In the meantime, however, I would suggest to continue to render apparatuses of social control inoperative — thewonder
Foucault was often credited for the conception "apparatus", I think. So let's settle on that. What repulsed the readers, if not the scholars, of political philosophy is, the word itself is meant to be a warning, a sinister existence both physical and psychological. We're in a matrix, so to speak. And there is a network or networks of structures in place already planned and designed for you -- you believe you're thinking for yourself, you're a free agent, you plan for the future, the results of your hard work and time spent is all credited to you. But you don't see that there's an apparatus, a machination, running in the background that's already planned your actions and decisions. Look up the docile bodies.the text where this idea is outlined by Michel Foucault, and am somewhat hesitant to use Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's terminology from the text that I have read, A Thousand Plateaus, but, I am willing to posit that social control is primarily secured and maintained through the utilization of various apparatuses. — thewonder
This could be unintentional. We can argue that the intent of the apparatuses is to protect the establishment itself. Remember, the machinations relegates humans as subjects, including the ones operating the machines. This is a horrifying thing to say if we actually let this discussion go down that path.You can think of one as an aggregated set of machinations that get people to act in a manner that is beneficial to the set of people who design them. — thewonder
Too late. The machination is in place. I haven't read @Apollodorus post about this. But if he could post it here, that can help.What I am further willing to posit is that much of what is actually happening within both the realms of the political and the social is that such an automated form of control has been attempted to have been put into effect and more or less everyone else is attempting to render it inoperative. — thewonder
When nothing is done, then all will be well. — Lao Tzu
I haven't read @Apollodorus post about this. But if he could post it here, that can help. — Caldwell
what the apparatuses are through which control is exerted, how they operate, and who controls them. — Apollodorus
Habermas calls such "steering media" - money and power for example — Pantagruel
There is no "who", the apparatuses are automatic -- like I said, even the actors in it are unaware of the machinations.I tend to be of the opinion that in order to render social control inoperative it would be necessary to identify what the apparatuses are through which control is exerted, how they operate, and who controls them. — Apollodorus
There is no "who", the apparatuses are automatic -- like I said, even the actors in it are unaware of the machinations. — Caldwell
A person's mind is the only that they have to live with at all times. You can only seek to liberate it. That's kind of a speculative theory, though. — thewonder
I read some Habermas ages ago, but can't remember any of it as of right now. Maybe I should look back into it? — thewonder
For all of the critiques there are to make of Marxists, it's not as if they never have perceptive ideas. — thewonder
Habermas' theory of communicative action is much more anthropological.You can if you want, but I doubt it's worth it. To me Habermas sounds just like neo-Marxism phrased slightly differently to the usual stuff. — Apollodorus
Habermas' theory of communicative action is much more anthropological. — Pantagruel
there being further and further automation over social and political life. — thewonder
There is no "who", the apparatuses are automatic -- like I said, even the actors in it are unaware of the machinations. — Caldwell
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.