April192014

It is against this Christian background that one should read Che Guevara’s well-known statement on revolutionary love:

“At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think o a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality.”

There is a further step to be made here. Guevara’s statement that “the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love” should be read together with his much more problematic statement on revolutionaries as “killing machines”: “Hatred is an element of struggle; relentless hatred of the enemy that impels us over and beyond the natural limitations of man and transforms us into effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machines. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.” These two apparently opposite stances are united in Che’s motto: ”Hay que endurecerse sin perder jamás la ternura. (One must endure – become hard, toughen oneself - without losing tenderness.)” I think Guevara is here basically paraphrasing Christ’s declaration of the unity of love and sword. In both cases, the underlying paradox is that what makes love angelic, what elevates it over mere unstable, pathetic sentimentality is its cruelty itself, its link with violence. So while Guevara certainly believed in the transformative power of love, he would have never been caught humming “all you need is love”, what you need is to love with hatred. Or as, another strange bedfellow, Soren Kierkegaard put it long ago, the necessary consequence, the truth of the Christian demand to love one’s enemy is “the demand to hate the beloved out of love and in love”. To such an extreme madness, humanly speaking, can Christianity drive its demand, if love is to be the fulfillment of the law. Therefore it teaches that the Christian must, if required, be capable of hating his father and mother and sister and the beloved.”

With regard to social order this means that the authentic Christian tradition rejects the wisdom that the hierarchic order is our faith, that all attempts to mess with it and to create another egalitarian order have to end up in destructive horror. Agape as political love, and following Terry Eagleton this is how I would propose to translate Agape, means that the unconditional, egalitarian love for one’s neighbor can serve as the foundation for a new social order.

Zizek, Love as a Political Category [X] (via sergeiparajanov)
8PM
aconversationoncool:

John Coltrane’s Handwritten Outline for A Love Supreme

aconversationoncool:

John Coltrane’s Handwritten Outline for A Love Supreme

(via fluidstaccato)

6PM
“I despise the kind of book that tells you … how to make yourself happy! The first duty of philosophy is making you understand what deep shit you are in.” Slavoj Žižek (via blackestdespondency)

(via saint-bmo)

5PM
3PM
“I like the cake because…who I love likes it and I want to impress them. Desire is…intersubjective, it is never simply me and the object.” Slavoj Zizek (via alterities)

(via glittecclesia-butt-gayer)

1PM

erikkwakkel:
Sharing a binding
This is a clever book from the 18th century, printed in Oxford in 1756. It presents both the Old and New Testament, although the books are not bound together the regular way, behind one another. Instead, the binder opted to place them next to each other. This very rare binding technique is part of a family that includes the dos-à-dos (or “back to back”) binding, which I blogged about before (here). Having the two testaments bound this way allowed the reader to consult passages from both books at the same time. Indeed, the empty pages in the front and back are filled with notes, including in Greek and Hebrew. It appears this clever binding had a reader to match.
Pic: Manchester, Chetham’s Library (source).

erikkwakkel:

Sharing a binding

This is a clever book from the 18th century, printed in Oxford in 1756. It presents both the Old and New Testament, although the books are not bound together the regular way, behind one another. Instead, the binder opted to place them next to each other. This very rare binding technique is part of a family that includes the dos-à-dos (or “back to back”) binding, which I blogged about before (here). Having the two testaments bound this way allowed the reader to consult passages from both books at the same time. Indeed, the empty pages in the front and back are filled with notes, including in Greek and Hebrew. It appears this clever binding had a reader to match.

Pic: Manchester, Chetham’s Library (source).

(via standingonhispromises)

April182014
kiwp:

 

Eid prayers in the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip.

kiwp:

 

Eid prayers in the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip.

(via dialectical-putty)

8PM
6PM
“Social reforms are never carried out by the weakness of the strong; but always by the strength of the weak.” Karl Marx (via bmorepinko)

(via theamazingcommie)

5PM
ugh, this is so scientifically illiterate.
Every educated person in the 15th century knew the earth was round (you can see its shape during eclipses, and pretty much every culture had noticed.
Alternative theories against gravity (e.g. theories based on falling weight or density sorting) had equal difficulty explaining flight.
The most vigorous critiques of Darwinism in the 19th century were scientific, not religious, religious opposition to Darwinism didn’t gain much steam until the 20th century.

ugh, this is so scientifically illiterate.

  • Every educated person in the 15th century knew the earth was round (you can see its shape during eclipses, and pretty much every culture had noticed.
  • Alternative theories against gravity (e.g. theories based on falling weight or density sorting) had equal difficulty explaining flight.
  • The most vigorous critiques of Darwinism in the 19th century were scientific, not religious, religious opposition to Darwinism didn’t gain much steam until the 20th century.

(Source: cartoonpolitics, via sextus--empiricus)

4PM
3PM
nietzscheisdead:

more cryptic signifiers that the the rudimentary proto-technologies are beginning to awaken

everytime this is on my wall, I feel obligated to shout it loudly. 

nietzscheisdead:

more cryptic signifiers that the the rudimentary proto-technologies are beginning to awaken

everytime this is on my wall, I feel obligated to shout it loudly. 

(Source: luciferianliberationfront, via uvreactiveone)

1PM

hoodbypussy:

Évolution inversée

(via dialectical-putty)

9AM

Modal Trinit/Arian-ism

breathe-pilotinspector:

God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in a primordial state as the absolute, undifferentiated ONE.
The Father creates the Son, and thereby Himself, as an individual entity through a process of differentiation.
The Father undergoes a kenotic process of self-emptying and self-extinction, collapsing into the Son in the Incarnation.
The Son subsequently undergoes further kenosis, taking the Father through a second kenotic experience, at the Crucifixion, in which Father and Son together experience absolute Death and sublation into the Holy Spirit, generated by the Father through the Son.

You should check out Jacob Boehme, this is very similar to his theory of trinitarian distinction (he was a big influence on Hegel).

12AM

So let me get this straight

dictatorshipofthekingdom:

Existentialist/Phenomenologist/Philosophical followers help me out.

The difference between Ontotheology and Theology is that the former explores being, correct?

So, it wouldn’t be a stretch that Ontotheology is more continental/deconstructive, while regular theological is more traditional/empirical?

In which case, I think I could get down with Ontotheology

Ontotheology is just the word that post-heideggerians use to make fun of theology tbh. Very few thinkers use it with any real nuance. 

← Older entries Page 1 of 357