Althusser is a materialist, his anthropology, metaphysics & epistemology is all provably false, incoherent & contradictory. Such atheist copes for "why people do thing? wot meaning of life?" can construct synthetic frames which give some coherence to a set of past events, but ultimately always have their utility constrained by not being rooted in an accurate description of reality.
"Such a theory considers that there is no transcendent principle or external cause to the world, and that the process of life production is contained in life itself."
"Althusser's understanding of contradiction in terms of the dialectic attempts to rid Marxism of the influence and vestiges of Hegelian (idealist) dialectics, and is a component part of his general anti-humanist position. In his reading, the Marxist understanding of social totality is not to be confused with the Hegelian. Where Hegel sees the different features of each historical epoch – its art, politics, religion, etc. – as expressions of a single essence, Althusser believes each social formation to be "decentred", i.e., that it cannot be reduced or simplified to a unique central point."
"Because Althusser held that a person's desires, choices, intentions, preferences, judgements, and so forth are the effects of social practices, he believed it necessary to conceive of how society makes the individual in its own image."
Jeeesch! If you're looking for an illustration of a gold fish bowl there's one in my notes. I often wonder why teachers didn't say, learn something, read a book before you draw a picture. If you don't, your blocked. At the time, all they could do is throw me a crayon and hope for the best.
Boy do I dislike the university academic's tone. Glad you don't still write this way. It comes across as an obsequious need to not step on toes, at least in plain language. A bit ironic, considering the topic.
Our ideology is whatever the Rothschilds and their Committee of 300 want it to be. They're the ones that took out the Tzar and organised the revolution, they arranged WWI and II, they're no doubt behind the scamdemic and Ukraine situation. They control the Fed and via Vanguard etc most of our food supply. They through their agents such as Rockefeller control the global medical/health industry. They through the Rockefeller foundation and their freinds at Tavistock control the social engineering of culture. The list goes on, the top of the pyramid decides what the ideology will be, just as a CEO decides the organisational structure and culture of their corporation. We're living in a Plato's Cave chained by socialengineering and propaganda watching the illusions they want played on the wall, the illusions that mpst of the masses mistake for reality.
"Althusser has suffered a decline in reputation... because he murdered his wife in 1980 and spent the last decade of his life in and out of a mental asylum."
Yep... that'll do it.
Also, who in his right mind would call AA a crypto-Marxist? He's very clearly a crypto-Maoist.
Brave New World might be better than 1984 as an example of elites immersed in their own ideology. The Inner Party seems more cynical and know they are peddling BS, while even the Alphas in BNW are test-tube babies just like everyone else.
If I'm getting this, and according to your criteria (1-4), Capitalism, Christianity and Environmentalism would all fit the definition of an ideology? Rather like stars, that are formed ,fade & die, some are fading (capitalism, Christianity) and some have just been formed (environmentalism - at least in its latest guise) yet all three are living ideologies, today.
Pretty much what Marx calls 'ideology'; Foucault, "discourse"/"episteme" Nietzsche. 'will to power' in whatever guise. Whereas Rene Girard, conservative post-structuralist defines ideology as "machinery for legitimating conflict". His starting point being man's animal nature, his violence,
For Girard, absolutely everything is structured by man's violence, from intimate personal habits and exchanges to global conflict: polarisation being built into culture at every level. Intra-specific conflict common to all animal life from sea creatures to primates.
One can't regard other species as foe or rival, only beings like us. And that's true of animal life generally. Proximity guarantees conflict. One wonders how that is not obvious when the fiercest human rivalries are *always* between those closest? I won't quote Michael Corleone or Julius Caesar... That murder victims almost always know their killers where they're not kin is perennial.
AA was close to Girard's definition with his notion of ideology as post hoc rationalisation for exercise of power. But that seemed to apply only to "the Regime". For some reason only members of the regime desire "power". But the difference is only a matter of scale. Everyone seeks dominion in his own realm.
No one's put the broader point better than David Hume, who generally favoured naturalistic explanations: "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them".
Whether named "science", "religion" or "ideology", nationalism or communism, in service of individual or regime, unless we posit supernatural entities, however we justify ourselves must be a rationalisation of the body, i.e. "passions" "emotions".
Christianity for Girard is endlessly paradoxical: if we were capable of *being* Christian, if we weren't constitutionally violent, it would serve no purpose. Girard defines archaic religion pharmacologically, like a vaccine where a tiny amount of the pathogen prevents full scale disease.
The disease being mimetic escalation of violence; the 'vaccine', a sacrificial victim whose immolation purges us of our violence bringing reconciliation to the group. At least for the time being.
A small amount of violence serving to prevent a wider contagion. Primitive religion can be understood as containment in both senses: containing in space and time, as well as limiting its force. Doesn't always work. Notting Hill carnival would be an instance of its failure. All rites originate in sacrifice even if their sacrificial function has vanished over time, 'victim' of their own success.
Much of contemporary culture can be accounted for in this light even if we call it sport/politics/ entertainment; the rites, their ritual sacrificial character are pretty much constant in all domains. Elections, football games, TV shows always have winners and losers, victors and victims. Even if only as part of a story, They literally *contain* violence. Or fail to as with some football games for instance. But wherever people are gathered violence is always on the cards.
Christianity destroys or "deconstructs" the archaic system. This is how Girard interprets Jesus: "I came not to bring peace but a sword": in dismantling the pagan sacrificial system Christianity *reveals* our own violence. Which means we can no longer purge ourselves at the expense of innocent victims.
Girard: We did not stop burning witches because we invented science; we invented science because we stopped burning witches". That cultural shift came about through the influence of the Gospels over many centuries. Whether we personally identity as 'Christian' is immaterial. We are products of culture/history not its authors.
Identities such as atheism/agnosticism are legacies of Christianity. Primitive man having no concept of religion as such only the system of rites and prohibitions in which he is immersed, upon which his survival depends. Thus Nietzsche: "Chiristianity is Platonism 'for the people.'" The possibility of a vantage point 'outside' religion, of religion as *concept* itself being Christian.
And this is where Catholic Girard who's been labelled "the last Nietzschean", aligns perfectly with Nietzsche who saw that Christ's sacrifice was in *fact* identical to pagan sacrifice. The difference being in the *interpretation*. That a small group of dissidents recognised the victim's innocence eventually overturning the archaic system.
People ask why we don't go in for pile-ons like Muslims/BLM. Girard "The crowd today is the same as ever including most Christians... But the fact that we cannot scapegoat people as freely as Islam is becoming gigantically obvious, even if we think we are anti-Christian... Islam is normal man." 'Normal man' meaning pagan or archaic/sacrificial religion where the group is reconciled at the expense of a third party. He could have said it equally of black Americans but then he'd have ended up a sacrificial victim himself.
Althusser is a materialist, his anthropology, metaphysics & epistemology is all provably false, incoherent & contradictory. Such atheist copes for "why people do thing? wot meaning of life?" can construct synthetic frames which give some coherence to a set of past events, but ultimately always have their utility constrained by not being rooted in an accurate description of reality.
"Such a theory considers that there is no transcendent principle or external cause to the world, and that the process of life production is contained in life itself."
"Althusser's understanding of contradiction in terms of the dialectic attempts to rid Marxism of the influence and vestiges of Hegelian (idealist) dialectics, and is a component part of his general anti-humanist position. In his reading, the Marxist understanding of social totality is not to be confused with the Hegelian. Where Hegel sees the different features of each historical epoch – its art, politics, religion, etc. – as expressions of a single essence, Althusser believes each social formation to be "decentred", i.e., that it cannot be reduced or simplified to a unique central point."
"Because Althusser held that a person's desires, choices, intentions, preferences, judgements, and so forth are the effects of social practices, he believed it necessary to conceive of how society makes the individual in its own image."
etcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetcetc
Jeeesch! If you're looking for an illustration of a gold fish bowl there's one in my notes. I often wonder why teachers didn't say, learn something, read a book before you draw a picture. If you don't, your blocked. At the time, all they could do is throw me a crayon and hope for the best.
Boy do I dislike the university academic's tone. Glad you don't still write this way. It comes across as an obsequious need to not step on toes, at least in plain language. A bit ironic, considering the topic.
Our ideology is whatever the Rothschilds and their Committee of 300 want it to be. They're the ones that took out the Tzar and organised the revolution, they arranged WWI and II, they're no doubt behind the scamdemic and Ukraine situation. They control the Fed and via Vanguard etc most of our food supply. They through their agents such as Rockefeller control the global medical/health industry. They through the Rockefeller foundation and their freinds at Tavistock control the social engineering of culture. The list goes on, the top of the pyramid decides what the ideology will be, just as a CEO decides the organisational structure and culture of their corporation. We're living in a Plato's Cave chained by socialengineering and propaganda watching the illusions they want played on the wall, the illusions that mpst of the masses mistake for reality.
"Althusser has suffered a decline in reputation... because he murdered his wife in 1980 and spent the last decade of his life in and out of a mental asylum."
Yep... that'll do it.
Also, who in his right mind would call AA a crypto-Marxist? He's very clearly a crypto-Maoist.
Brave New World might be better than 1984 as an example of elites immersed in their own ideology. The Inner Party seems more cynical and know they are peddling BS, while even the Alphas in BNW are test-tube babies just like everyone else.
If I'm getting this, and according to your criteria (1-4), Capitalism, Christianity and Environmentalism would all fit the definition of an ideology? Rather like stars, that are formed ,fade & die, some are fading (capitalism, Christianity) and some have just been formed (environmentalism - at least in its latest guise) yet all three are living ideologies, today.
Pretty much what Marx calls 'ideology'; Foucault, "discourse"/"episteme" Nietzsche. 'will to power' in whatever guise. Whereas Rene Girard, conservative post-structuralist defines ideology as "machinery for legitimating conflict". His starting point being man's animal nature, his violence,
For Girard, absolutely everything is structured by man's violence, from intimate personal habits and exchanges to global conflict: polarisation being built into culture at every level. Intra-specific conflict common to all animal life from sea creatures to primates.
One can't regard other species as foe or rival, only beings like us. And that's true of animal life generally. Proximity guarantees conflict. One wonders how that is not obvious when the fiercest human rivalries are *always* between those closest? I won't quote Michael Corleone or Julius Caesar... That murder victims almost always know their killers where they're not kin is perennial.
AA was close to Girard's definition with his notion of ideology as post hoc rationalisation for exercise of power. But that seemed to apply only to "the Regime". For some reason only members of the regime desire "power". But the difference is only a matter of scale. Everyone seeks dominion in his own realm.
No one's put the broader point better than David Hume, who generally favoured naturalistic explanations: "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them".
Whether named "science", "religion" or "ideology", nationalism or communism, in service of individual or regime, unless we posit supernatural entities, however we justify ourselves must be a rationalisation of the body, i.e. "passions" "emotions".
Christianity for Girard is endlessly paradoxical: if we were capable of *being* Christian, if we weren't constitutionally violent, it would serve no purpose. Girard defines archaic religion pharmacologically, like a vaccine where a tiny amount of the pathogen prevents full scale disease.
The disease being mimetic escalation of violence; the 'vaccine', a sacrificial victim whose immolation purges us of our violence bringing reconciliation to the group. At least for the time being.
A small amount of violence serving to prevent a wider contagion. Primitive religion can be understood as containment in both senses: containing in space and time, as well as limiting its force. Doesn't always work. Notting Hill carnival would be an instance of its failure. All rites originate in sacrifice even if their sacrificial function has vanished over time, 'victim' of their own success.
Much of contemporary culture can be accounted for in this light even if we call it sport/politics/ entertainment; the rites, their ritual sacrificial character are pretty much constant in all domains. Elections, football games, TV shows always have winners and losers, victors and victims. Even if only as part of a story, They literally *contain* violence. Or fail to as with some football games for instance. But wherever people are gathered violence is always on the cards.
Christianity destroys or "deconstructs" the archaic system. This is how Girard interprets Jesus: "I came not to bring peace but a sword": in dismantling the pagan sacrificial system Christianity *reveals* our own violence. Which means we can no longer purge ourselves at the expense of innocent victims.
Girard: We did not stop burning witches because we invented science; we invented science because we stopped burning witches". That cultural shift came about through the influence of the Gospels over many centuries. Whether we personally identity as 'Christian' is immaterial. We are products of culture/history not its authors.
Identities such as atheism/agnosticism are legacies of Christianity. Primitive man having no concept of religion as such only the system of rites and prohibitions in which he is immersed, upon which his survival depends. Thus Nietzsche: "Chiristianity is Platonism 'for the people.'" The possibility of a vantage point 'outside' religion, of religion as *concept* itself being Christian.
And this is where Catholic Girard who's been labelled "the last Nietzschean", aligns perfectly with Nietzsche who saw that Christ's sacrifice was in *fact* identical to pagan sacrifice. The difference being in the *interpretation*. That a small group of dissidents recognised the victim's innocence eventually overturning the archaic system.
People ask why we don't go in for pile-ons like Muslims/BLM. Girard "The crowd today is the same as ever including most Christians... But the fact that we cannot scapegoat people as freely as Islam is becoming gigantically obvious, even if we think we are anti-Christian... Islam is normal man." 'Normal man' meaning pagan or archaic/sacrificial religion where the group is reconciled at the expense of a third party. He could have said it equally of black Americans but then he'd have ended up a sacrificial victim himself.