Well burrowed, old mole!

Essays on Philosophy

Rhetorical Analysis

The rational actor model/game theory as a mode of understanding consciousness.

“The hardest part of the method is making/modeling reality” See lakoff

it mirrors in a very exaggerated fashion the way that everyone encounters being, even the uncertainty at its base, the never knowing is this is the right way to segment the whole.

Two interrelated problems define all theories and allow them to be most fruitfully analysed by the rhetorical methodology (1) locating complexity (2) exclusion.

Kenneth Burke in his Rhetoric of Motives discusses the need which some people feel to segment being and raise one portion of it up as representative of/more important that all the rest, this is the raison d’etre of rhetorical analysis and such analysis can be applied to all sciences and fields of human endeavour, with the goal of unifying it with that which it excludes, for exculsion is the means by which closure is effected, by which ‘bindingness’ and ‘necessity’ arise,  it is also the means by identity is formed, this is not that.

Exclusion is the rhetorical, location of complexity is the rhetorical as well. Anything about which anything can be said admits of a rhetorical analysis, and probably more stuff too.

In 1600’s English the term ‘objective’ meant: “Existing as an object of thought or consciousness as opposed to having a real existence; considered as presented to the mind rather than in terms of inherent qualities[1]” while the term ‘subjective’ meant, “Pertaining to the subject as to that in which attributes inhere; inherent; hence, pertaining to the essence or reality of a thing; real, essential.[2]

The inversion of these came in the second half of the eighteenth century–something of a “Copernican Revolution” in English semantics.  Further inquiry into the semantics of ‘objectivity’ reveals that it has a noun sense, “The point towards which the advance of troops is directed; a military target” which relates to a goal and “Characterized by objecting; that states objections.”

One should also note the oppositions which this term is implicated in. There is the opposition with ‘subjective’ which is very well attested, the opposition with ‘biased’ the opposition with ‘relative’ with ‘inferentially apprehended’ ‘emotionally involved’ ‘speculative’ ‘in our minds’.

What are the implications of this most basic notion being subject to such radical fluctuation? That its meaning is complex, rather than simplex?


[1] The oxford english dictionary, as exemplified by the following quotation: “J. PEARSON Expos. Creed (1839) ii. 168 ‘In the beginning was the Word’; there was must signify an actual existence; and if so, why in the next sentence (‘the Word was with God’) shall the same verb signify an objective being only?”

[2] OED “

Stupidity Philosophy Civilization

“[A] tyrant institutionalizes stupidity, but he is the first servant of his own system and the first to be installed within it. Slaves are always commanded by another slave. Here too, how could the concept of error account for this unity of stupidity and cruelty”

Stupidity is political. This is true in a two senses: first, certain populations are characterized through the attribution of stupidity, defined as a lack of intelligence understanding, or some other uniquely human mental characteristic; second, stultification practices arise which function to stupefy the population.  What both have in common is an element of misrecognition. Stupidity seems always to involve a semi-conscious misrecognition: a refusal to see the truth, one on the border of conscious intention, but never quite conscious or unconscious, never quite intentional or unintentional.

The market is a great tyrant in this sense.

“Stupidity is not animality. The animal is protected by specific forms which prevent if from being ‘stupid’ [betise]….[S]tupidity, finally, is the faculty for false problems; it is evidence of an inability to constitute comprehend or determine a problem as such”

Civilization has always relied upon a logic of domestication. It domesticates animals, breeding them for slaughter and servitude, homo sapiens is no exception, the ideal citizen is happy to serve in the military and does not gripe about extraction of surplus value when he comes home.  The reproduction of social hierarchy and domination require that a great deal of what one might call ‘animal insight’ or ‘animal materialism’ be transformed, redirected or suppressed in the population. It is not for nothing that our emotions, that our impulses tell us having to go to work is bullshit, that having to answer to a boss is not the best possible option, that it is better to be free than to be enslaved and so on. It is within this context that we can see the present state of philosophy and civilization–[Utah Phillips as a sort of anarchist Socrates] .

Overall, stupidity is the cultivation of false problems. The animal does not know the false problem.  It is naturally a materialist. It is absurd to imagine an idealist wolf or lion.  Stultification is thus an active process: it is not so much that inquiry is crippled, which it sometimes is, but that false problems are subsidized and elaborated.

We new Philosophers

Phillips’ poetry and stories ex-pose the false capitalist problems. He lived his thought etc etc. He is a true philosopher on the pre-socratic model that we must take heed of if philosophy is not to die. or something like that. His thought shows how philosophy ignores reality and we can get back to the real problems if we attend.

His sensibility: hobo-nomad revolutionary