⊹˚.࿐ ࿔ Avi ‧₊˚༉❀

★ Introduction 𝜗ৎ ⋆˚꩜｡

﹒＋ Hello all! My name is Avi and I am a veritably autistic 15-year-old with a particular liking for philosophy and political theory. I am agender, but I am biologically male--an important facet of my lived experiences in a political context--and go referentially by he/him pronouns (I don’t mind the use of any, however); I am from Venezuela and can speak both English (native) and Spanish (native). ⋆°.

﹒＋ My political beliefs are dominated by Marxism first and foremost, but to list most of them: communism, xenofeminism/Marxist-feminism, intersectionality, leftism, anti-imperialism/colonialism, anti-Zionism, anti-westernism, gender abolitionism, left accelerationism (partially), and critical theory. I am not a radical feminist, but I have adjacent politics. ⋆°.

﹒＋ My philosophical beliefs are quite fluctuant and relative to what I read at the time, but my most consistently held ones are: dialectical materialism, existentialism, poststructuralism, determinism, antitheism (predominantly in reference to Abrahamic faith), Kantian ethics, and Hegelianism. ⋆°.

﹒＋ On this blog I primarily post political or philosophical takes of mine, usually in the form of essays or polemic rants, alongside other miscellaneous content which peaks my interest. I am always open for debate on either politics or philosophy, and if you'd like to engage in one then send me an ask or DM prompting such! I also write poetry on Instagram, and I have a communist reading list. ⋆°.

•.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.••´¨`•.¸¸.••.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.•

Thank you!!

8. What’s currently on my mind is the absolute evil of the psychiatric industry, an idea brought about by my reading of ‘A Clockwork Orange,’ a narrative story in which the question of free will becomes expressed through the medicalization and treatment of an ultra-violent individual. The volition of the main character is superseded by the overarching potency of the powers that be, who aim to ‘cure’ him and rid him of his violent and antisocial tendencies.

Absurdist philosophy is the prostration of a pseudo-intellectual way of thinking purported to be this profound, existential revelation, while truly being an empty, soulless husk of previous systems of ideology which carries no significant meaning in spite of its embrace of this supposed meaninglessness; it is the intellectual equivalent of modern art in that it possesses a certain mundaneness and absence of substance that is often interpreted as semantically important but is simultaneously endowed with not a strand of value or merit beyond its surface-level complexity. It is essentially a reconfiguration of nihilism, but instead of placing its end-goal on the fixation of meaning and purpose's absence as the object of the philosophy, it turns those two features into ways through which enjoyment and fulfillment can be expressed. A hedonistic iteration of classic nihilist thought.

Yet, not an iota of nuance or sophistication is elucidated in this proposal--it is assumed to be a fact innate of the notion that absurdism is not to be treated as a solemnity or an academically discussable subject matter, but a simple and unconvoluted framework for the trajectory of one's individual perspective. There is no moral or epistemological prerogative indicated beyond the acceptance of this universal omnipresence of the acknowledgement of an existence devoid of sense or connotation; ethical guidelines and cosmological abstractions become blanketed in this complete negation of value, replaced by an aspect of 'absurdity' which pervades each corridor of existent reality, leaving life and its consequent undertakings to be frivolous eventualities that are only to be actualized in an active and perpetual striving for satiety, for contentment. One can partake in whatever he chooses so long as it brings him happiness and comfort, without regard for societal conditioning on the basis of traditional morality--which nonetheless is an insubstantial, omittable contrivance for the posturing of mediated behaviors. Live freely, feel in abundance and so on.

Through analysis of this redundant complex can it therefore be presumed that an absurdist is capable of doing transgressive things which infringe on morality, because he is independent from conventionality--he is a liberated, rebellious soul that cannot be subjugated to strenuous grammatical orders. Despicable acts become questions rather than answers, relative and dependent on contextual framing; one can engage in sexual misconduct, the taking of another's life, the imposition of terror on the general public, so long as it brings him a certain eternal joy and ecstasy which fulfills his gaping void of non-meaning. Meursault commits a murder out of emotional detachment and carelessness, and he is subsequently indifferent to his incarceration and sentencing, for he is incapable of being moved or swayed, influenced or affected, given that he is imbued with a passivity and apathy which serves as a compensation for his purposelessness and that of everyone else, whether they are cognizant of it or not. To care is to exert such exhausting, outrageous effort; thus, why not be an immovable rock, a fixed figure that could not be driven to care regardless of whatever circumstance?

A significant intellectual exchange between two exalted individuals in the domain of academia endowed with largely discrepant and distant worlds of thought, the Chomsky-Foucault debate focuses on the perpetual and ancient question of human nature, exploring its existential properties and whether it is a product of historical relations, structures, and social stimuli. This discourse contemporarily remains a considerably significant marking in the history and trajectory of philosophy, still provoking interpolations of thought on the positions articulated on the nature of human essence and society itself as the complexified system we recognize it to be.

Chomsky argues in support of the postulation of an innate, immanent human nature embedded within the soul of man--highlighting thus the omnipresence of a primordial grammatical sequence of codification and institutional delineations of morality, that of which he posits to be inherent to the object of the human being. On the contrary, Foucault puts forth the argument that human nature is a holistically constructed perceptual abstraction of reality that is tendentiously formed and curated by lived experiences within the contextualization of social and political frameworks amid certain epochs of chronology, emphasizing that the concerted understanding and comprehension of subjects such as justice and morality alike are often coercive tools utilized by the powers that be to instill their desired order. This manifestation of a clash between two extremely opposing positions showcases in a clear fashion the classic tensions between empiricism of the analytical specimen, shown through Chomsky, and emphatic poststructuralism, expounded by the likes of Foucault.

People such as Sylvia Plath and synonymous figures who have emerged from among the 19th century and onward are analytically the very epitome of White bourgeois feminism, which presented itself with a particular myriad of characteristics—namely the preservation of fascistic and traditionalist views of womanhood and the upholding of the patriarchal superstructure—that went seamlessly hand in hand with the doctrine of racism given such primarily centers femininity on its correlation to whiteness and social capital.

Western liberal interpretations of feminist movements are oriented around the patriarchal and Eurocentric understanding of the attributes which constitute the essence and existential qualities of ‘what it is to be a woman’ in the concerted sense as well as constructed and unanimously upheld notions of femininity that are typologically interpolated into other demographic categorizations because they disregard intersectionality and compartmentalize groups of women into abstract hierarchical identities dependent on specific characteristics and traits relevant to the arbitrary norm.

I’m assuming you’re asking this in solicitation for a simpler elucidation of the dense information presented in Anti-Oedipus, in which case I am able to provide for you.

Deleuze and Guattari essentially argue that Sigmund Freud's Oedipal model is a capitalist institution meant to misdirect familial and relational desires into repressive mechanisms for mediated production and consumption, as well as how desire in itself is a mode of production and creative force which seeks to instill new connections and forms of being.

They thus analyze schizophrenia through a thorough psychoanalytical lens and map how desire moves and produces itself and in relation to stimuli instead of fixating on its external perception, liberating the notion of desire from its latent capitalist attribution so as to allow it to flow in more liberating and innovative ways; revolutionary modalities of thought emerge from a reconfiguration and novel reimagining of the contrivance that is the object of desire.

They therefore derive the conclusion that schizophrenic people, those with discrepant and disarrayed mental processes, should be granted the ability to function in regular market society to reinvent and augment present material and abstract conditions and rearrange how systems of thought are inscribed by the superstructural organization of grander society.

I don’t necessarily regard the abrupt and tumultuous murder of Charlie Kirk and those of adjacent figures as holistically positive and beneficiary eventualities, particularly because I figured that it was a virulent act of irrationality which would only further amplify negative dispositions toward the left. With his passing I foresaw that there would inevitably be a perception of him as a martyr and an emblem of the professed ‘resilience and moral righteousness of right-wing political commentators who are impervious to the corrupt and totalitarian agenda of the left,’ because through the proliferated automation and widespread social contagion of the cyberspace, present events become exceedingly sensationalized and lead to mass civil unrest (although this has been a cultural phenomenon since the invention and subsequent ubiquitousness of the newspaper, the radio, the television, etc.)—the true nature and character of these idolized politicians or politically appointed individuals become obscured by this fetishistic and distorted idolatry of any eminent figure within contemporary discourse or media, thus where the mindless and intentionally reality-altering obsequiousness towards well-known malevolent entities such as Donald Trump and people of similar national or global significance arises almost infallibly.

This phenomenon manifests itself in virtually every distinct corner of traditional society; thus a conspicuously recurring trend among politically engaged folk of either affiliation under the American two-party system is this relentless and unconditional endorsement of every renowned and influential representative of their values, regardless of any glaring lapses in their ideology and the skewed or structurally inconsistent philosophy behind the foregoing; it unravels virally in every instance of debate and discussion from within uniform coteries and outward to variable collectives, and it inhibits any opportunity for lucid consensus formation.