(1:16:25) The surprising fact, NEUTRALITY, is observed; But if “ἀοχλησία, ἀθαμβία, ἀκαταπληξία, ἀταραξία, ἀπροσπτωσία, ἀπάθεια, περὶ ἀλυπίας ἡσυχία” (nuisance, civility, surprise, turbulence, unexpectedness, apathy, about mercy, .. ,) were true, C would be a matter of course, Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. First, then, let us agree on this point: If it is true, 32e as we said, that destruction is pain and restoration is pleasure, let us consider the case of living beings in which neither destruction nor restoration is going on, (8:46) and what their state is under such conditions.

The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then neither from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. For instance: “Speak boldly, Jane!!” (19:55, 15:30) The master, however, is the power controlling this state of existence.. .. (10:48) The first single statement-making sentence is the affirmation, next is the negation. The others are single in virtue of a connective. But the goal of philosophy is to banish indifference and to understand the necessity of things, so that the other appears standing over against its other.

Hummmm very interesting analysis....it is possible, within the human sphere of existence, to be alive without having a life?

Your criticisms are 1. "I feel like she's a lib 🫣" And 2. "I prefer the word parasite to cannibal" Why did you need so many words for such simple criticisms?

Stop tone policing people

Global financial capital has hollowed out democracy. All that’s left is the edifice of democracy and a performative gesture every five years. All governments are subject to global financial capital; not their constituents.

Bollocks. That is about the most appropriate response I can make I think

@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 I have rarely witnessed some one who used more words and had less meaning than Nancy Fraser's diatribe Very typical though, alluding to one phony crisis after another and the great deprivation of the masses. I guess we just need to hand it all over to hoards of bureaucrats. They will certainly tell us what we need so we don't need to concern ourselves with what we want.

"Individual hegemony," i.e. you can select from 14 different brands of peanut butter, but your vote is worth nothing

@@daviddobarganes9115 Well said.

Fraser isn’t advocating state control of capitalism though.

Production controls the state

Yeah, China is just about to "collapse" on you. 🤣🤣🤣 Actually, a state-run company can grow way beyond what a Private one can. Because it gets "preferential access" to resources. While the Private company has to make due with what it can buy/afford capacities for. And since you, as a worker pay taxes, the state run company KNOWS how much you need to live, and can adjust your salary according to that. For People who don't earn enough (Private companies blame the wages to cut into profits) to make a living, there are two choices, a legal side job, or an Illegal one. Guess who can afford Illegal resources? The "Economy of scale" does not apply on wages. A more expensive CEO won't make a company more productive. (Structural changes in organisation, still need to happen, and those usually end up being called layoffs). If that extra money can be spent on a CEO, it usually makes the company more Profit, to hire/buy more capacity in production. (Does not apply, if the market is saturated, but that's also not changing with a new CEO, or marketing campaign).

@@daviddobarganes9115Fascism

yikes!

Neurotics. A skewed mindset. A prerequisite for believing this tripe.

Some people are immunocompromised or want to wear one to prevent getting COVID. It's still around, it hasn't gone away

Try to stay on topic Timmy

I bet you never wore your mask properly to begin with

I mean she sets out the task of critical theory right at the begining - the "self-clarification of the struggles and wishes of the age" (Marx). Critical theory never claims it will resolve the problems, nor does it claim to satisfy the wishes, but rather to clarify them. Why don't we look at a different case of theory. If we look at what is happening in journal discussions on pure mathematics, those papers, in and of themselves will never solve any problems nor do anything for the world. They only can when someone decides it is worth taking what they have to say into consideration, creating applied theories of mathematics which in some way connect with their more abstract counterparts and then someone else in turn implements those theoretical resources into their action. If one math paper has not yet been put into practice, do we say it was useless and should never have been written? That does not seem wise. Similar logic applies here - yes, we are in crisis, and this theory on it's own will not resolve the crisis. But theorizing is always easier than actually going out and doing the thing, so it makes sense that it often happens first, and it can give us important conceptual tools when we ultimately get around to acting (which by the way there are ongoing actions, though of course not at the revolutionary scale she thinks we need). So it again seems naive to say that it is worthless just because we haven't solved the problems yet - that will always be the case (i.e. there will always be unresolved problems). Do you say we should not think about those problems in a rigorous way? Because that is precisely what she is doing here, and it seems pretty important to me - though of course, and as you rightly point out, far from sufficient.

You thought a KZbin video could solve the world's problems? I'm sorry you're disappointed but have some common sense

You use the language of formal critique, yet criticise this critique for being a professional (i.e. informed) critique. How does that work?

I would put money down that you never read Marx nor understand him, or even basic economics really

@JerrylynShoup If you have money it's probably someone else's 🤣. I've read Marx I understand it and I understand economics far better than Marx himself. Marxist economics are so horrible communist countries inevitably move away from it into a authoritarian sort of state capitalism.

This is so interesting! Thank you for sharing, and we hope you are able to find some answers!