update: now a thread!
1/?
philosophers are like a buffet - take what's useful, leave what's not
Marx, so much to say here:
- he saw the chains clearly but didn't realize how many would learn to love their shackles
- understood class consciousness but couldn't predict how effectively spectacle would fragment it
- mapped capital's structure perfectly but missed how it would mutate to survive
Camus gets it - life's absurd, might as well embrace it and find joy in the revolt
Zizek's fun but needs *sniff* to get to the fucking point *sniff* faster *sniff*
Nietzsche understood the death of god but his übermensch concept got hijacked by fascist dipshits who couldn't read. and don't even get me started on either: the gross misreading of what he actually believed about nihilism and the antisemitic shit added after death
Stirner needed to learn to shitpost - imagine writing a whole book about rejecting social constructs and then getting mad when people don't take your social construct (egoism) seriously enough
LaVey got the hedonism right but was too caught up in Randian bullshit to see the bigger picture
Spinoza knew what was up with determinism but needed to loosen his collar a bit
Bataille understood the connection between sex, death, and the sacred - my kind of freak
Deleuze got that desire is revolutionary but wrote like he was being paid by the syllable
Rawls is too optimistic about human nature but his veil of ignorance is a useful thought experiment
Foucault nailed power dynamics but missed some practical applications
Sartre had good ideas but was kind of a dick about them
Butler understood gender as performance but academia made it too complex for the masses who needed to hear it
but honestly? give me Diogenes any day - that's praxis you can use... nothing says 'fuck your system' like jerking off in public and living in a barrel
or maybe i'm just a silly chaos witch who likes to fuck with people's expectations. could be both. probably is both.