The Keynesian response to economic threat is postponement, or the strategic usage of the future to relieve a problem in the present.
'Can-kicking' is perfectly acceptable shorthand for this, and the postmodern 'concept' of differance (delay-displacement) is an accurate, if pretentious, alternative.
The postmodernists (taking Derrida as their exemplar), were consistently counter-apocalyptic, and in this respect they captured the Keynesian Zeitgeist as a general cultural syndrome - can-kicking as an interminable, 'ontological' condition.
Because their assumption was that the revenge of the market could always be parried by State-bureaucratic action, 'the Real' was systematically denigrated, as a toothless relic from the dead age of consequences (before the unconstrained play of the libidinized signifier was discovered by the Parisian New Left).
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Money printer go brrrrrrr
Why do we need an undergrad-thesis bibliography of citations to say, "Thinking excessively longitudinally tends to decrease regard for the present, which comes to be seen only as prelude to a perpetual future"?
Because modern philosophy is only well-regarded in academia if it is 90% garbled incomprehensibility
I'm glad you said this because I was thinking it.
At least Mark Fisher has a winning personality.
can any academics please chime in and confirm?
> Foucault admitted to his John Searle that he intentionally complicated his writings to appease his French audience. Searle claims Foucault told him: “In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep–they won’t think you’re a profound thinker.” When Searle later asked Pierre Bourdieu if he thought this was true, Bourdieu insisted it was much worse than ten percent.
i knew it
yea but they're French, that's expected; but what about the Germans tho?
There hasn’t been a relevant German philosopher since Foucault, unironically. Everything before WW2 is only difficult to understand because of translation.
But Foucault isn't complicated.
You read things like this, and you find out some people find Foucault complicated, and it becomes a lot clearer why so many people are duped by thinkers like Land.
Literally filtered. You left out the entire point about Keynesian economics, control of money supply and how it relates to philosophical notions of the Left, as exemplified by Derrida. Maybe the style isn't so much the problem as your lack of comprehension?
His point about Keynesian economics just instantiates the abstract danger of postponement in the context of economics.
Because Keynes never made this point about his own economics explicitly (nor did his followers), Land is not expositing Keynesianism here, he's interpreting it, and his interpretation is just what I wrote, as applied to Keynesian economic policy.
All modern theorists do is grab a theoretical framework sitting around (postponement-by-atomization as a dangerous but tempting approach to problem solving), shove it up against an artifact (Keynesian economics) and slap whatever results on the plate.
You could make the same point about the dangers of "atemporal thinking that result from imagining temporal systems as fully modular" by applying the ideas of the Dialectic of Enlightenment to the economic theory of labor value (Odysseus could carry a rock five-hundred miles and say the stone was the product of great labors, technically true, the scamp).
Don't defend modern theorists who dazzle with reference--they multiply citation without elucidating ideas or presenting solutions.
I find it very funny how both post modernists and analyticals are the biggest for shitting on medieval philosophy when they vastly outshine them when it comes to producing incoherent gibberish or autistic minutea respectively.
Philosophy would do well to start writing and thinking like the ancients again instead of this drivel.
It's funny how close they are to Protagoras or Gorgias. Plato shit on this sort of thing so hard it remained dead for 2,300 years, but apparently it wasn't enough to totally kill it.
There's a delightful book called Modern Occult Rhetoric that compares the function of modern "academese" and western occult language and concludes that they both mostly exist to baffle readers into a sense of the author's genius. They both exist to 1) manufacture a specialized argot that only a few people understand but which allegedly grants incredible power, and 2) create the impression that the neophyte can gain this power but bending knee to the master.
Most people in modern academia are just producing the kind of bullshit that gets other academics' praise, and none of them want to admit it's bullshit, because learning to use that bullshit was a key component of their own entry into the club.
It's non-metaphorically cultlike.
It's more like "Would you like to endure 1000 degrees F for a few seconds or endure that heat spread out over a week so you can survive it?"
"Can-kicking" implies the problem will recur exactly as it is today, even while you acknowledge that, in reality, the Keynesian response is "the strategic usage of the future to relieve a problem in the present". Any intelligent person can see that a strategic usage of the future can mitigate the intensity of a problem, not simply delay it.
Your post is almost insufferably pretentious, government has always been in the business of setting the parameters of the market, and running up debt only to change the value of the currency to get around that debt has been practiced all the way back to when princes would take loans in state-approved coins only to decree afterwards that the same coins will contain half the precious metal as before and thus the vale of the debt is halved.
To sum up, the statements made in the OP are both ignorant and arrogant. Ostentatious and uninformed. I advise you to read more and post less.
>land
dropped. hee's a meemee