Is Hauntology basically accurate...

I mean yes, it's basically accurate. But as you can imagine it falls prey to the very rule it observes: it is itself only a rehashing of a more fundamental movement inaugurated by Heidegger, and built upon by Levinas. Derrida wasn't the first guy to acknowledge that we're trapped within the perdurable forms of previous thinkers.

Can you explain what that is?

I don't know how this is a new thing. People have been rehashing old stuff since ever. And same with being haunted by lost futures. Not that I don't really agree with it

>tfw reading Fisher

Attached: G1F1ECNh.jpg (935x1024, 153K)

>wikipedia influences section
there is no connection to hauntology there that isn't painfully superficial and banal

That story that you can still see the Buddha's shadow in a cave in India. Basically the lingering influence of culturally anchored ideas long after we should be over them. Like the death of God. We still seem to have religion around, but in reality we are just doing the movements. We can't help it either because we are mostly products of cultures.

Attached: alpha7.jpg (450x645, 134K)

even the wikipedia article states Fisher was influenced by Baudrillard because it's common fucking knowledge, that's the point

The issue is that it feels worse somehow. We can't seem to be able to create much culture, just rehash the old. It feels like a slow rot.

Jesus. Hauntology is painfully superficial and banal, and you're insufferable.

Idk. I like Sloterdijk's anthropotechnics and Foucault's Care of Self -- too bad he discovered that too late, hopefully it is not too late for I. I find the post-modern / structuralist interpretation of Plato stunning. My head dizzies in disbelief of the ultimate heresies unwittingly revealed by traditionalism. And I know not where to head. Hume and Kant are the 18th century's greatest philosophers. Hegel is the giant of the 19th. Heidegger and Wittgenstein are the greatest of the 20th. But somehow, if you count psychology, Lacan kinda decoded it all -- if you believe his lies. And what of the 21st? Badiou and Zizek are picking up the pieces. Derrida and all the rest are worth reading too. A line can be traced from Germany to France. Perhaps they were Rosicrucian mystics. Probably not. More like Hyppolite, Kojeve, Sartre. But Benjamin mighta been a Christian Theosophist. Who the fuck knows. One time a person told me that Spinoza was secretlt a black Jew. Plato had a black soul. There is some younger part of me that feels kinship with situationism. Vaneigem and Debord made my heart soar. But that dream is dead. Once, Baudrillard fucked me up on acid at Disneyland. Deleuze is the devil upon my shoulder. I have been homeless, schizophrenic, addicted to drugs. Now I am in school. But I find it boring. Me and Nick land are among the few individuals to fully understand the implications of Deleuzean thought and achieve the BwO. It is no coincidence that we both went insane soon after. Six visits to the psych ward later after deterritorializing myself with hardcore psychedelics, I have now returned to the fold of Platonism. The ethics of difference, it would seem, end only in a padded cell or a coffin. For my mother's sake, I now adhere to virtue ethics. Kinda miss fucking bipolar scene sluts but then again that's probably how I ended up with HIV. I only hope my future wife can forgive me my immature philosophical infatuation. Without a God, or with Science as my God, I no longer believe in Lemurian Time Sorcery. I suppose in some sense it is important to branch out to the wider humanities. Theories of magic and religion interest me. Need to find more on madness and mysticism. Bataille is good. I find myself also increasingly analytic. Mayhaps even dialetheistic. Tho I use that word in an atypical sense. In more ways than one. Back to Fisher, mayhaps an excess of empathy. He is unoriginal. The philosopher of the event that never arrives. Hardly an event. Have you no spirit? No discernment? I suggest more serious philosophers. The event comes. Me and others like me shall be its herald. Future philosophers of the hypermodern anglosphere. The results will surprise leftists and rightists.

Upon reaching this insight, a healthy philosophical discipline would perhaps look to neurobiology and expand the thesis, deepening it by connecting it to structures in the brain and human evolution. But instead, we get
>muh capitalism

I think it's more about lamenting a future that never came to be. You see /pol/ doing it a lot through cringey "fashwave" images

Attached: 235235.jpg (540x540, 87K)

Fisher is especially guilty of this. I generally quite like him (even though I'm not a leftist). Mark's idea that capitalism is the cause of mental illness is one of the most bizarre ideas of ever seen put down in writing. He was incredibly scared of looking at anything from outside his ideological lens.

He is talking more about Communists since it's hard to be haunted by a capitalist future when we already live under it

Not an inaccurate description I'd say.

Jesus christ any fucking "wave" image makes me want to puke

How can you not acknowledge capitalism as influence in mental health? Technology, commerce, social stratification, there all tied together and their all forces which tend to individualise and hierarchicalise based on a willingness to serve capital.

I suppose I'm just an old school marxist here. Like whatever economic base you have is going to determine someones psyche. Your gonna think differently if you grow potatoes to survive or are a Kardashian, see what I mean?

>because we can't get over the old?
...Because our culture has reached an end-state and can't CONCEIVE of anything new.

>How can you not
I suppose because every possible economic system will effect mental health somehow.
The existence of capital markets is but one factor effecting mental health within the enormously complex machinations of our experience of the world

Capital is king, tho, that is his point.

approve this manifestation of the paean in my honour,

firstly i'd like to point out that this is a strictly superficial occurrence. it reflects only the expression of a vanity on my part. nonetheless i'm called here before you today, spectrally it is worth pointing out in parenthesis, to undertake to extrapolate on the directivity of the sense in which I attempt to throw light upon the storied of haunting, or being haunted in some sense ideologically or perhaps metaphysically.

The notion of Hauntology's accuracy is a question of the direction in which it points. Already we encounter difficulty becomes the nature of hauntology is to look behind but at the same time inward, into the past, to know the past as thesis of the present. Do we give first order to this reversal, the former, or the inversion, the latter? Neither by them self will do clearly. Always in notions in which actuality intercedes there is never any room for indeterminacy. We can only speak towards hauntology's accuracy in the mode of its operative beginning within us. the moment we attempt to question it authentically it inverts us and provokes in us the inescapable inevitability of our nostalgias. Who cannot say that the imaginary symbolism at play in our day-dreams are not simply nostalgias that have been turned inside out temporally? We grasp for the past in order to sustain ourselves in the distance from the integration with our potential futures.

i'm bored now..

Attached: derrida.jpg (460x276, 35K)

>How can you not acknowledge capitalism as influence in mental health?
I didn't say it isn't. I'm just pointing out Mark's brainlet point that capitalism is the soul cause of mental health issues.