The CQ

[Anonymous No.13733250]

How can literature or philosophy solve the Consumption Question?

[Anonymous No.13733265]

>>13733250
Read Emerson and go into the woods for weeks and you will realize most products are totally useless

[Anonymous No.13733268]

>>13733250
I am wholly convinced that shitposting will be the only deterritorializing energy that will save humanity. It's so cancerous and destructive, that it causes any victim of it to devolve into a schizophrenic rage which either ends in one of two ways: Immediate spergout and then Streisand effect, or the shutdown and loss of credibility/faith.

Never forget, do the Jew.

[Anonymous No.13733300]

By selling you books about the topic. Nothing is above the grift.

[Anonymous No.13733304]

As long as we view the world in terms of quantity, production, efficiency and material propserity we will never get to what is essential.
Capitalism and Communism are essentially the same at the core, viewing man as a means of production to be arranged in efficient patterns, they just quibble over minor details.

[Anonymous No.13733324]

>>13733250
is pic related shopped? if not, what is it from?

[Anonymous No.13733335]

>>13733250
Through the overcoming of nihilism. Nietzsche was right

[Anonymous No.13733338]

>>13733250
it can suggest that working for the mind flayers is probably not a good idea

[Anonymous No.13733350]

>>13733250
Protip: stop consuming.

[Anonymous No.13733355]

>>13733304
Do you thing the ability to own private property is a minor detail?

[Anonymous No.13733366]

>>13733355
in the final calculus, yes.

[Anonymous No.13733399]

>>13733366
Wow ok.
>>13733304
>Capitalism and Communism are essentially the same at the core, viewing man as a means of production to be arranged in efficient patterns

Communism does not view man as a means of production. It views humans as having an intrinsic value which is equal in all humans and is undermined by the capitalist practice; i.e. reducing humans to a mere means of production. Capitalist systems face the reality that production needs to happen regardless of the ideological reasoning behind a system, but that does not change the value communism as a philosophy attributes to humans. That philosophical anthropology is a fundamental difference between capitalism and communism that you seem to disregard.

[Anonymous No.13733420]

>>13733250
Let's say you detach "consumption" from darwinian selection. People can only consume in a black box and no one can see exactly what they're consuming. Now what? There are still selection pressures in play, just in other areas. Even in a post-scarcity world there would be selection pressures; who's the most fun to spend your time with?

[Anonymous No.13733449]

just wait until neuromarketing gets going

[Anonymous No.13733453]

>>13733399
Gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.13733466]

>>13733324
No, it's real.

qualtrics.com

[Anonymous No.13733475]

>>13733453
Newsflash. There is a difference between intention and outcome.

[Anonymous No.13733479]

>>13733399
>It views humans as having an intrinsic value which is equal in all humans
No, communism/marxism are materialistic and atheistic systems (morally empty), their whole worldview revolves around the economics and social engineering needed to destroy class struggle; they believe in violent revolution and seizing the means of production by force (this involves deadly force) and they believe the means justify the ends for their brutality, and the use of force,torture, subversion, execution to enemies of the party/people are all okay for them.... what you said is baseless propaganda to trick the proles and plebs into jumping on the bandwagon, and most people fall for it until the gulags and killing fields and forced communal labour phases begin.

[Anonymous No.13733500]

>>13733399
>communism says the individual has intrinsic value
lmfao

[Anonymous No.13733580]

>>13733479
You are wrong sir. The starting point of Marxism is that the human value is being undermined by viewing humans as mere means of production, and thus undermining certain aspects of what it means to be human. We become a tool under capitalism, instead of human. This point of view cannot be held if there is not an intrinsic value to human beings, for what then is the basis of the theory?

That being said, I agree with you that communism goes to far by justifying all the means that go with violent revolution. That does not mean however that their starting point is a solidary, value-based cry for human recognition and worth. The reality of implementing such systems is fucked up, and undermines the complete argument of the communist cause, as does the upkeep of such a system by means of labor camps. History tells us that capitalism cannot exist without undermining its starting thesis, the question is if such a system can work, and if we should want it.

[Anonymous No.13733639]

>>13733580
>This point of view cannot be held if there is not an intrinsic value to human beings, for what then is the basis of the theory?
Ding ding ding, you found an internal contradiction.

[Anonymous No.13733654]

>>13733639
I know. I read about it and I wrote about it. Now please tell me again how communism is morally empty.

[Anonymous No.13733668]

>>13733580
You really think that in this day in age it is possible to band people together for such a large scale goal like a revolution? Everyone seems too dividualized today for such a thing.

[Anonymous No.13733680]

Pair up Whiteheadian cosmology and Marxist politics

[Anonymous No.13733709]

>>13733654
is-ought problem
materialism/atheism are morally empty and can't justify what is morally good or morally evil without being reduced to relativism/absurdity.


violent revolution, killing the bourgeousie, equalizing the classes via force, and "seizing the means of production" (theft) and destroying or appropriating private property will never respect the "intrinsic value of individual humans"

[Anonymous No.13733719]

>>13733399
>>13733580
You speak in these vague terms so that it is almost impossible to pin down one of your thoughts. Marx was a materialist and an atheist, any “intrinsic value” that a human would have then must not be spiritual, or metaphysical. Such an intrinsic value could not exist under this system, because nothing separates man from mouse unless it is spiritual or metaphysical. One could argue that man is conscious and therefore that separates him and gives him value, but, as stated, Marx was a materialist, so if we go down this route we have to assume determinism because he can have no other expiation for consciousness.

tl;dr - you’re trying to undermine one of the biggest critiques of Marxism by spouting off nonsense

[Anonymous No.13733724]

>>13733668
I don't know, I'm just posing the question. There do seem to be however very little things people can agree on and change their point of view on. Antagonism in politics the way Mouffe uses the term seems much more likely to be the modern state of things, and breaking that state to initiate rebellion is very hard.

[Anonymous No.13733750]

>>13733709
morality is a spook

[Anonymous No.13733826]

>>13733750
So?
Should one not be spooked?