left accelerationism is not accelerationism. (9/9)
This is the weakest point in the article. For me the correct response is the same Chrysippus gives as a refutation of the lazy argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_argument …
The issue (as is so often the case with undergrad philosophy students) is a failure to imagine that someone smarter made the point and did so infinitely better than you could possibly imagine.
I think the critic fumbles a point that could have been made better and if it had been would be more compelling
Agreed.
i don’t think that passage you quote was a critique of determination, but rather a critique of the hypocrisy involved in u/Acc’s praxis of anti-praxis. actually ‘letting go’ would entail a kind of quietism, no?
It's even worse if that's the case. Praxis (as opposed to practice) is explicitly political. I would expect a 'marxist' to know this. Anti-praxis would then be a critique of political practice tout court, a critique that was not itself political.
Praxis - noun, plural: practice, as distinguished from theory; application or use, as of knowledge or skills. Origin / 1575–85; < Medieval Latin < Greek prâxis - deed, act, action, equivalent to prāk-, base of prā́ssein “to do”.
using praxis in a restricted way to refer to politics is idiosyncratically modern and western. there is literally no action, approach, or manner of expressing that isn’t praxis.
This is like saying everything is political. It's a claim, it's just not a particularly interesting one.
Such a basic phenomenal reflex - I would say transcendental stupidity - to 'refute' determinism by pressuposing that actually determinists are free.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
