Sorry for the lateness of the post. That’s all I’m going to say on the subject.
Today’s post is a generalized observation, synthesized from arguments and thoughts based on Philosophy 2 last semester, and Rhetoric 20 this semester. The post itself is going to sound ridiculous, as it is a cure-all for the arguments of philosophy and critical theory, and as such is inherently flawed, too general, and the like. Nonetheless, I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is some truth to it.
Modern arguments in critical theory (something I know quite a bit more about than philosophy) are based on the synthesis and analysis of, primarily, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as their disciples and followers. Despite that, critical theory bases itself on a series of written absolutes, each as resolutely sure of itself as the theory it claims to disprove. The idea of a synthesis is never truly breached; rather one is used to argue against another, or a theory derived from two or three of them is taken as a new blanket truth, apparently disposing the old. This is an over-simplification, but it is not altogether wrong; critical theory, as a discipline, is a series of arguments.
The problem comes with the fact that for one reason or another, these arguments, themselves oversimplifications, are almost always proven either wrong or incomplete. And, it seems to me, in both philosophy and critical theory, it is because they are uncompromising.
One of the main critiques of Marx is that his prediction of a worldwide revolution which would destroy the capitalist system and end modes of exploitation has not come about, and instead capitalism has continued to spread. The two main responses are *#8220Just wait, it’s coming,” and “Marx may have been right about a lot of stuff, but he sure was an idiot in that respect.” Marxists and post-Marxists, themselves not strictly following Marx's words but their own ideology which has become known as Marxism, either abandon Marx's prediction or assume that it just needs longer to come to fruition. Nearly unseen is the theory that Marx's analysis was correct but incomplete.
I don’t mean to singlehandedly fix critical theory nor do I mean to propose a solution to the Marx question; I merely use it as a convenient example. Even when one attempts to synthesize Marx and Freud, or Freud and Nietzsche, or so on, it is often to say that they were in fact arguing for the same thing in different circumstances; for example, again borrowing largely from Marx, the statement “Ideology has no history” is sometimes compared to and combined with Freud’s idea that the unconscious is eternal.
This is an incomplete analysis of an incomplete problem, and I’m well aware of its flaws. That aside, it is worth mentioning and discussing, as it plagues cricital theory and (what I’ve seen of) philosophy.
And mookies are really good cookie muffins made by Backroads Coffee Shop in the lovely Sutter Creek, California.
In fact, I don't even know what a cookie muffin is ... but apparently I'm a good one.
It also means 'one' in Korean.
It's also my name.
A cookie muffin is a muffin in the shape of a cookie.
And apparently you're a really good one, but only if you change the spelling of your name, Mr. Mookee.
If a muffin can be in the shape of a cookie, is it really a muffin? Or is it maybe just a soft cookie? Not being a pastry chef (or any chef, for that matter), and a seeker* of knowledge, I really don't know.
* - "seeker" in the sense that if someone tells me, I'll listen. It doesn't mean I actually go out and figure it out for myself, I'm too lazy to do that.
Besides, would you rather be a soft cookie or a muffin that looks like a cookie (thereby eliminating the disasterous mess that eating a muffin normally entails)?
What do you mean by "when I was found"?
That being said however, a reference to "soft cookee" really is more appealling to me than a muffin that looks like a cookie, because a muffin in and of itself may or may not be sweet. As anyone can tell you, I'm the sweetest of the sweet, more like a soft cookie than a muffin...
...excuse me while I go throw up, I appear to have gotten sick while writing this.
Mookee: you're making me sick. Shut up with all the sweetness and goo. You're definitely NOT sweet in any imaginable way. And the real way the story goes is thus: I said, "Let there be light," but I had bad gas, let it out, and there you were.
1. I'm sweet as sugar
2. Doug does not HAVE bad gas, he IS bad gas
3. Philosophy is inherently flawed. One person's absolute is another person's perplexion (that's right, I'm creating words now, go to hell). When one person's new theory "overrides" the previous theory, it doesn't mean the previous theory was incorrect (provided we're not talking mathematics, or hard science). It simply means there is a new perspective on an old idea. Everyone is a philosopher. Everyone has their quirks and idiosycrasies (sp?). Marx had an idea that expounded on something else. Communism/Socialism/Marxism/whaterism wasn't a new idea when Marx wrote it down, but he put it onto paper (the Levelers/Diggers from the English Civil War are a good example of something similar). Doesn't make Marx a thief, or plagiarist (sp? -- I'm not looking it up, too lazy), but there are all sorts of ideas out there, some good, some bad, that if synthesized...or not synthesized, they are philosophies in and of themselves. I'm a philosopher. My philosophy is pretty simple though...different is bad.
Click the button to
Mookee wrote
OOOOOOoooo
How very analytical of you. For myself, I'll have to actually go back and think while I read. You're a bastard for making me work for my snide comments. Why can't you just post something that says, "Mookee is stupid" and be done with it? I don't have to think about resonding appropriately.
Is this my penance for bringing to light that you're different?