Bourgeois Philosophy

Aug 19, 2016 //
1

There is a Marxist belief that if something is inaccessible to the poor, then it can be neither radical nor revolutionary. Following the trend of ironic tragedy that history sardonically and incessantly throws in our face, the decrease in book reading, both in adults and teenagers, points to a culture that would struggle to read The Communist Manifesto, let alone Das Kapital. As one would expect, the impoverished and the uneducated are those who are reading the least. There are neither sparkly vampires, teenage wizards, nor BDSM-enthused misogynists to incite mass interest in Marx’s seminal works, so I suppose they too must be discarded into the dustbin of irrelevancy to revolutionary thought.

The internet has opened up social dialogue to include everyone with internet access, seemingly giving the unheard voice of the proletariat unprecedented access to speak out, yet in reality has only allowed the opinions of troglodytes to swarm rational discussion, turning it into a cesspool of vomit and bile, defiling the very notion that a reasonable outcome is possible. Unfortunately, the Pandora’s Box of the internet cannot be closed, and this is now the discourse to which one must adhere.

Donald Trump has capitalized on this phenomenon by devising his most successful populist propaganda within the 140 character limit of the Twitter universe. Hilary Clinton, not one to be outdone, shines brilliantly in her campaign slogan: I’m With Her. The “I’m” captures the essence of social media narcissism, letting everyone know what this campaign is really about; me! The “With Her” is, of course, reminiscent of the purposefully vague and noncommittal identity feminism of the Tumblr era. Both of these demagogues are pandering to their respective demographics with their own promises of revolution, yet I do not believe either of them represent what Marx had in mind.

Philosophy is notoriously relegated to the ivory tower, despite Diogenes and his abandoned cup. And while some might claim that the greatest philosophical question is why there are essents rather than nothing, the original Greek schools, including Diogenes’s Cynics, utilized philosophy as a means to discover how to live the good life. Aristotle’s Aretê or Zeno’s Stoicism both offer methods to live virtuously. Without the dogmatism associated with the religious side of this conversation, philosophy allows us to seek with constant refinement how to live; a critical necessity in this tumultuous time.

Slavoj Žižek, Slovenian philosopher and possibly rabid communist, belabours the point, saying that despite the impending global consequences, we need theory now more than ever. The instinct to act is strong but must be overcome, as postmodernism has deconstructed everything without creating substitutes to put in its place. To act now would be to seek anarchy. End racism. End sexism. End capitalism, but how? And replace it with what? Ideologies cannot be eradicated, only changed, unless our revolution is to end in genocide.

How do we conduct the dialogue of this contemporary philosophy? I mean, analogies to the Greeks these days might not reach as large an audience, but I can predict with the inevitable alienation of Cassandra that referencing the feud between Taylor Swift and Kanye West will not carry the same lasting weight. The trials of Odysseus are eternal, and thus possess a portion of truth to which humanity will forever have access, whereas Famous will be out-of-date within the year.

The intellectualism associated with philosophy and social theory by its very nature divorces itself from the reach of the bulk of the people. Do we wade into the depths of thoughtless memes and Youtube comments to wage our revolution with the masses, only to discover that we too have become thoughtless in the process? Or do we stand above it, confident on our pillar, helping up those who have recognized the shadows on the cave wall? The disenfranchised need to be acknowledged, certainly, and their voices heard to the extent that we are aware of the depths of their circumstances, but acknowledging this does not require fetishising it. Educated progressives gnash their teeth over the large swathes of people who vote against their own interest, yet this is most often due to demagogues like those mentioned earlier who are savvy in the ways of exploiting those demographics, and know exactly how to pander to their base nature. If something is accessible to the poor, who is to say it is in their best interest?

We do not begrudge climate scientists as elitist when they claim their knowledge gives them more insight on the subject. We cynically laugh at those who do, as they are the obstacle to the required change climate science demands. Granted, philosophy and sociology are softer sciences, yet there can still be an accumulation of wisdom gained from the relevant reading and research.

Those who come up with a new economic system should know the theories of Marx, Smith, Keynes, and Friedman among others if only to know what works and what doesn’t. They should be aware of the history and context surrounding those successes and failures. A fruitful discussion of social order would require knowledge of Republic, On Liberty, Leviathan, and more: books that have shaped Western society as proper change requires an understanding of what has come before. The discussion should not burdened by a responsibility to be accessible to everyone, as not everyone has the time, inclination, or resources to pursue the knowledge necessary for that discussion. To demand that from the poor is indeed insulting to the circumstances of their existence.

I will not abide a system of thought that decries Marx as neither being radical nor revolutionary, even his own Marxism. Contrary to my condemnation of capitalism and my communist allegories throughout this blog, I do not embrace communism. Like I said, the importance of historical context is shown when we see that centralized power is no different from any other fascist government. I do recognize, however, that a knowledge of Marxist thought will be necessary for whatever economic and social utopia the future may produce. Philosophy is necessary for the future of our species; let’s not hobble it with undue limitations to its content.

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories Philosophy, Politics, Social Criticism

Sluts and Fuckboys

Aug 8, 2016 //
0

Promiscuity is awesome, partially because it has so many words associated with it that you’re bound to find one that suits your every need, regardless of the context. Like lasciviousness, for when you want to sound intellectual while describing the notches on your belt. Yet as awesome as promiscuity and all its licentious associates are, puritanical worldviews still maintain that casual sex is a terrible thing.

I’m sure most people reading this are aware of the gendered stigma attached to sluts. The promiscuity of women is condemned while the same behaviour is regarded as studly in men. If you haven’t, I wrote a handy blog about it. It’s a good one. If you liked lasciviousness and licentious, I use words like “verisimilitude” in it.

I’ve noticed, however, a new trend in slut-shaming: fuckboys. I’ll let you look up verisimilitude on your own, but I’ll give the urban dictionary definition for a fuckboy. “A guy who tries to get with everyone. A player. A guy who will lie to a girl to make them hook up with them or send pics. They think they are the shit when they aren’t. A guy who will only date a girl for their body. A total ass. A guy that will make a girl cry and laugh, and a guy who lies when they said I love you.” There are also definitions where a fuckboy is just a “weak ass pussy” with all the blatant misogyny that that implies, but the context I’ve been hearing the term used centers around a man who uses women for sex. How novel that a term used to disparage toxic masculinity is also associated with its reinforcement.

Now, it will be argued that it is the manipulation that merits the shaming in this slutty behaviour rather than the slutty behaviour itself, but let’s think about this for a second. A promiscuous woman is often called “easy,” and with the negative connotation associated with female promiscuity already discussed, many girls take pride in being difficult to “get.”  This being the case, a promiscuous man would require more effort in his promiscuity than a woman. Given the demonization of open male sexuality as perverted, creepy, or predatory, hiding one’s true intent becomes a prerequisite for its success. Does this make deception and manipulation appropriate? Of course not, but the current societal norms are imposing these standards on men who wish to be promiscuous, and alternatives are virtually nil outside of narcotic-induced orgies. Anecdotally, the promiscuous women I have known in my time (take that how you will), have told me that they could easily get laid any time they wanted, they just choose not to because the men who are upfront about their intent, the “easy” men, are unworthy of their standards. Fuckboy may be a denouncement of manipulation, but in doing so it still attacks a man’s choice to be promiscuous because of the roundabout way he must take in order to get there.

To harken back to yet another blog, wherein I use terms like “douchebag” because they can’t all be winners, I describe the active nature of male sexuality confronting the passive nature of female sexuality. These are the roles conditioned into each respective gender, and it means that men have sex, and women are sexed. This method of sexuality is in crisis because passive sexual beings will not assert their sexuality, and if active sexual beings are punished, they won’t either. This crisis would inevitably lead to a decrease in sexual activity.

And hey! Turns out I’m not making this up, and young adults today are having fewer sexual partners than their parents. This isn’t because attitudes toward casual sex have changed; they haven’t. Well, they have, I guess, just in a direction you wouldn’t think would correlate with decreased sexual activity. The same study says that significantly more people today are okay with premarital sex than even in 2004. My initial claim of the awesomeness of promiscuity isn’t likely to find great resistance, but even with dating apps like Tinder, the glut of pornography, and abundant sexualized media imagery, people aren’t porking like they used to. I doubt there has been any change in our biological drives in the past generation, so something else must be dampening the libidos of millennials.

This crisis of sexuality needs to be resolved. Just as women should be able to express their sexuality as they see fit, so too should men without being demonized or forced into a position where they must manipulate others to satisfy their natural human urges.

Tags , , ,
Categories Gender and Sexuality

The Park Bench

Jul 29, 2016 //
0

A young boy dashes through the park, trampling through the flower beds. He stops to admire his handiwork, trying to memorize the patterns of dislocated petals and frantic insects. Weary of play for the moment, he collapses onto a bench.

He sees a group of children come up with rules to a new game, devoid of any reason. They scream and run about, tagging one another then arguing over new sets of rules to replace the old ones which allowed them to be tagged. Their laughter rings across the park, the frivolity creating an ambiance of innocence.

He witnesses a young man let his dog off the leash. The young man throws a ball down the field, and the dog bounds after it. With the ball retrieved, the dog jubilantly takes off across the park. The young man yells out after the dog, and begins a slow lope to chase it down.

A couple walks past the bench, hand in hand, talking quietly among themselves. The words are meaningless, but the conversation between their eyes and the dialogue of their bodies express a mute intimacy.

He looks further across the park, and sees a man with a stroller. The stroller is surrounded by a cooing group of women, while the man sheepishly stands by, feeling awkward with the attention. The group of women carry on their way, waving their high-pitched goodbyes to the infant, while one waves only to the man, who waves back with a grin.

Hearing a commotion, he turns to see that the couple, further down the path, have erupted into an argument. They remain mostly hushed to avoid public embarrassment, though passion elevates the occasional phrase before a scrutinizing stare quiets it down again. The words maintain their meaninglessness, however, while tone conveys everything they didn’t intend to communicate.

He sits back in the bench and observes the environment surrounding him. The lives of so many blur together to create a primordial vision of human existence. A flurry of sound and colour wash over him, engulfing him in their emotions. The world spins around him while he sits in the centre, calm and unmoving.

An old man struggles to his feet, and walks slowly toward the gate. As he reaches the old iron bars, he pauses. He pats at his pockets, and turns slightly, as if to look back. Shrugging his shoulders, the old man raises the collar of his jacket against the bitter cold and crosses the threshold, certain he’s forgotten something.

Tags , ,
Categories Art
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »