[removed]

[removed]

Here comes the stoic fetishists.

[removed]

No. As far as western power is concerned it gets a complete pass. The people of the west are no doubt lacking all motivation, in no small part becasue "philosphers" like this guy sell them irrationality/and there's nothing you can do about it nonsense like this. The western elite are not irrational though and are as cold-blooded about reality and their interest in it as any of the (all too typical) bogey-men mentioned in the article. A de-motivated and lost populace that thinks for example that a part fo their own brain is guiding them and there is nothing they can do about it, coincidently suits their purpose: no eyes on them (or reality). You may talk- but never about anything important!

So not philosophy, but in therapy you are taught to:

• Recognize your emotion and label it.
• Validate and feel your emotion.
• Then formulate how you act or react.

Using anger, its important to recognize that thats a "secondary" emotion, as in its not truly the emotion you are feeling and is merely the way you are responding to said emotion. Anger usually stems from places like fear, shame, stress, and being hurt. In your example, you arent angry that someone honked at you. You are startled by the sudden stimuli (a fear response), you are feeling stimulus overload after avoiding a potentially dangerous situation (fear), you are ashamed that you did something thatd cause someone to honk at you (shame).

So to follow the steps:

• You get angry at being honked at, because you swerved into another lane after the car in front of you abruptly stopped.

• You recognize, examine, and label it the true emotion you are feeling.

• You validate that feeling and feel it. Its important in this step to avoid imperitives like 'should' and 'need'. Don't focus on next steps to lessons to take away, just the moment you are in. So if you avoided a potentially dangerous situation and someone honked at you, you would say to yourself "They are reacting to the method I chose to protect myself. I am safe now. My adrenaline is pumping right now and my heart is racing, but I am currently safe."

• Now you can formulate your response to being honked at, which would likely be ignoring it and working on clearing your stress, whule continuing to your destination.

Notice that this doesnt suppress or subdue your emotions. Outwardly, it makes you less reactive and volatile, but at no point are you saying "I shouldnt feel this, I am not allowed to be angry, Im not upset at all and everything is hunky dory". You are simply taking the next step after having an emotional response and addressing it. If anything, not addressing the true emotion and simply saying "Im angry" is as much suppression as saying "Im not upset" and not addressing the root emotion.

I dont think that would make you have no personality or be okay with everything.

I would also challenge you to examine why you feel that someone choosing to not react with anger, fear, sadness, etc. and instead processing their emotions and working through them would make someone less of a person, or a less interesting one, it why someone being reactive to their negative emotions make them more interesting and "more" of a person.

To use a topical example, look at how many people are experiencing lonliness, a sense of nowhere to belong, and instead of examining it are saying "Im angry" and allowing that to blind them and get wrapped up in the incel movement, terrorist (domestic or otherwise)pipelines, or otherwise hateful ideologies. (NOTE: Not trying to say that these people are intetesting and therefore what you are talking about.) Does getting angry and lashing out at a demographic of strangers really address that sense of lonliness? If you took an incel and gave them a "perfect" woman by their definition, would that really resolve the underlying state they are in and reacting to?

Part of why the "monkeys paw" is such a powerful trope is because rarely what we think we want is truly what we want, its just merely a reaction to something triggering our fright, flight, or freeze response.

[removed]

[removed]

We are animals and hierarchy only becomes more important in large groups if merely for logistical purposes.

If we need 20 people to go pick the fruit today before it spoils, someone has to be responsible for, and capable of, getting 20 people to go do that. We can't just hope that 20 people feel like picking fruit today... And now you've got a management hierarchy... This issue only compounds the more specialized jobs you have and the more tightly they need to be coordinated.

> the human was a rational animal

1 out of 2 isn't bad, I suppose

Anarchy is not something that was ever meant to work in and of itself. It is an ideological direction against structural concentrations of power. We're somewhat talking about same things here with different semantics. Now, we could go deep into debate on how to define hierarchy, but I think it's easier to agree that we can't fully eliminate concentrations of power from society. My idea of anarchy is moving and promoting towards dimishing these concentrations of power. As to how would be yet another whole, more complex and multi-dimensional, topic.

And the article has nothing to do with that

"Q. Even Hitler and Putin?"

guess how fast I discounted anything this book advertisement post was offering

Rationally desire is an oxymoron one is tied to the logos and the others to the pathos but you can for exemple rationally conclude but not desire

It is not semantic, it has different meaning. The difference is that preference are passion, thus are heteromous. I.g they happen to you. The rationally refer to reason and thus is autonomous i.g. you "make" them happen. (eddit was missing info)

[deleted]

Sure the Black Power Movement did not persuade people to support the movement, but that is exactly her point! She thinks that they have contributed in other ways, namely moving the overtin window to the right directions. If I have to make a comparison, the MAGA movement did not persuade people to be conservative. In fact, if you are moderate before MAGA, you might now turn liberal just to oppose them, but it might still be the case that MAGA has made other conservatives seem like more viable options for compromises. Like if you were Sanders or bust before, now you would be happy with Biden!

[removed]

[removed]

You did not attribute this claim to her, but I still want to point out that she is not suggesting an end to hierarchy. Instead, she has advocated for ways to be free of that hierarchy in one aspect of our lives so our desires are no longer “regulated” by it.

She did not say that Malcolm X is good because he made MLK seem reasonable. She said that even if Malcolm X did not persuade people because he is too radical, he nonetheless creates room for the slightly less radical MLK to be accepted. In fact, she mentions nothing about whether she thinks Malcolm X is right; she is only talking about the effect of Malcolm X on public discourse to illustrate the point that persuasion is not the only function of discourse.

As for the “wrong” body thing, it could be simply that you do not share that aspect of the experience she describes. But, even if that is the case, it is undeniable that who we find desirable is partly shaped by the culture (just compare the beauty standards today vs 50 yrs ago and compare beauty standards across societies!). And, for many people, there would be fleeting moments when we find ourselves attracted to someone that not our “type” (and, come on, we all have a type). One way to see the plausibility of her claims is then to identify that “type” as partly a product of the culture (hierarchical culture in fact), and see those fleeting moments as being attracted to the “wrong” body. The suggestion, then, is to affirm those fleeting moments and to try to change the culture in doing so.

Finally, she never said that the husbands are not also responsible for putting food on the table. More likely, what she means is that if you start with a traditional family with a working husband and a house wife, now with the husband unemployed, the house wife takes on responsibility that she did not have before. And it is easy to see how this may lead to an “awakening” of sort for the house wife.

Hope this clears some things up.

Sure honey, we can do that.

And here I had you figured for my mommy.

I get you, I even agree to some extent, I just don’t think anarchy works. Society needs hierarchy to function, but we should work to establish fair hierarchies that don’t rest on physically and psychologically destructive exploitation.

Amazing article.

Edit: just saw the comment section. wow. I often wished redditors would read charitably, but now I just wish that they would read