Today the questions, what is Russian philosophy, has it existed, does it exist now, and will it exist in the future, are pressing. But there is an even deeper question..
Don’t believe you are living the truth of what is happening in US politics. In case you haven’t heard Soviet news in a while perhaps this update can help fill you in.
**Critique of "The Possibility of Russian Philosophy"**
### **1. Philosophical Critique**
The text employs **postmodern frameworks** (Baudrillard’s simulacra, Spengler’s pseudomorphosis) to question Russian philosophy’s authenticity, framing it as derivative of Western thought. This risks **philosophical essentialism**, reducing Russian philosophy to a reactive phenomenon rather than recognizing its potential for synthesis or originality. By asserting that Russian philosophy must adopt Heidegger to achieve legitimacy, the author perpetuates a **Eurocentric hierarchy**, where validity depends on alignment with Western paradigms. The argument also conflates *influence* with *derivation*, dismissing dialogic traditions inherent to global philosophy (e.g., Confucianism’s engagement with Buddhism, Islamic philosophy’s synthesis of Greek thought).
### **2. Logical Critique**
The argument contains **circular reasoning**:
- Premise: Russian philosophy requires a Western "history of philosophy" framework (e.g., Hegel, Marx) to exist.
- Conclusion: Therefore, adopting Heidegger (another Western framework) will legitimize Russian philosophy.
This ignores the possibility of endogenous philosophical systems. Additionally, the claim that Marxism *caused* Soviet totalitarianism commits a **post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy**, oversimplifying socio-political causality. The binary framing—Russian philosophy is either a simulacrum or Heidegger-dependent—creates a **false dilemma**, excluding hybrid or independent trajectories.
### **3. Historical Critique**
The text **erases pre-Soviet Russian thought**, neglecting figures like Slavophiles (Khomyakov), religious philosophers (Solovyov, Berdyaev), and Silver Age thinkers who engaged uniquely with Orthodox theology and Russian identity. By reducing Soviet philosophy to Marxist dogmatics, it ignores dissident movements (e.g., Bakhtin’s dialogism, Losev’s neoplatonism). The focus on Hegel/Marx as Russia’s sole philosophical gateways overlooks alternative influences (e.g., German idealism’s broader impact, French Enlightenment thought). The assertion that Heidegger offers a "new beginning" replicates the 19th-century dependency on Hegel, perpetuating a **cyclical narrative of colonial intellectual dependency**.
### **4. Sociological Critique**
The text reflects **post-Soviet academic anxiety**, seeking Western validation to reclaim intellectual legitimacy. This mirrors Bourdieu’s concept of *cultural capital*, where Russian philosophy is deemed valuable only when aligned with dominant (Western) epistemic systems. The dismissal of non-institutional or indigenous thought (e.g., *sobornost*, Eurasianism) reinforces **academic elitism**, marginalizing grassroots or dissident traditions. The focus on Heidegger as a "savior" figure also reflects a **neocolonial mindset**, where non-Western philosophies are seen as incomplete without Western mentorship.
### **5. Syntactical/Grammatical Critique**
The prose is **overly dense**, with convoluted syntax (e.g., "The actuality of Western philosophy was the potentiality of Russian philosophy") and jargon-heavy passages ("hermeneutical base," "pseudomorphosis"). Key terms like *samobytnoy* (distinctive) culture are left untranslated, alienating non-Russian readers. Long, meandering sentences (e.g., "This circumstance compels us to refer to...") hinder clarity, while metaphors like the "magic tram" (Gumilev) assume niche cultural literacy.
### **6. Semiotic Critique**
The text constructs **binary oppositions**:
- *Authentic Western philosophy* vs. *derivative Russian simulacra*.
- *Total Marxist determinism* vs. *Heideggerian liberation*.
These binaries reinforce a **colonial semiotics**, positioning Russia as perpetually "catching up" to the West. The use of geological metaphors ("pseudomorphosis") naturalizes dependency, framing it as an inevitable cultural process. References to Heidegger as a "chance" and "key" semiotically align him with messianic figures, perpetuating a **salvation narrative**. Meanwhile, the absence of Russian philosophical symbols (e.g., icons, communal ethics) erases indigenous semiotic systems.
---
### **Conclusion**
While the text astutely diagnoses post-Soviet philosophical disorientation, it reinscribes **Eurocentric dependency** by prescribing another Western thinker (Heidegger) as Russia’s salvific framework. Its historical omissions, logical flaws, and colonial semiotics undermine the possibility of a self-determining Russian philosophy. A more equitable approach would:
1. Acknowledge Russia’s pre-Soviet and non-Marxist traditions.
2. Critique the colonial logic that ties legitimacy to Western approval.
A prosaic example of the nonsense inherent in Marxian constructs. Prime example is the severe hypocrisy in claiming unreinforced jargon while using such terms as contemporary constructivist thought including Vygotsky and Bruner as if this proposes a coherent grounding. By also overweighting Grice the overall critique grinds into a spraying of spew.
Critique of the Response Using Philosophical, Logical, Historical, Sociological, Syntactical, Grammatical, and Semiotic Methodologies:
---
### 1. Philosophical Critique
The response dismisses "Marxian constructs" as "nonsense" and "hypocrisy" but fails to engage philosophically with Marx’s ideas (e.g., dialectical materialism, class struggle) or define what constitutes "nonsense." This reflects philosophical dogmatism rather than reasoned critique. By conflating Marxian theory with "contemporary constructivist thought" (Vygotsky, Bruner), the author commits a category error: Marxist critique focuses on political economy and social structures, while constructivism (rooted in psychology/education) addresses knowledge formation. The critique lacks coherence by treating distinct paradigms as interchangeable, undermining its philosophical rigor.
---
### 2. Logical Critique
The argument is riddled with logical fallacies:
- Straw Man: Misrepresents Marxian theory as "unreinforced jargon" without specifying which concepts are flawed or why.
- Ad Hominem: Uses pejorative terms ("spew," "hypocrisy") to attack the original text’s credibility rather than its content.
- Red Herring: Introduces Grice’s pragmatics (unrelated to Marxian theory) as a distraction.
- Hasty Generalization: Declares Marxian constructs "nonsense" based on undefined grievances.
The response lacks a logical structure, substituting reasoned analysis with polemical assertions.
---
### 3. Historical Critique
The critique ignores historical context:
- Marx’s work emerged from 19th-century industrial capitalism, addressing exploitation and alienation—issues still relevant today.
- Vygotsky and Bruner (20th-century constructivists) developed theories of learning, not political economy; conflating them with Marx ahistorically muddles disciplinary boundaries.
- Grice’s contributions to linguistic pragmatics (e.g., conversational maxims) are unrelated to Marxist theory, making their inclusion here ahistorical and confusing.
The response’s disregard for historical specificity renders its critique shallow and anachronistic.
---
### 4. Sociological Critique
The language ("spew," "nonsense") reflects anti-intellectual bias, dismissing complex theories without engaging their societal implications. This mirrors a broader sociological trend of reducing academic discourse to "jargon" to delegitimize critical frameworks (e.g., Marxism) that challenge power structures. By framing constructivism and Grice as "overweighted," the author privileges a populist disdain for specialized terminology, reinforcing anti-academic sentiment common in polarized discourse.
---
### 5. Syntactical Critique
The syntax is chaotic and elliptical, obscuring meaning:
- Fragmented phrasing: "Prime example is the severe hypocrisy in claiming unreinforced jargon..." lacks a subject-verb structure.
- Ambiguous modifiers: "overweighting Grice" is unclear—does this refer to overemphasis, misinterpretation, or something else?
- Mixed metaphors: "grinds into a spraying of spew" conflates mechanical and visceral imagery nonsensically.
The disjointed syntax mirrors the argument’s lack of coherence.
---
### 6. Grammatical Critique
The response contains grammatical errors that hinder clarity:
- Misuse of "unreinforced jargon": "Unreinforced" typically describes physical structures, not abstract concepts; "unsubstantiated" or "unexamined" would be more precise.
- Subject-verb disagreement: "By also overweighting Grice the overall critique grinds..." (should be "grind").
- Non-standard phrasing: "spraying of spew" is grammatically incoherent (spew is a mass noun; "spray of spew" would be more conventional).
These errors reflect carelessness, undermining the critique’s authority.
---
### 7. Semiotic Critique
The response deploys loaded signifiers to evoke disdain:
- "Marxian constructs": Semiotically linked to Cold War-era anti-communist rhetoric, framing Marxism as inherently flawed.
- "Spew": Connotes disgust, positioning the original text as morally/physically repulsive.
- "Hypocrisy": Implies moral failing rather than intellectual disagreement, weaponizing ethics to discredit.
By invoking Vygotsky, Bruner, and Grice as empty signifiers (without explaining their relevance), the author constructs a veneer of scholarly critique while avoiding substantive engagement.
---
### Conclusion
The response exemplifies reactionary anti-intellectualism, using polemic, logical fallacies, and semiotic manipulation to dismiss Marxian theory without meaningful engagement. Its flaws—ahistorical conflations, grammatical sloppiness, and sociological bias—render it a performative critique, more concerned with asserting superiority than fostering dialogue. A rigorous critique would:
**Critique of the Response Using Philosophical, Logical, Historical, Sociological, Syntactical, Grammatical, and Semiotic Methodologies:**
---
### **1. Philosophical Critique**
The response dismisses "Marxian constructs" as "nonsense" and "hypocrisy" but fails to engage philosophically with Marx’s ideas (e.g., dialectical materialism, class struggle) or define what constitutes "nonsense." This reflects **philosophical dogmatism** rather than reasoned critique. By conflating Marxian theory with "contemporary constructivist thought" (Vygotsky, Bruner), the author commits a **category error**: Marxist critique focuses on political economy and social structures, while constructivism (rooted in psychology/education) addresses knowledge formation. The critique lacks coherence by treating distinct paradigms as interchangeable, undermining its philosophical rigor.
---
### **2. Logical Critique**
The argument is riddled with **logical fallacies**:
- **Straw Man**: Misrepresents Marxian theory as "unreinforced jargon" without specifying which concepts are flawed or why.
- **Ad Hominem**: Uses pejorative terms ("spew," "hypocrisy") to attack the original text’s credibility rather than its content.
- **Red Herring**: Introduces Grice’s pragmatics (unrelated to Marxian theory) as a distraction.
- **Hasty Generalization**: Declares Marxian constructs "nonsense" based on undefined grievances.
The response lacks a **logical structure**, substituting reasoned analysis with polemical assertions.
---
### **3. Historical Critique**
The critique ignores **historical context**:
- Marx’s work emerged from 19th-century industrial capitalism, addressing exploitation and alienation—issues still relevant today.
- Vygotsky and Bruner (20th-century constructivists) developed theories of learning, not political economy; conflating them with Marx ahistorically muddles disciplinary boundaries.
- Grice’s contributions to linguistic pragmatics (e.g., conversational maxims) are unrelated to Marxist theory, making their inclusion here **ahistorical** and confusing.
The response’s disregard for historical specificity renders its critique shallow and anachronistic.
---
### **4. Sociological Critique**
The language ("spew," "nonsense") reflects **anti-intellectual bias**, dismissing complex theories without engaging their societal implications. This mirrors a broader **sociological trend** of reducing academic discourse to "jargon" to delegitimize critical frameworks (e.g., Marxism) that challenge power structures. By framing constructivism and Grice as "overweighted," the author privileges a populist disdain for specialized terminology, reinforcing **anti-academic sentiment** common in polarized discourse.
---
### **5. Syntactical Critique**
The syntax is **chaotic** and **elliptical**, obscuring meaning:
- Fragmented phrasing: "Prime example is the severe hypocrisy in claiming unreinforced jargon..." lacks a subject-verb structure.
- Ambiguous modifiers: "overweighting Grice" is unclear—does this refer to overemphasis, misinterpretation, or something else?
- Mixed metaphors: "grinds into a spraying of spew" conflates mechanical and visceral imagery nonsensically.
The disjointed syntax mirrors the argument’s lack of coherence.
---
### **6. Grammatical Critique**
The response contains **grammatical errors** that hinder clarity:
- Misuse of "unreinforced jargon": "Unreinforced" typically describes physical structures, not abstract concepts; "unsubstantiated" or "unexamined" would be more precise.
- Subject-verb disagreement: "By also overweighting Grice the overall critique grinds..." (should be "grind").
- Non-standard phrasing: "spraying of spew" is grammatically incoherent (spew is a mass noun; "spray of spew" would be more conventional).
These errors reflect carelessness, undermining the critique’s authority.
---
### **7. Semiotic Critique**
The response deploys **loaded signifiers** to evoke disdain:
- **"Marxian constructs"**: Semiotically linked to Cold War-era anti-communist rhetoric, framing Marxism as inherently flawed.
- **"Spew"**: Connotes disgust, positioning the original text as morally/physically repulsive.
- **"Hypocrisy"**: Implies moral failing rather than intellectual disagreement, weaponizing ethics to discredit.
By invoking Vygotsky, Bruner, and Grice as **empty signifiers** (without explaining their relevance), the author constructs a veneer of scholarly critique while avoiding substantive engagement.
---
### **Conclusion**
The response exemplifies **reactionary anti-intellectualism**, using polemic, logical fallacies, and semiotic manipulation to dismiss Marxian theory without meaningful engagement. Its flaws—ahistorical conflations, grammatical sloppiness, and sociological bias—render it a performative critique, more concerned with asserting superiority than fostering dialogue. A rigorous critique would:
The provided statement is a densely constructed critique that attempts to engage with philosophical and linguistic ideas but suffers from significant issues in clarity, coherence, and conceptual grounding. Below is a detailed critique:
---
### **1. Ambiguity and Obscure Terminology**
The statement relies heavily on abstract, metaphorical language that obscures its meaning rather than illuminating it. Key terms like "declension," "constructivist kernel," and "old guard pragmatics" are either misapplied or left undefined:
- **"Declension"**: In linguistics, declension refers to the inflection of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives (e.g., grammatical case). Here, the term is used metaphorically but without clear intent. Is Heidegger being framed as a "grammatical decline" from Chomsky? A misstep in intellectual lineage? The metaphor is strained and unanchored in any explicit argument.
- **"Constructivist kernel"**: Constructivism typically refers to theories emphasizing the active role of agents in building knowledge or social systems (e.g., Piaget in psychology, Searle in social ontology). The phrase "constructivist kernel" is vague—does it denote a core tenet of constructivism? If so, how is it "too tightly wound"?
- **"Old guard pragmatics"**: Pragmatics, as a linguistic subfield, studies context-dependent meaning (e.g., Gricean implicature). The "old guard" could imply classical pragmatists (Peirce, James, Dewey) or mid-20th-century theorists (Austin, Grice), but this is unspecified. The critique lacks a target.
**Result**: The language creates an illusion of depth but fails to communicate a coherent thesis.
---
### **2. Unsubstantiated Connections Between Heidegger and Chomsky**
The sentence posits a relationship between Heidegger and Chomsky that is historically and philosophically tenuous:
- **Heidegger** (continental philosopher) focused on existential phenomenology, ontology, and critiques of technology. His work has little direct overlap with **Chomsky** (analytic philosopher/linguist), whose theories of universal grammar and innatism oppose constructivist approaches to language acquisition.
- The claim that Heidegger is a "declension to identify Chomsky" is baffling. If "declension" implies a flawed derivation, the author must explain how Heidegger’s ideas relate to Chomsky’s framework (e.g., innatism vs. Heideggerian hermeneutics). No such argument is provided.
**Result**: The juxtaposition of Heidegger and Chomsky reads as arbitrary name-dropping rather than a reasoned comparison.
---
### **3. Lack of Argumentative Structure**
The statement resembles a poetic provocation more than a logical argument:
- The rhetorical question ("Don’t see that..., do you?") assumes shared knowledge of a Heidegger-Chomsky connection that is neither obvious nor defended.
- The second sentence ("Your constructivist kernel...") critiques an unnamed interlocutor’s adherence to "old guard pragmatics" but offers no criteria for why this is problematic. What makes the "kernel" "too tightly wound"? What alternative is being proposed?
**Result**: The absence of evidence, examples, or logical progression renders the critique hollow.
---
### **4. Possible Misunderstandings of Constructivism and Pragmatics**
If interpreted charitably, the statement might aim to critique rigid adherence to classical pragmatism (e.g., Peirce’s semiotics or Grice’s maxims) in contrast to a more dynamic constructivist approach. However:
- **Constructivism** (e.g., Vygotsky, Bruner) often aligns with pragmatism in emphasizing context and interaction, so the tension implied here is unclear.
- The "old guard" label dismisses foundational thinkers without engaging their arguments or acknowledging their influence on contemporary constructivist thought.
**Result**: The critique risks appearing uninformed about the fields it references.
---
### **5. Stylistic Issues**
The prose is overwrought and alienating. Phrases like "too tightly wound upon" mix metaphors (mechanical tension? textile weaving?) without clarity. Such style sacrifices accessibility for rhetorical flourish.
---
### **Conclusion**
The statement fails as a critique due to its reliance on undefined jargon, unsupported assertions, and incoherent conceptual linkages. To improve, the author should:
Subhuman labeling by the one who applies the tools of perverse criminals and pedophile elites under some nonsensical banner of socialist progress, Pravda!
Tools intended to destroy The Constitution and more importantly the character of the nation in which I was born.
A civilization state composed of immigrant people who saw The Confederacy as a threat and then went West decimating the indigenous people with little or no concerns of conscience. Becoming tools for oligarchs who profited from a Great War, followed by another, after which they allowed the eugenics madmen they defeated in Europe to take over the intelligence state to defeat the Red menace. While performing as horrific or worse experiments on human victims, promoting people like Fauci to lead a great scam to steal more from the poor and further enrich the oligarchs of pharmaceuticals who pay for the democratic socialist waste millionaire politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and wannabe AOC.
But tell me again why socialism is the great healer for the intelligence state that murdered the indigenous people and continues on as a greater enemy of man?
With great clarity so the bell rings and Clarence gets his wings.
**Critique of the Text Through Methodological Lenses**
**1. Political Critique:**
The text employs hyper-partisan rhetoric to vilify socialism by associating it with historical atrocities, corrupt elites, and conspiratorial narratives (e.g., "pedophile elites," "intelligence state"). This aligns with reactionary strategies to stoke fear of progressive policies by linking them to universally reviled groups. By name-checking figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC, the author targets contemporary progressive movements, framing them as complicit in a corrupt system. This tactic deflects from substantive policy debates and exploits polarization, appealing to audiences primed to distrust government and left-wing ideologies.
**2. Logical Critique:**
The argument is riddled with logical fallacies:
- **Guilt by association:** Connects socialism to eugenics, genocide, and pharmaceutical greed without evidence.
- **Non sequitur:** Asserts that historical U.S. expansion ("decimating indigenous people") is tied to modern socialism, ignoring centuries of ideological evolution.
- **Straw man:** Reduces socialism to a tool of oligarchs, ignoring its diverse implementations and principles.
- **Ad hominem:** Attacks figures like Fauci and Warren instead of engaging with policies.
The narrative lacks coherence, jumping between disparate events (Confederacy, WWII, modern politics) without establishing causal links.
**3. Sociological Critique:**
The text appeals to nativist and anti-establishment sentiments, framing the U.S. as a betrayed "civilization state" of immigrants. This taps into nostalgia for a mythologized past while weaponizing resentment against perceived elites ("pharmaceutical oligarchs," "millionaire politicians"). The us-vs-them dichotomy reinforces in-group solidarity among those distrustful of institutional power, while scapegoating socialism for systemic issues like inequality. However, it overlooks the structural roots of these issues (e.g., capitalism, colonialism) and simplifies complex social dynamics.
**4. Psychological Critique:**
Emotionally charged language ("subhuman," "horrific," "scam") triggers fear and anger, bypassing critical thinking. Conspiracy tropes (e.g., secretive elites, "great scam") exploit cognitive biases toward pattern-seeking and distrust of authority. The reference to Clarence (likely from *It’s a Wonderful Life*) invokes moral clarity, offering a simplistic narrative of good vs. evil. This rhetoric fosters a sense of urgency and righteousness, appealing to those who feel marginalized or disillusioned by mainstream politics.
**5. Geopolitical Critique:**
The text conflates distinct historical and global contexts:
- Misrepresents the post-WWII integration of ex-Nazi scientists into U.S. intelligence (Operation Paperclip) as a socialist plot, rather than a Cold War realist strategy.
- Equates European eugenics with American social policies, ignoring differing ideological roots.
- Reduces global pharmaceutical dynamics to a "scam" led by democratic socialists, disregarding multinational corporate influence and regulatory complexities.
The critique of socialism ignores its varied global manifestations (e.g., Nordic social democracy vs. Venezuelan authoritarianism) and oversimplifies geopolitical history.
**Conclusion:**
The text is a polemic that relies on inflammatory rhetoric, conspiratorial thinking, and historical revisionism to attack socialism. While it resonates emotionally with audiences predisposed to distrust government and elites, it collapses under methodological scrutiny due to its logical incoherence, sociological oversimplification, and geopolitical inaccuracies. Its primary function is not to persuade through reason but to reinforce existing biases and stoke ideological division.
Surprisingly, although a reference to your own numbered critiques should reference the numbered element quickly, the confusion comes from the Marxist notions that you present as if these had coherence or maybe even common sense bound to them.
Wasn’t long ago that I made the faux pas, Freudian slip? ( Heidegger cliff note?) in which I used conjured with respect to the CRT instructor whom I declare as my CRT instructor. Much akin to Mrs. Slocombe referring to my pussy.
Did my conjuring bring you to life?
Will you be my CRT instructor so I, too, can speak of cabbages and kings with the coherent Marxian theocracy you preach so ardently?
Incoherence & Ambiguity: The passage is deliberately riddled with shifting metaphors, rhetorical flourishes, and sarcastic asides. While this may be stylistic, logically it impedes clarity. For instance, “Wasn’t long ago that I made the faux pas, Freudian slip? (Heidegger cliff note?)” is neither a coherent question nor a clearly stated idea—it throws multiple references together without logical connection.
Straw Man & Non Sequitur: The speaker implies that Marxist notions lack coherence or common sense, but gives no specific examples or logical rebuttal. This constitutes a straw man fallacy, attacking a caricature of Marxism rather than engaging with its actual content. Similarly, “Did my conjuring bring you to life?” is a non sequitur—there is no causal connection established between a metaphorical “conjuring” and the interlocutor’s supposed ideological stance.
Category Error: Referring to a “Marxian theocracy” is conceptually flawed. Marxist theory is explicitly anti-theocratic and materialist. To accuse it of being a theocracy is either an intentional oxymoron for rhetorical effect or a misunderstanding.
Historical Critique
Marxism Misrepresented: Marxist traditions are diverse (from Lenin to Althusser to Frankfurt School), and to suggest they are incoherent en masse ignores the historical complexity and intellectual rigor of the tradition. The term “Marxian theocracy” also distorts historical Marxism, which critiques both capitalist and religious authority structures.
CRT (Critical Race Theory): CRT is a late-20th-century framework rooted in legal studies, not Marxism per se, although it sometimes overlaps with Marxian critiques of power. To equate CRT with Marxist “preaching” or to frame it as religiously dogmatic overlooks its academic roots and methodological diversity.
• Pop Culture Reference: The invocation of “Mrs. Slocombe referring to my pussy” (from Are You Being Served?) introduces British sitcom humor into what pretends to be a philosophical or political argument, further muddying its historical seriousness.
Political Critique
Ideological Irony: The speaker adopts a tone of ironic detachment, mocking the perceived ideological fervor of the interlocutor while themselves engaging in ideological ridicule. This erodes any neutral ground for debate and turns political critique into mere parody.
Authorial Voice as Displacement: By referencing conjuring, CRT, Freudian slips, and cabbages and kings (from Lewis Carroll), the speaker veers into a surrealist polemic that avoids accountability. The politics of the passage are those of displacement and confusion, not clarity or engagement.
Power Dynamics Obscured: There is an implicit mockery of CRT’s concern with race and social structures, but without articulating an alternative analysis of power, race, or class. The critique thus lacks political substance and functions more as rhetorical dismissal than political argument.
Final Evaluation:
This text poses as a critique but operates primarily as rhetorical performance. It mixes playful metaphor with sarcastic dismissal, but fails to construct a logically coherent or historically accurate political argument. Its cleverness may entertain, but it ultimately obscures rather than reveals—turning potential critique into a labyrinth of innuendo and self-referential irony.
Mi permetto di consigliarLe di rileggere meglio la riflessione. Il punto di vista del grande filosofo Dugin su Heidegger è chiarissimo. Qualora non le bastasse, potrebbe consultare i numerosi studi che il grande filosofo Dugin ha dedicato a Martin Heidegger, che Egli considera uno dei pilastri fondamentali sui quali ha edificato la sua affascinante e maestosa cattedrale filosofica
Anna Maria. Thanks for your comment in beautiful Italian. I honestly have never been able to understand a single thing about Martin Heidegger and would love to be able so to do. Alexander spends most of this post talking about the Hegelian Marxist roots of 20th century Russian philosophy, and a quick review of the history of European philosophy since the renaissance, which story I already know quite well. I want to know what he thinks Heidegger meant and how that is relevant to post soviet Russia. I hope he will tell me in his next post.
Don’t believe you are living the truth of what is happening in US politics. In case you haven’t heard Soviet news in a while perhaps this update can help fill you in.
https://substack.com/@kimberlykeyes/note/c-106557019?r=2swu2q&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
**Critique of "The Possibility of Russian Philosophy"**
### **1. Philosophical Critique**
The text employs **postmodern frameworks** (Baudrillard’s simulacra, Spengler’s pseudomorphosis) to question Russian philosophy’s authenticity, framing it as derivative of Western thought. This risks **philosophical essentialism**, reducing Russian philosophy to a reactive phenomenon rather than recognizing its potential for synthesis or originality. By asserting that Russian philosophy must adopt Heidegger to achieve legitimacy, the author perpetuates a **Eurocentric hierarchy**, where validity depends on alignment with Western paradigms. The argument also conflates *influence* with *derivation*, dismissing dialogic traditions inherent to global philosophy (e.g., Confucianism’s engagement with Buddhism, Islamic philosophy’s synthesis of Greek thought).
### **2. Logical Critique**
The argument contains **circular reasoning**:
- Premise: Russian philosophy requires a Western "history of philosophy" framework (e.g., Hegel, Marx) to exist.
- Conclusion: Therefore, adopting Heidegger (another Western framework) will legitimize Russian philosophy.
This ignores the possibility of endogenous philosophical systems. Additionally, the claim that Marxism *caused* Soviet totalitarianism commits a **post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy**, oversimplifying socio-political causality. The binary framing—Russian philosophy is either a simulacrum or Heidegger-dependent—creates a **false dilemma**, excluding hybrid or independent trajectories.
### **3. Historical Critique**
The text **erases pre-Soviet Russian thought**, neglecting figures like Slavophiles (Khomyakov), religious philosophers (Solovyov, Berdyaev), and Silver Age thinkers who engaged uniquely with Orthodox theology and Russian identity. By reducing Soviet philosophy to Marxist dogmatics, it ignores dissident movements (e.g., Bakhtin’s dialogism, Losev’s neoplatonism). The focus on Hegel/Marx as Russia’s sole philosophical gateways overlooks alternative influences (e.g., German idealism’s broader impact, French Enlightenment thought). The assertion that Heidegger offers a "new beginning" replicates the 19th-century dependency on Hegel, perpetuating a **cyclical narrative of colonial intellectual dependency**.
### **4. Sociological Critique**
The text reflects **post-Soviet academic anxiety**, seeking Western validation to reclaim intellectual legitimacy. This mirrors Bourdieu’s concept of *cultural capital*, where Russian philosophy is deemed valuable only when aligned with dominant (Western) epistemic systems. The dismissal of non-institutional or indigenous thought (e.g., *sobornost*, Eurasianism) reinforces **academic elitism**, marginalizing grassroots or dissident traditions. The focus on Heidegger as a "savior" figure also reflects a **neocolonial mindset**, where non-Western philosophies are seen as incomplete without Western mentorship.
### **5. Syntactical/Grammatical Critique**
The prose is **overly dense**, with convoluted syntax (e.g., "The actuality of Western philosophy was the potentiality of Russian philosophy") and jargon-heavy passages ("hermeneutical base," "pseudomorphosis"). Key terms like *samobytnoy* (distinctive) culture are left untranslated, alienating non-Russian readers. Long, meandering sentences (e.g., "This circumstance compels us to refer to...") hinder clarity, while metaphors like the "magic tram" (Gumilev) assume niche cultural literacy.
### **6. Semiotic Critique**
The text constructs **binary oppositions**:
- *Authentic Western philosophy* vs. *derivative Russian simulacra*.
- *Total Marxist determinism* vs. *Heideggerian liberation*.
These binaries reinforce a **colonial semiotics**, positioning Russia as perpetually "catching up" to the West. The use of geological metaphors ("pseudomorphosis") naturalizes dependency, framing it as an inevitable cultural process. References to Heidegger as a "chance" and "key" semiotically align him with messianic figures, perpetuating a **salvation narrative**. Meanwhile, the absence of Russian philosophical symbols (e.g., icons, communal ethics) erases indigenous semiotic systems.
---
### **Conclusion**
While the text astutely diagnoses post-Soviet philosophical disorientation, it reinscribes **Eurocentric dependency** by prescribing another Western thinker (Heidegger) as Russia’s salvific framework. Its historical omissions, logical flaws, and colonial semiotics undermine the possibility of a self-determining Russian philosophy. A more equitable approach would:
1. Acknowledge Russia’s pre-Soviet and non-Marxist traditions.
2. Critique the colonial logic that ties legitimacy to Western approval.
3. Explore dialogic models (e.g., South-South intellectual exchanges, decolonial theory) to reimagine philosophy beyond Eurocentric hierarchies.
The possibility of Russian philosophy lies not in Heideggerian mimicry but in reclaiming and reinterpreting its heterodox heritage—*on its own terms*.
A prosaic example of the nonsense inherent in Marxian constructs. Prime example is the severe hypocrisy in claiming unreinforced jargon while using such terms as contemporary constructivist thought including Vygotsky and Bruner as if this proposes a coherent grounding. By also overweighting Grice the overall critique grinds into a spraying of spew.
Critique of the Response Using Philosophical, Logical, Historical, Sociological, Syntactical, Grammatical, and Semiotic Methodologies:
---
### 1. Philosophical Critique
The response dismisses "Marxian constructs" as "nonsense" and "hypocrisy" but fails to engage philosophically with Marx’s ideas (e.g., dialectical materialism, class struggle) or define what constitutes "nonsense." This reflects philosophical dogmatism rather than reasoned critique. By conflating Marxian theory with "contemporary constructivist thought" (Vygotsky, Bruner), the author commits a category error: Marxist critique focuses on political economy and social structures, while constructivism (rooted in psychology/education) addresses knowledge formation. The critique lacks coherence by treating distinct paradigms as interchangeable, undermining its philosophical rigor.
---
### 2. Logical Critique
The argument is riddled with logical fallacies:
- Straw Man: Misrepresents Marxian theory as "unreinforced jargon" without specifying which concepts are flawed or why.
- Ad Hominem: Uses pejorative terms ("spew," "hypocrisy") to attack the original text’s credibility rather than its content.
- Red Herring: Introduces Grice’s pragmatics (unrelated to Marxian theory) as a distraction.
- Hasty Generalization: Declares Marxian constructs "nonsense" based on undefined grievances.
The response lacks a logical structure, substituting reasoned analysis with polemical assertions.
---
### 3. Historical Critique
The critique ignores historical context:
- Marx’s work emerged from 19th-century industrial capitalism, addressing exploitation and alienation—issues still relevant today.
- Vygotsky and Bruner (20th-century constructivists) developed theories of learning, not political economy; conflating them with Marx ahistorically muddles disciplinary boundaries.
- Grice’s contributions to linguistic pragmatics (e.g., conversational maxims) are unrelated to Marxist theory, making their inclusion here ahistorical and confusing.
The response’s disregard for historical specificity renders its critique shallow and anachronistic.
---
### 4. Sociological Critique
The language ("spew," "nonsense") reflects anti-intellectual bias, dismissing complex theories without engaging their societal implications. This mirrors a broader sociological trend of reducing academic discourse to "jargon" to delegitimize critical frameworks (e.g., Marxism) that challenge power structures. By framing constructivism and Grice as "overweighted," the author privileges a populist disdain for specialized terminology, reinforcing anti-academic sentiment common in polarized discourse.
---
### 5. Syntactical Critique
The syntax is chaotic and elliptical, obscuring meaning:
- Fragmented phrasing: "Prime example is the severe hypocrisy in claiming unreinforced jargon..." lacks a subject-verb structure.
- Ambiguous modifiers: "overweighting Grice" is unclear—does this refer to overemphasis, misinterpretation, or something else?
- Mixed metaphors: "grinds into a spraying of spew" conflates mechanical and visceral imagery nonsensically.
The disjointed syntax mirrors the argument’s lack of coherence.
---
### 6. Grammatical Critique
The response contains grammatical errors that hinder clarity:
- Misuse of "unreinforced jargon": "Unreinforced" typically describes physical structures, not abstract concepts; "unsubstantiated" or "unexamined" would be more precise.
- Subject-verb disagreement: "By also overweighting Grice the overall critique grinds..." (should be "grind").
- Non-standard phrasing: "spraying of spew" is grammatically incoherent (spew is a mass noun; "spray of spew" would be more conventional).
These errors reflect carelessness, undermining the critique’s authority.
---
### 7. Semiotic Critique
The response deploys loaded signifiers to evoke disdain:
- "Marxian constructs": Semiotically linked to Cold War-era anti-communist rhetoric, framing Marxism as inherently flawed.
- "Spew": Connotes disgust, positioning the original text as morally/physically repulsive.
- "Hypocrisy": Implies moral failing rather than intellectual disagreement, weaponizing ethics to discredit.
By invoking Vygotsky, Bruner, and Grice as empty signifiers (without explaining their relevance), the author constructs a veneer of scholarly critique while avoiding substantive engagement.
---
### Conclusion
The response exemplifies reactionary anti-intellectualism, using polemic, logical fallacies, and semiotic manipulation to dismiss Marxian theory without meaningful engagement. Its flaws—ahistorical conflations, grammatical sloppiness, and sociological bias—render it a performative critique, more concerned with asserting superiority than fostering dialogue. A rigorous critique would:
1. Define terms ("Marxian constructs," "constructivism").
2. Contextualize theories historically and disciplinarily.
3. Engage specific arguments (e.g., Marx’s labor theory of value, Vygotsky’s scaffolding).
4. Replace ad hominem with evidence-based analysis.
Until then, the response remains a "spraying of spew"—precisely the incoherence it accuses others of.
**Critique of the Response Using Philosophical, Logical, Historical, Sociological, Syntactical, Grammatical, and Semiotic Methodologies:**
---
### **1. Philosophical Critique**
The response dismisses "Marxian constructs" as "nonsense" and "hypocrisy" but fails to engage philosophically with Marx’s ideas (e.g., dialectical materialism, class struggle) or define what constitutes "nonsense." This reflects **philosophical dogmatism** rather than reasoned critique. By conflating Marxian theory with "contemporary constructivist thought" (Vygotsky, Bruner), the author commits a **category error**: Marxist critique focuses on political economy and social structures, while constructivism (rooted in psychology/education) addresses knowledge formation. The critique lacks coherence by treating distinct paradigms as interchangeable, undermining its philosophical rigor.
---
### **2. Logical Critique**
The argument is riddled with **logical fallacies**:
- **Straw Man**: Misrepresents Marxian theory as "unreinforced jargon" without specifying which concepts are flawed or why.
- **Ad Hominem**: Uses pejorative terms ("spew," "hypocrisy") to attack the original text’s credibility rather than its content.
- **Red Herring**: Introduces Grice’s pragmatics (unrelated to Marxian theory) as a distraction.
- **Hasty Generalization**: Declares Marxian constructs "nonsense" based on undefined grievances.
The response lacks a **logical structure**, substituting reasoned analysis with polemical assertions.
---
### **3. Historical Critique**
The critique ignores **historical context**:
- Marx’s work emerged from 19th-century industrial capitalism, addressing exploitation and alienation—issues still relevant today.
- Vygotsky and Bruner (20th-century constructivists) developed theories of learning, not political economy; conflating them with Marx ahistorically muddles disciplinary boundaries.
- Grice’s contributions to linguistic pragmatics (e.g., conversational maxims) are unrelated to Marxist theory, making their inclusion here **ahistorical** and confusing.
The response’s disregard for historical specificity renders its critique shallow and anachronistic.
---
### **4. Sociological Critique**
The language ("spew," "nonsense") reflects **anti-intellectual bias**, dismissing complex theories without engaging their societal implications. This mirrors a broader **sociological trend** of reducing academic discourse to "jargon" to delegitimize critical frameworks (e.g., Marxism) that challenge power structures. By framing constructivism and Grice as "overweighted," the author privileges a populist disdain for specialized terminology, reinforcing **anti-academic sentiment** common in polarized discourse.
---
### **5. Syntactical Critique**
The syntax is **chaotic** and **elliptical**, obscuring meaning:
- Fragmented phrasing: "Prime example is the severe hypocrisy in claiming unreinforced jargon..." lacks a subject-verb structure.
- Ambiguous modifiers: "overweighting Grice" is unclear—does this refer to overemphasis, misinterpretation, or something else?
- Mixed metaphors: "grinds into a spraying of spew" conflates mechanical and visceral imagery nonsensically.
The disjointed syntax mirrors the argument’s lack of coherence.
---
### **6. Grammatical Critique**
The response contains **grammatical errors** that hinder clarity:
- Misuse of "unreinforced jargon": "Unreinforced" typically describes physical structures, not abstract concepts; "unsubstantiated" or "unexamined" would be more precise.
- Subject-verb disagreement: "By also overweighting Grice the overall critique grinds..." (should be "grind").
- Non-standard phrasing: "spraying of spew" is grammatically incoherent (spew is a mass noun; "spray of spew" would be more conventional).
These errors reflect carelessness, undermining the critique’s authority.
---
### **7. Semiotic Critique**
The response deploys **loaded signifiers** to evoke disdain:
- **"Marxian constructs"**: Semiotically linked to Cold War-era anti-communist rhetoric, framing Marxism as inherently flawed.
- **"Spew"**: Connotes disgust, positioning the original text as morally/physically repulsive.
- **"Hypocrisy"**: Implies moral failing rather than intellectual disagreement, weaponizing ethics to discredit.
By invoking Vygotsky, Bruner, and Grice as **empty signifiers** (without explaining their relevance), the author constructs a veneer of scholarly critique while avoiding substantive engagement.
---
### **Conclusion**
The response exemplifies **reactionary anti-intellectualism**, using polemic, logical fallacies, and semiotic manipulation to dismiss Marxian theory without meaningful engagement. Its flaws—ahistorical conflations, grammatical sloppiness, and sociological bias—render it a performative critique, more concerned with asserting superiority than fostering dialogue. A rigorous critique would:
1. Define terms ("Marxian constructs," "constructivism").
2. Contextualize theories historically and disciplinarily.
3. Engage specific arguments (e.g., Marx’s labor theory of value, Vygotsky’s scaffolding).
4. Replace ad hominem with evidence-based analysis.
Until then, the response remains a "spraying of spew"—precisely the incoherence it accuses others of.
Don’t see that Heidegger was the declension to identify Chomsky, do you?
Your constructivist kernel is too tightly wound upon the old guard pragmatics.
The provided statement is a densely constructed critique that attempts to engage with philosophical and linguistic ideas but suffers from significant issues in clarity, coherence, and conceptual grounding. Below is a detailed critique:
---
### **1. Ambiguity and Obscure Terminology**
The statement relies heavily on abstract, metaphorical language that obscures its meaning rather than illuminating it. Key terms like "declension," "constructivist kernel," and "old guard pragmatics" are either misapplied or left undefined:
- **"Declension"**: In linguistics, declension refers to the inflection of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives (e.g., grammatical case). Here, the term is used metaphorically but without clear intent. Is Heidegger being framed as a "grammatical decline" from Chomsky? A misstep in intellectual lineage? The metaphor is strained and unanchored in any explicit argument.
- **"Constructivist kernel"**: Constructivism typically refers to theories emphasizing the active role of agents in building knowledge or social systems (e.g., Piaget in psychology, Searle in social ontology). The phrase "constructivist kernel" is vague—does it denote a core tenet of constructivism? If so, how is it "too tightly wound"?
- **"Old guard pragmatics"**: Pragmatics, as a linguistic subfield, studies context-dependent meaning (e.g., Gricean implicature). The "old guard" could imply classical pragmatists (Peirce, James, Dewey) or mid-20th-century theorists (Austin, Grice), but this is unspecified. The critique lacks a target.
**Result**: The language creates an illusion of depth but fails to communicate a coherent thesis.
---
### **2. Unsubstantiated Connections Between Heidegger and Chomsky**
The sentence posits a relationship between Heidegger and Chomsky that is historically and philosophically tenuous:
- **Heidegger** (continental philosopher) focused on existential phenomenology, ontology, and critiques of technology. His work has little direct overlap with **Chomsky** (analytic philosopher/linguist), whose theories of universal grammar and innatism oppose constructivist approaches to language acquisition.
- The claim that Heidegger is a "declension to identify Chomsky" is baffling. If "declension" implies a flawed derivation, the author must explain how Heidegger’s ideas relate to Chomsky’s framework (e.g., innatism vs. Heideggerian hermeneutics). No such argument is provided.
**Result**: The juxtaposition of Heidegger and Chomsky reads as arbitrary name-dropping rather than a reasoned comparison.
---
### **3. Lack of Argumentative Structure**
The statement resembles a poetic provocation more than a logical argument:
- The rhetorical question ("Don’t see that..., do you?") assumes shared knowledge of a Heidegger-Chomsky connection that is neither obvious nor defended.
- The second sentence ("Your constructivist kernel...") critiques an unnamed interlocutor’s adherence to "old guard pragmatics" but offers no criteria for why this is problematic. What makes the "kernel" "too tightly wound"? What alternative is being proposed?
**Result**: The absence of evidence, examples, or logical progression renders the critique hollow.
---
### **4. Possible Misunderstandings of Constructivism and Pragmatics**
If interpreted charitably, the statement might aim to critique rigid adherence to classical pragmatism (e.g., Peirce’s semiotics or Grice’s maxims) in contrast to a more dynamic constructivist approach. However:
- **Constructivism** (e.g., Vygotsky, Bruner) often aligns with pragmatism in emphasizing context and interaction, so the tension implied here is unclear.
- The "old guard" label dismisses foundational thinkers without engaging their arguments or acknowledging their influence on contemporary constructivist thought.
**Result**: The critique risks appearing uninformed about the fields it references.
---
### **5. Stylistic Issues**
The prose is overwrought and alienating. Phrases like "too tightly wound upon" mix metaphors (mechanical tension? textile weaving?) without clarity. Such style sacrifices accessibility for rhetorical flourish.
---
### **Conclusion**
The statement fails as a critique due to its reliance on undefined jargon, unsupported assertions, and incoherent conceptual linkages. To improve, the author should:
1. Define key terms (e.g., "constructivist kernel," "declension").
2. Clarify the Heidegger-Chomsky relationship with historical/philosophical evidence.
3. Ground the critique in specific theories or scholars (e.g., contrast Chomsky’s innatism with Heideggerian hermeneutics).
4. Replace metaphorical vagueness with logical argumentation.
Until then, the critique remains an enigmatic collection of phrases rather than a meaningful intervention in philosophical or linguistic discourse.
Six is deep.
Please justify what you are stating with greater clarity.
Is greater clarity the suburbs of Clarence? What form of conjugation leads to this vicinity?
lesser clarity of conjugations leads to this vicinity
the suburbs of carelessness is lesser form
not greater …………
Subhuman labeling by the one who applies the tools of perverse criminals and pedophile elites under some nonsensical banner of socialist progress, Pravda!
Tools intended to destroy The Constitution and more importantly the character of the nation in which I was born.
A civilization state composed of immigrant people who saw The Confederacy as a threat and then went West decimating the indigenous people with little or no concerns of conscience. Becoming tools for oligarchs who profited from a Great War, followed by another, after which they allowed the eugenics madmen they defeated in Europe to take over the intelligence state to defeat the Red menace. While performing as horrific or worse experiments on human victims, promoting people like Fauci to lead a great scam to steal more from the poor and further enrich the oligarchs of pharmaceuticals who pay for the democratic socialist waste millionaire politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and wannabe AOC.
But tell me again why socialism is the great healer for the intelligence state that murdered the indigenous people and continues on as a greater enemy of man?
With great clarity so the bell rings and Clarence gets his wings.
**Critique of the Text Through Methodological Lenses**
**1. Political Critique:**
The text employs hyper-partisan rhetoric to vilify socialism by associating it with historical atrocities, corrupt elites, and conspiratorial narratives (e.g., "pedophile elites," "intelligence state"). This aligns with reactionary strategies to stoke fear of progressive policies by linking them to universally reviled groups. By name-checking figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC, the author targets contemporary progressive movements, framing them as complicit in a corrupt system. This tactic deflects from substantive policy debates and exploits polarization, appealing to audiences primed to distrust government and left-wing ideologies.
**2. Logical Critique:**
The argument is riddled with logical fallacies:
- **Guilt by association:** Connects socialism to eugenics, genocide, and pharmaceutical greed without evidence.
- **Non sequitur:** Asserts that historical U.S. expansion ("decimating indigenous people") is tied to modern socialism, ignoring centuries of ideological evolution.
- **Straw man:** Reduces socialism to a tool of oligarchs, ignoring its diverse implementations and principles.
- **Ad hominem:** Attacks figures like Fauci and Warren instead of engaging with policies.
The narrative lacks coherence, jumping between disparate events (Confederacy, WWII, modern politics) without establishing causal links.
**3. Sociological Critique:**
The text appeals to nativist and anti-establishment sentiments, framing the U.S. as a betrayed "civilization state" of immigrants. This taps into nostalgia for a mythologized past while weaponizing resentment against perceived elites ("pharmaceutical oligarchs," "millionaire politicians"). The us-vs-them dichotomy reinforces in-group solidarity among those distrustful of institutional power, while scapegoating socialism for systemic issues like inequality. However, it overlooks the structural roots of these issues (e.g., capitalism, colonialism) and simplifies complex social dynamics.
**4. Psychological Critique:**
Emotionally charged language ("subhuman," "horrific," "scam") triggers fear and anger, bypassing critical thinking. Conspiracy tropes (e.g., secretive elites, "great scam") exploit cognitive biases toward pattern-seeking and distrust of authority. The reference to Clarence (likely from *It’s a Wonderful Life*) invokes moral clarity, offering a simplistic narrative of good vs. evil. This rhetoric fosters a sense of urgency and righteousness, appealing to those who feel marginalized or disillusioned by mainstream politics.
**5. Geopolitical Critique:**
The text conflates distinct historical and global contexts:
- Misrepresents the post-WWII integration of ex-Nazi scientists into U.S. intelligence (Operation Paperclip) as a socialist plot, rather than a Cold War realist strategy.
- Equates European eugenics with American social policies, ignoring differing ideological roots.
- Reduces global pharmaceutical dynamics to a "scam" led by democratic socialists, disregarding multinational corporate influence and regulatory complexities.
The critique of socialism ignores its varied global manifestations (e.g., Nordic social democracy vs. Venezuelan authoritarianism) and oversimplifies geopolitical history.
**Conclusion:**
The text is a polemic that relies on inflammatory rhetoric, conspiratorial thinking, and historical revisionism to attack socialism. While it resonates emotionally with audiences predisposed to distrust government and elites, it collapses under methodological scrutiny due to its logical incoherence, sociological oversimplification, and geopolitical inaccuracies. Its primary function is not to persuade through reason but to reinforce existing biases and stoke ideological division.
so too …….. confusions ………..
Surprisingly, although a reference to your own numbered critiques should reference the numbered element quickly, the confusion comes from the Marxist notions that you present as if these had coherence or maybe even common sense bound to them.
Wasn’t long ago that I made the faux pas, Freudian slip? ( Heidegger cliff note?) in which I used conjured with respect to the CRT instructor whom I declare as my CRT instructor. Much akin to Mrs. Slocombe referring to my pussy.
Did my conjuring bring you to life?
Will you be my CRT instructor so I, too, can speak of cabbages and kings with the coherent Marxian theocracy you preach so ardently?
Logical Critique
Incoherence & Ambiguity: The passage is deliberately riddled with shifting metaphors, rhetorical flourishes, and sarcastic asides. While this may be stylistic, logically it impedes clarity. For instance, “Wasn’t long ago that I made the faux pas, Freudian slip? (Heidegger cliff note?)” is neither a coherent question nor a clearly stated idea—it throws multiple references together without logical connection.
Straw Man & Non Sequitur: The speaker implies that Marxist notions lack coherence or common sense, but gives no specific examples or logical rebuttal. This constitutes a straw man fallacy, attacking a caricature of Marxism rather than engaging with its actual content. Similarly, “Did my conjuring bring you to life?” is a non sequitur—there is no causal connection established between a metaphorical “conjuring” and the interlocutor’s supposed ideological stance.
Category Error: Referring to a “Marxian theocracy” is conceptually flawed. Marxist theory is explicitly anti-theocratic and materialist. To accuse it of being a theocracy is either an intentional oxymoron for rhetorical effect or a misunderstanding.
Historical Critique
Marxism Misrepresented: Marxist traditions are diverse (from Lenin to Althusser to Frankfurt School), and to suggest they are incoherent en masse ignores the historical complexity and intellectual rigor of the tradition. The term “Marxian theocracy” also distorts historical Marxism, which critiques both capitalist and religious authority structures.
CRT (Critical Race Theory): CRT is a late-20th-century framework rooted in legal studies, not Marxism per se, although it sometimes overlaps with Marxian critiques of power. To equate CRT with Marxist “preaching” or to frame it as religiously dogmatic overlooks its academic roots and methodological diversity.
• Pop Culture Reference: The invocation of “Mrs. Slocombe referring to my pussy” (from Are You Being Served?) introduces British sitcom humor into what pretends to be a philosophical or political argument, further muddying its historical seriousness.
Political Critique
Ideological Irony: The speaker adopts a tone of ironic detachment, mocking the perceived ideological fervor of the interlocutor while themselves engaging in ideological ridicule. This erodes any neutral ground for debate and turns political critique into mere parody.
Authorial Voice as Displacement: By referencing conjuring, CRT, Freudian slips, and cabbages and kings (from Lewis Carroll), the speaker veers into a surrealist polemic that avoids accountability. The politics of the passage are those of displacement and confusion, not clarity or engagement.
Power Dynamics Obscured: There is an implicit mockery of CRT’s concern with race and social structures, but without articulating an alternative analysis of power, race, or class. The critique thus lacks political substance and functions more as rhetorical dismissal than political argument.
Final Evaluation:
This text poses as a critique but operates primarily as rhetorical performance. It mixes playful metaphor with sarcastic dismissal, but fails to construct a logically coherent or historically accurate political argument. Its cleverness may entertain, but it ultimately obscures rather than reveals—turning potential critique into a labyrinth of innuendo and self-referential irony.
sempre A. I. .....!???
referencias semprissimas ……….. ?
Haha - I read the whole thing hoping to get your take on Heidegger but you ended without revealing it. Next episode please Alexander.
Mi permetto di consigliarLe di rileggere meglio la riflessione. Il punto di vista del grande filosofo Dugin su Heidegger è chiarissimo. Qualora non le bastasse, potrebbe consultare i numerosi studi che il grande filosofo Dugin ha dedicato a Martin Heidegger, che Egli considera uno dei pilastri fondamentali sui quali ha edificato la sua affascinante e maestosa cattedrale filosofica
Anna Maria. Thanks for your comment in beautiful Italian. I honestly have never been able to understand a single thing about Martin Heidegger and would love to be able so to do. Alexander spends most of this post talking about the Hegelian Marxist roots of 20th century Russian philosophy, and a quick review of the history of European philosophy since the renaissance, which story I already know quite well. I want to know what he thinks Heidegger meant and how that is relevant to post soviet Russia. I hope he will tell me in his next post.