zachary german interview i did can be found here (pdf copy of the paper, p.9)
i dont do a real review of EAT WHEN YOU FEEL SAD, but i think i liked it more as an ebook on BEAR PARADE than i do now in hard form. i think the style works better as an ebook. or maybe i am just sentimental.
here are previous interviews i did of indie writers:
tao lin p.10 in support of SHOPLIFTING FROM AMERICAN APPARELL
noah cicero p.6 in support of THE INSURGENT
if you want me to do you, i will (andrewworthington87@gmail.com)
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
other people think (but this is what i think)
POLITICS anarchism over marxism
the trends in the past 50 years in the social sciences have been towards marxism
marx is okay
his critique of economics and politics is useful
even more useful is the approach of lenin and then mao
they set out to apply his ideas to the working poor in countries that were not yet as advanced industrially as marx had believed was necessary
but when the way in which much of the academic establishment has dealt with marxism seems to be in too much of a strict and dogmatic manner
the ideas of anarchism are interesting because they often integrate a somewhat marxist critique of economics and politics into their ideas in a way that doesnt come across as elitist or authoritarian or dogmatic
marx's ideas are opposed to the bourgeois, christian, and capitalist ideals but in many of real applications of marxism these ideas end up falling into the same traps
just as christians saw a promised land in the future and greater reasons at work in their activites, so marxists often seem to be relying on prophecies and dogma
in the academic realm, one might even say that the influence of marxism has led to a stagnance in free thought, critical thinking, and open-mindedness in that often many seem to be just reiterating marx's ideas constantly rather than experimenting with other ideas or ideas of their own
it is hard to say whether marx would be pleased about the way his supposed proponents in the western world have interpreted his ideas
in the political realm, the significance of marxism in western democracies has been relatively small due to the fact that they often hope to change the system through involving themselves in the system, i.e. forming parties and attempting to exert influence constituionally
that is a rational and practical approach to creating revolutionary change, but it also goes completely against the overall approach marx advocated
the american communist party today is essentially a moderate leftist party that attempts to work within the establishment through using the techniques of the establishment, and consequently aids the establishment in its continuous affirmation of its validity
this inadvertent support that party lends to the establishment is only more unfortunate because despite all its efforts to become relatable to the general public it is now a completely minor and insignificant entity, as opposed to say 60 or 80 years ago when it exerted influence through its activity outside the establishment
in general, as political philosophies, anarchism is more clear-headed than marxism
it is less decisive and more abstract, which is possibly a negative, but it also therefore does not run as great a risk of being bogged down in dogma and supposedly predetermined solutions
marxism essentially sacrifices the power of the individual in favor of the collective, while anarchism uses the power of the individual in order to change the collective
in the end, people dont like having to follow rules or give up their individual choice, and that is why marxism has failed in so many countries, because the people who end up with the power finally decide that they would prefer to follow their own chosen course of action rather than that that has been determined by the philosopher or the collective
this problem (theoretically) does not exist in anarchism due to the fact that most strands of anarchism embrace individualism (a priori) as the means with which decisive transformation of the collective can take place
anarchism will never come in the form of a political party though, but will rather come when enough individuals use the philosophy of anarchism in order to change the ways in which they deal witht the establishment
they might vote for one of the major parties or they may vote for a third party or they may not vote at all
they may be an artist, or in the service industry, or in politics, or anything, but their approach (assuming they are in the spirit of anarchism) will be nuanced with the fact that they inherently want to radically change the system/establishment in which they are inevitably forced to deal
overall, marxism is a prophecy but anarchism is a spirit (should have just said that all along)
PHILOSOPHY phenomenolgy/existentialism and analytic/postanalytic over structuralism/poststructuralism/postmodernism
the development of postmodern philosophy is tied closely to that of sociology and other more recently developed social studies and humanities and whatnot
i might just talk a bit about some of the various postmodernists i have read and juxtapose them to thinkers from existentialism or anayltic philosophy
barthes-i enjoy reading him sometimes. "writing degree zero" is very dense but makes a lot of points about literature that i agree with and actually makes a lot more sense to me than "what is lit" by sartre. he was in opposition to sartre in many ways, and disliked that sartre eventually became obsessed with "commitment" and marxism rather than his earlier ideas of of "freedom" and "responsibility". barthes critical literary essays are amazing. he breaks down brecht and shit and promotes kafka and camus and shit. his more sociology-like essays are cool, i guess they are basically semiotics. i would consider barthes in many ways to be an extension of existentialism rather than a rebuttal of it. the fact that he is qualified as "structuralist" mostly has to do with how he was part of a general reaction to sartre and existentialism within france.
althusser-strucultralist. antihumanism! there should be a strict interpretation of marx and violent revolutions. but don't ask him to help you, he would prefer to just sit in a chair and complain.
frankfurt school-shoot me now. basically we can't control anything but we should just complain about it instead. and marx knows everything, maybe. i don't know. i read these guys in a sociology class, and was not blown away at all.
foucault-interesting/boring. at first he talks about the way an institution has conditioned me and how im not really free. but then that ends up being all he does. while he is one of the postmodernist i am more sympathetic towards, and think he in general exemplifies the weaknesses of postmodernists in that if so much of human existence is structured and conditioned and irreversible, then a whole new world of excuses is opened up in the wake of christianity that will allow us to be passive and apathetic.
derrida-he is one of my least favorite postmodernists i have read. he is "deconstructionist." the problem i find, might be wrong, is that if every word has to be examined for alternate beings, then what is the purpose of writing or speaking, if assumptions cannot be drawn. also, his interpretation of heidegger, his political views, and his teaching methods were all pretty much fucked, i think.
baudrillard-along with barthes he is probably my favorite poststructuralist that i have read. maybe this is because he deals with semiotics, which i feel relies more on invidual perception and the possibility of individual freedom, rather than constant harping on conditioning and structure. "hyperreality" is a cool concept.
rorty-a postanalytic philosopher who often gets grouped with postmodernists. i find him fun and interesting to read and to be somewhat humanistic compared to the others i am talking about. i cant really pin down an exact reason why he is good though.
zizek-eh. his interpretation of hegel/marx seems a bit fucked maybe, but my main problem is that he is so influenced by lacan, who i think is prbly mostly bullshit. i read one of his less dense works "looking awry" and stopped halfway through. his youtube videos ar eoften funny though.
phenenomenology and existentialism (kierkegaard, dostoevsky, nietzsche, kafka, brentano, husserl, heidegger, sartre, camus, de beauvoir, etc) seem important to me because they deal with the ways the individual conceives of his world rather they ways in which the individual's world is conceived for him. it focuses on the internal's relation to the external rather than the external's relation to the internal. overall, these two are humanistic trains of thought, which I believe is important when they are seen in relation to the much more humanistic views of many of the postmodernists.
analytic and postanalytic philosphy appears to me to take a similar approach to Derrida/deconstructionism except that it does it right. whereas derrida would examine one word or another in order to prove that it means either nothing or the opposite of what one would assume, analytic philosophy is an examination of words and symbols that strives to uncover the actual meaning rather than to negate any possible meaning. i find derrida to be very nihilistic and wittgenstein to be the opposite in that he formed a philosophy which brought passion to thinking existence and was humanistic, maybe.
LITERATURE minimalism/realism over the ornate/the postmodern
in general, i find myself pretty much preferring literature that is not as overtly postmodern as say burroughs or vonnegut or roth or pynchon or acker or now eggers and foer and their imitators.
i do have a soft spot for richard brautigan and cormac mccarthy and don delillo and marquez and murakami, though.
in addition to those people, from the past 50 or so years i admire salinger, yates, nabokov, bukowski, carver, beattie, ellis, lydia davis, and david foster wallace as the premier writers.
they all seem to be dealing thematically with situations that are more based in reality or commenting on actual reality (rather than imaginary reality) and therefore have relevance to the everyday situations we face.
their langauge follows a "less is more" approach and is raw and comprehensible.
their styles do not take the route of going for the big time academic irony but instead rely on more subtle humor.
they often follow the "iceberg theory" approach of hemingway.
precursors i would say for these types of writers dostovesky, kafka, hemingway, rhys, sartre, camus, beckett, and wright.
i have written about all 3 of these topics a lot over the past year.
i need to stop.
next time on "what i think"
hell over pugratory/limbo
life as death over death as life
tight pants tied with baggy pants
fast music over slow music
simple music over complicated music
harmonies over melodies
dissonance over consonance
the trends in the past 50 years in the social sciences have been towards marxism
marx is okay
his critique of economics and politics is useful
even more useful is the approach of lenin and then mao
they set out to apply his ideas to the working poor in countries that were not yet as advanced industrially as marx had believed was necessary
but when the way in which much of the academic establishment has dealt with marxism seems to be in too much of a strict and dogmatic manner
the ideas of anarchism are interesting because they often integrate a somewhat marxist critique of economics and politics into their ideas in a way that doesnt come across as elitist or authoritarian or dogmatic
marx's ideas are opposed to the bourgeois, christian, and capitalist ideals but in many of real applications of marxism these ideas end up falling into the same traps
just as christians saw a promised land in the future and greater reasons at work in their activites, so marxists often seem to be relying on prophecies and dogma
in the academic realm, one might even say that the influence of marxism has led to a stagnance in free thought, critical thinking, and open-mindedness in that often many seem to be just reiterating marx's ideas constantly rather than experimenting with other ideas or ideas of their own
it is hard to say whether marx would be pleased about the way his supposed proponents in the western world have interpreted his ideas
in the political realm, the significance of marxism in western democracies has been relatively small due to the fact that they often hope to change the system through involving themselves in the system, i.e. forming parties and attempting to exert influence constituionally
that is a rational and practical approach to creating revolutionary change, but it also goes completely against the overall approach marx advocated
the american communist party today is essentially a moderate leftist party that attempts to work within the establishment through using the techniques of the establishment, and consequently aids the establishment in its continuous affirmation of its validity
this inadvertent support that party lends to the establishment is only more unfortunate because despite all its efforts to become relatable to the general public it is now a completely minor and insignificant entity, as opposed to say 60 or 80 years ago when it exerted influence through its activity outside the establishment
in general, as political philosophies, anarchism is more clear-headed than marxism
it is less decisive and more abstract, which is possibly a negative, but it also therefore does not run as great a risk of being bogged down in dogma and supposedly predetermined solutions
marxism essentially sacrifices the power of the individual in favor of the collective, while anarchism uses the power of the individual in order to change the collective
in the end, people dont like having to follow rules or give up their individual choice, and that is why marxism has failed in so many countries, because the people who end up with the power finally decide that they would prefer to follow their own chosen course of action rather than that that has been determined by the philosopher or the collective
this problem (theoretically) does not exist in anarchism due to the fact that most strands of anarchism embrace individualism (a priori) as the means with which decisive transformation of the collective can take place
anarchism will never come in the form of a political party though, but will rather come when enough individuals use the philosophy of anarchism in order to change the ways in which they deal witht the establishment
they might vote for one of the major parties or they may vote for a third party or they may not vote at all
they may be an artist, or in the service industry, or in politics, or anything, but their approach (assuming they are in the spirit of anarchism) will be nuanced with the fact that they inherently want to radically change the system/establishment in which they are inevitably forced to deal
overall, marxism is a prophecy but anarchism is a spirit (should have just said that all along)
PHILOSOPHY phenomenolgy/existentialism and analytic/postanalytic over structuralism/poststructuralism/postmodernism
the development of postmodern philosophy is tied closely to that of sociology and other more recently developed social studies and humanities and whatnot
i might just talk a bit about some of the various postmodernists i have read and juxtapose them to thinkers from existentialism or anayltic philosophy
barthes-i enjoy reading him sometimes. "writing degree zero" is very dense but makes a lot of points about literature that i agree with and actually makes a lot more sense to me than "what is lit" by sartre. he was in opposition to sartre in many ways, and disliked that sartre eventually became obsessed with "commitment" and marxism rather than his earlier ideas of of "freedom" and "responsibility". barthes critical literary essays are amazing. he breaks down brecht and shit and promotes kafka and camus and shit. his more sociology-like essays are cool, i guess they are basically semiotics. i would consider barthes in many ways to be an extension of existentialism rather than a rebuttal of it. the fact that he is qualified as "structuralist" mostly has to do with how he was part of a general reaction to sartre and existentialism within france.
althusser-strucultralist. antihumanism! there should be a strict interpretation of marx and violent revolutions. but don't ask him to help you, he would prefer to just sit in a chair and complain.
frankfurt school-shoot me now. basically we can't control anything but we should just complain about it instead. and marx knows everything, maybe. i don't know. i read these guys in a sociology class, and was not blown away at all.
foucault-interesting/boring. at first he talks about the way an institution has conditioned me and how im not really free. but then that ends up being all he does. while he is one of the postmodernist i am more sympathetic towards, and think he in general exemplifies the weaknesses of postmodernists in that if so much of human existence is structured and conditioned and irreversible, then a whole new world of excuses is opened up in the wake of christianity that will allow us to be passive and apathetic.
derrida-he is one of my least favorite postmodernists i have read. he is "deconstructionist." the problem i find, might be wrong, is that if every word has to be examined for alternate beings, then what is the purpose of writing or speaking, if assumptions cannot be drawn. also, his interpretation of heidegger, his political views, and his teaching methods were all pretty much fucked, i think.
baudrillard-along with barthes he is probably my favorite poststructuralist that i have read. maybe this is because he deals with semiotics, which i feel relies more on invidual perception and the possibility of individual freedom, rather than constant harping on conditioning and structure. "hyperreality" is a cool concept.
rorty-a postanalytic philosopher who often gets grouped with postmodernists. i find him fun and interesting to read and to be somewhat humanistic compared to the others i am talking about. i cant really pin down an exact reason why he is good though.
zizek-eh. his interpretation of hegel/marx seems a bit fucked maybe, but my main problem is that he is so influenced by lacan, who i think is prbly mostly bullshit. i read one of his less dense works "looking awry" and stopped halfway through. his youtube videos ar eoften funny though.
phenenomenology and existentialism (kierkegaard, dostoevsky, nietzsche, kafka, brentano, husserl, heidegger, sartre, camus, de beauvoir, etc) seem important to me because they deal with the ways the individual conceives of his world rather they ways in which the individual's world is conceived for him. it focuses on the internal's relation to the external rather than the external's relation to the internal. overall, these two are humanistic trains of thought, which I believe is important when they are seen in relation to the much more humanistic views of many of the postmodernists.
analytic and postanalytic philosphy appears to me to take a similar approach to Derrida/deconstructionism except that it does it right. whereas derrida would examine one word or another in order to prove that it means either nothing or the opposite of what one would assume, analytic philosophy is an examination of words and symbols that strives to uncover the actual meaning rather than to negate any possible meaning. i find derrida to be very nihilistic and wittgenstein to be the opposite in that he formed a philosophy which brought passion to thinking existence and was humanistic, maybe.
LITERATURE minimalism/realism over the ornate/the postmodern
in general, i find myself pretty much preferring literature that is not as overtly postmodern as say burroughs or vonnegut or roth or pynchon or acker or now eggers and foer and their imitators.
i do have a soft spot for richard brautigan and cormac mccarthy and don delillo and marquez and murakami, though.
in addition to those people, from the past 50 or so years i admire salinger, yates, nabokov, bukowski, carver, beattie, ellis, lydia davis, and david foster wallace as the premier writers.
they all seem to be dealing thematically with situations that are more based in reality or commenting on actual reality (rather than imaginary reality) and therefore have relevance to the everyday situations we face.
their langauge follows a "less is more" approach and is raw and comprehensible.
their styles do not take the route of going for the big time academic irony but instead rely on more subtle humor.
they often follow the "iceberg theory" approach of hemingway.
precursors i would say for these types of writers dostovesky, kafka, hemingway, rhys, sartre, camus, beckett, and wright.
i have written about all 3 of these topics a lot over the past year.
i need to stop.
next time on "what i think"
hell over pugratory/limbo
life as death over death as life
tight pants tied with baggy pants
fast music over slow music
simple music over complicated music
harmonies over melodies
dissonance over consonance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
