Symptoms
رفتن به کانال در Telegram
Symptomatic amalgamation of readings and highlights from a variety of areas: philosophy, clinical psychoanalysis, literature, art history, political theory, and everything in between. www.jouissance.net @DivyaRanjan1905
نمایش بیشتر3 204
مشترکین
-124 ساعت
+167 روز
+8730 روز
در حال بارگیری داده...
کانالهای مشابه
ابر برچسبها
اشارات ورودی و خروجی
---
---
---
---
---
---
جذب مشترکین
اوت '26
اوت '26
+141
در 1 کانالها
ژوئیه '26
+100
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '26
+124
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '26
+109
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '26
+86
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '26
+55
در 2 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '26
+51
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '26
+69
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '25
+69
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '25
+93
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '25
+123
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '25
+34
در 1 کانالها
Get PRO
اوت '25
+40
در 3 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '25
+92
در 3 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '25
+128
در 7 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '25
+101
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '25
+32
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '25
+86
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '25
+83
در 6 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '25
+122
در 8 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '24
+109
در 6 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '24
+200
در 10 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '24
+180
در 3 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '24
+181
در 10 کانالها
Get PRO
اوت '24
+171
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '24
+168
در 13 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '24
+215
در 11 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '24
+151
در 8 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '24
+135
در 4 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '24
+115
در 3 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '24
+177
در 9 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '24
+190
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '23
+200
در 7 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '23
+82
در 10 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '23
+56
در 5 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '23
+41
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
اوت '23
+60
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '23
+53
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژوئن '23
+118
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مه '23
+63
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
آوریل '23
+143
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
مارس '23
+45
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
فوریه '23
+29
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
ژانویه '23
+57
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
دسامبر '22
+56
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
نوامبر '22
+125
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
اکتبر '22
+65
در 0 کانالها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '22
+271
در 0 کانالها
| تاریخ | رشد مشترکین | اشارات | کانالها | |
| 27 اوت | +1 | |||
| 26 اوت | +1 | |||
| 25 اوت | +3 | |||
| 24 اوت | +5 | |||
| 23 اوت | +2 | |||
| 22 اوت | +6 | |||
| 21 اوت | +4 | |||
| 20 اوت | +4 | |||
| 19 اوت | +5 | |||
| 18 اوت | +8 | |||
| 17 اوت | +3 | |||
| 16 اوت | +9 | |||
| 15 اوت | +6 | |||
| 14 اوت | +34 | |||
| 13 اوت | +3 | |||
| 12 اوت | +5 | |||
| 11 اوت | +3 | |||
| 10 اوت | +2 | |||
| 09 اوت | +5 | |||
| 08 اوت | +5 | |||
| 07 اوت | +3 | |||
| 06 اوت | +5 | |||
| 05 اوت | +5 | |||
| 04 اوت | +3 | |||
| 03 اوت | +6 | |||
| 02 اوت | +4 | |||
| 01 اوت | +1 |
پستهای کانال
But have we forgotten the first contacts of our early youth with genius? We never deliberately chose anything; we had successive, or simultaneous, enthusiasms, often quite incompatible with each other. What young poet ever chose between Baudelaire and Jean Aicard (or even Théophile Gautier)? What novelist between Dostoevski and Dumas (or even Dickens)? What painter between Delacroix and Cormon (or even Decamps)? What musician between Mozart and Donizetti (or even Mendelssohn)? Tristan did not choose between Isolde and the lady beside her. Every young man’s heart is a graveyard in which are inscribed the names of a thousand dead artists but whose only actual denizens are a few mighty, often antagonistic, ghosts.
André Malraux, Voices of Silence (1974)
| 2 | Erdmut_Wizisla_Walter_Benjamin_and_Bertolt_Brecht_The_Story_of_a.pdf | 182 |
| 3 |  بدون متن... | 187 |
| 4 |  بدون متن... | 193 |
| 5 |  Jalal al-Din Rumi, Masnavi | 312 |
| 6 | I say down with British Imperialism. You say India do not have peace. We have only slavery. Generations of so called civilization has brought for us everything filthy and degenerating known to the human race. All you have to do is read your own history. If you have any human decency about you, you should die with shame. The brutality and bloodthirsty way in which the so called intellectuals who call themselves rulers of civilization in the world are of bastard blood...
[....]
'I am standing before an English jury. I am in an English court. You people go to India and when you come back you are given a prize and put in the House of Commons. We come to England and we are sentenced to death.'
'I never meant anything; but I will take it. I do not care anything about it, but when you dirty dogs come to India there comes a time when you will be cleaned out of India. All your British Imperialism will be smashed.'
'Machine guns on the streets of India mow down thousands of poor women and children wherever your so-called flag of democracy and Christianity flies.'
'Your conduct, your conduct - I am talking about the British government. I have nothing against the English people at all. I have more English friends living in England than I have in India. I have great sympathy with the workers of England. I am against the Imperialist Government.'
'You people are suffering - workers. Everyone is suffering through these dirty dogs; these mad beasts. India is only slavery. Killing, mutilating and destroying - British Imperialism. People do not read about it in the papers. We know what is going on in India.'
Last Words of Udham Singh (Ram Mohammad Singh Azad) | 665 |
| 7 |  بدون متن... | 673 |
| 8 | Guattari & Negri, New Lines of Alliance, New Spaces of Liberty (1985) | 653 |
| 9 |  بدون متن... | 624 |
| 10 |  Antonio Negry, Marx and Foucault (2017) | 513 |
| 11 | Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.
Immanuel Kant, Idea for a General History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (1784) | 675 |
| 12 | Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion. Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters. It does not explain the roots of religion profoundly enough; it explains them, not in a materialist but in an idealist way. In modern capitalist countries these roots are mainly social. The deepest root of religion today is the socially downtrodden condition of the working masses and their apparently complete helplessness in face of the blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage torment, a thousand times more severe than those inflicted by extra-ordinary events, such as wars, earthquakes, etc. “Fear made the gods.”Fear of the blind force of capital—blind because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of the people—a force which at every step in the life of the proletarian and small proprietor threatens to inflict, and does inflict “sudden”, “unexpected”, “accidental” ruin, destruction, pauperism, prostitution, death from starvation—such is the root of modern religion which the materialist must bear in mind first and foremost, if he does not want to remain an infant-school materialist. No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way.
V.I. Lenin, The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion (1909) | 797 |
| 13 | \We are here at the very nerve center of the liberal ideology: the ruling ideology endeavors to sell us the very insecurity caused by the dismantling of the Welfare State as the opportunity for new freedoms. You have to change job every year, relying on short-term contracts instead of a long-term stable appointment? Why not see it as the liberation from the constraints of a fixed job, as the chance to reinvent yourself again and again, to become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your personality? You can no longer rely on the standard health insurance and retirement plan, so that you have to opt for additional coverage for which you have to pay? Why not perceive it as an additional opportunity to choose: either better life now or long-term security? And if this predicament causes you anxiety, the postmodern or "second modernity" ideologist will immediately accuse you of being unable to assume full freedom, of the "escape from freedom," of the immature sticking to old stable forms... Even better, when this is inscribed into the ideology of the subject as the psychological individual pregnant with natural abilities and tendencies, then I as if were automatically interpret all these changes as the results of my personality, not as the result of me being thrown around by the market forces.
Slavoj Zizek, C'est mon choix... to Burn Cars (2005) | 558 |
| 14 | Herein, the fundamental lesson of Lacan consists. It is true that any object can occupy the empty place of the Thing, but it can do so only by means of the illusion that it was always already there, i.e., that it was not put there by us but found there as an "answer of the real." Although any object can function as the object-cause of desire, insofar as the power of fascination it exerts is not its immediate property but results from the place it occupies in the structure, we must by structural necessity fall prey to the illusion that the power of fascination belongs to the object as such. This structural necessity enables us to approach the classic Pascalian-Marxian description of the logic of "fetishistic inversion" in interpersonal relationships from a new perspective. The subjects think they treat a certain person as a king because he is already in himself a king, while in reality this person is king only insofar as the subjects treat him like one. Pascal and Marx stress the fact that the king's charisma is not an immediate property of the person-king, but a "reflexive determination" of the comportment of his subjects. To use the terms of speech-act-theory, the king is a performative effect of his subjects' symbolic ritual. The crucial point is, however, that a positive, necessary condition for this performative effect to take place is that the king's charisma be experienced precisely as an immediate property of the person-king. The moment the subjects take cognizance of the fact that the king's charisma is a performative effect of their symbolic ritual, this very effect is aborted. In other words, if we want to "subtract" the fetishistic inversion and produce the performative effect in its pure form, the performative power itself fades away.
Slavoj Zizek, The Real and Its Vicissitudes (1989) | 723 |
| 15 | Metalanguage is not just an Imaginary entity. It is Real in the strict Lacanian sense. That is, it is impossible to occupy its position. But, Lacan adds, it is even more difficult to simply avoid it. One cannot attain it, but one also cannot escape it. That is why the only way to avoid the Real is to produce an utterance of pure metalanguage which, by its patent absurdity, materializes its own impossibility; that is, a paradoxical element which, in its very identity embodies absolute otherness, the irreparable gap, that makes it impossible to occupy a metalanguage position. For Derrida, the localization of the lack in its mark is supposed to tame the “dissemination” of the process of writing while, for Lacan, only the presence of such a paradoxical “at least one” sustains the radical dimension of the gap.
Slavoj Zizek, Why Lacan is Not a "Post-Structuralist" (1987) | 432 |
| 16 | The Socratic method is thus a perfected form of stultification. Like all learned masters, Socrates interrogates in order to instruct. But whoever wishes to emancipate someone must interrogate him in the manner of men and not in the manner of scholars, in order to be instructed, not to instruct. And that can only be performed by someone who effectively knows no more than the student, who has never made the voyage before him: the ignorant master. There’s no risk of this master sparing the child the time necessary to account for the word Calypso. But what does he have to do with Calypso and how would he even understand anything about it? Let’s forget Calypso for a moment. Who is the child who hasn’t heard the Lord’s Prayer, who hasn’t learned the words by heart? In this way the thing is found, and the poor and ignorant father who wants to teach his son to read will not be embarrassed. He will certainly find some obliging person in the neighborhood, someone literate enough to copy the prayer for him. With this, the father or the mother can begin the child’s instruction by asking him where the word Our is. “If the child is attentive, he will say that the first word on the paper must be Our, since it is the first word in the sentence. Father will necessarily be the second word; the child will be able to compare, distinguish, know these two words and recognize them everywhere.” Who is the father or mother who would not know how to ask the child, struggling with the text of the prayer, what he sees, what he makes of it or what he can say about it, and what he thinks about what he’s saying or doing? It’s the same way he would ask a neighbor about the tool he holds in his hand and how it is used. To teach what one doesn’t know is simply to ask questions about what one doesn’t know. Science isn’t needed to ask such questions. The ignorant one can ask anything, and for the voyager in the land of signs, his questions alone will be true questions compelling the autonomous exercise of his intelligence.
Jacques Rancière, The Ignorant Schoolmaster (1987) | 525 |
| 17 | The Socratic method is thus a perfected form of stultification. Like all learned masters, Socrates interrogates in order to instruct. But whoever wishes to emancipate someone must interrogate him in the manner of men and not in the manner of scholars, in order to be instructed, not to instruct. And that can only be performed by someone who effectively knows no more than the student, who has never made the voyage before him: the ignorant master. There’s no risk of this master sparing the child the time necessary to account for the word Calypso. But what does he have to do with Calypso and how would he even understand anything about it? Let’s forget Calypso for a moment. Who is the child who hasn’t heard the Lord’s Prayer, who hasn’t learned the words by heart? In this way the thing is found, and the poor and ignorant father who wants to teach his son to read will not be embarrassed. He will certainly find some obliging person in the neighborhood, someone literate enough to copy the prayer for him. With this, the father or the mother can begin the child’s instruction by asking him where the word Our is. “If the child is attentive, he will say that the first word on the paper must be Our, since it is the first word in the sentence. Father will necessarily be the second word; the child will be able to compare, distinguish, know these two words and recognize them everywhere.” Who is the father or mother who would not know how to ask the child, struggling with the text of the prayer, what he sees, what he makes of it or what he can say about it, and what he thinks about what he’s saying or doing? It’s the same way he would ask a neighbor about the tool he holds in his hand and how it is used. To teach what one doesn’t know is simply to ask questions about what one doesn’t know. Science isn’t needed to ask such questions. The ignorant one can ask anything, and for the voyager in the land of signs, his questions alone will be true questions compelling the autonomous exercise of his intelligence.
Jacques Rancière, The Ignorant Schoolmaster (1987) | 2 |
| 18 |  Jacques Rancière, The Ignorant Schoolmaster (1987) | 593 |
| 19 |  Jacques Rancière, The Ignorant Schoolmaster (1987) | 644 |
| 20 | This was not a method for instructing the people; it was a benefit to be announced to the poor: they could do everything any man could. It sufficed only to announce it. Jacotot decided to devote himself to this. He proclaimed that one could teach what one didn’t know, and that a poor and ignorant father could, if he was emancipated, conduct the education of his children, without the aid of any master explicator. And he indicated the way of that “universal teaching”— to learn something and to relate to it all the rest by this principle: all men have equal intelligence.
Jacques Rancière, The Ignorant Schoolmaster (1987) | 476 |
