hereissomeshitilike:

The decline of philosophical inquiry.

UPDATED MARIE CALLOWAY TIMELINE

Nov 29 ‘Adrien Brody’

Nov 29 emily gould

Dec 20 new york observer review calloway as new pop sensation

Dec 21 gawker

Dec 21 unborn whiskey criticizes calloway

Dec 22 wewhoareabouttodie discusses calloway as memoirist

Dec 23 html giant considers significance of calloway

Dec 23 jimmy chen rewrites ‘Adrien Brody’

Dec 24 kate zambreno’s post on calloway

Dec 25 jamie peck supports calloway

Dec 25 janie smith writes a ‘tl;dr’ for big other

Dec 26 tao lin’s response to unborn whiskey

Dec 28 thought catalog publishes kate zambreno piece

Dec 28 rumpus chronologizes events

Dec 28 the well read wife speaks about tao lin and marie calloway

Dec 28 caitlin colford investigates identity of Adrien Brody

Dec 29 rumpus interviews calloway

Jan 2 nervous breakdown critques calloway

Jan 3 stephanie austin reviews ‘Adrien Brody’

Jan 5 frances dinger writes a related piece on dumb rage in internet lit

Jan 9 caitlyn christensen compares calloway to rebecca black

Jan 12 walrus magazine defends calloway

Jan 29 specter collective critiques calloway (1)

Jan 30 irreverently reviews ‘Adrian Brody’

Feb 1 specter collective (2)

Feb 1 philosophyforthewin responds to specter collective

April 26 noah cicero gets into the mix on html

May 1 anon (our guess is Kitchell) on html writes a piece

Do you know of more? Message us to get it up!

(Thanks to many of these blogs for posting similar chronologies.)

Alain Badiou vs GIRLS

Just paused a YouTube of Alain Badiou to watch “Shit Girls Say About the Show GIRLS”

FOX’s Touch: The Ideology of Religious Fundamentalism

“Mathematical in design, these patterns are hidden in plain sight. We just have to know where to look. But only some of us can see how the pieces fit together. It’s all been determined by mathematical probability.”

The concept of a shaman exists is one whose relation to a metaphysical world hinders his ability to communicate with/comprehend the world in which others exist. Align the biblical appreciation of the innocence of children being closer to God and you have Touch, Kiefer Sutherland’s post-24 television project. Kiefer’s son has the ability to discern all of reality in numbers. Episodes follow the mute-like son’s communication with Kiefer via numbers, leading dad to interact with people and fix their life problems, or as Danny Glover’s character refers to it, ”Sometimes, when the numbers don’t add up, it means there’s some cosmic pain that has to be healed.”

The commercials for this show reveal how trite enough this story line is. We could go into why shows like Touch are targeted at middle age demographics that are more concerned about a moving, emotionally-oriented function as opposed to thematic rigor but, duh, you know that. Rather, we began to worry about Touch after the commercial for it that had this quote in it: “Numbers are constant until they’re not. Science can’t explain the phenomenon but religion does. It’s called prayer.”

In this way, the show propagates the idea that the phenomena of reality that appear to be chaotic are in actuality a part of a meticulously organized fabric of noumena. (In other words, we’re back in the world of Plato’s forms.) This is nothing new. Many shaman narratives (Conspiracy Theory’s Mel Gibson, 2012’s Woody Harrelson, wow these examples are terrible) show the shaman archetype using highly complex scientific methods to reveal something that is unnoticeable to the average person. What makes Touch distinct is its use of highly complex scientific methods to state that these methods are insufficient to explain the universe as religion can. Paradoxically in this alternate world of Touch, what makes the creationist-like ideology work is the science behind it. In other words, to question the shaman-like boy: “How is it that you can profess the hermeneutical value of faith via your reason?”

What makes Touch even more indicative of current religious fundamentalism is that the boy wouldn’t respond to me; he doesn’t speak to anyone except through his own incomprehensible language games that no one can exactly follow. However, within the same narrative, the boy has a voice over at the beginning of episodes in which he lays out global, numerical information with the intent to show the interconnectedness and miraculous nature of the world in which we live that we do not always grasp. That is to say, he is preaching to the target demographic/choir which is already assumed to follow his line of thought: i.e. “Yes, the world is connected. Yes, there is a spiritual resonance hidden behind everything.” And even more so, “Yes, science is aiding more than hindering these beliefs.”

In an epoch in which science and mathematics are ever more pointing to the contingent-based randomization of reality, Touch remains staunchly conservative, attached to expiring ideals while at the same time wanting to critique these new understandings of reality while using their methods. The inherent contradictions of this ideology are only unveiled by the rigors of logic and reason that can critique these contradictions; “We just have to know where to look.” 

Why House is Actually Global/Political Commentary

1. Dr. House is symbolic of American Capitalism

What is American identity but a radicalized form of the island from which it came? Who better than Hugh Laurie (a Brit) to depict the intense Dr. House who commodifies truth to buy, sell, and distribute according to his insatiable desires? 

2. Vicodin, the patchwork remedy

Capitalism’s inherent inability to control its own growth and destruction of resources is depicted by House’s injured knee. And, as similar to a 700 billion dollar bailout rather than any real systemic change (see Zizek’s RSA Animate on Youtube), Vicodon acts as a patchwork solution to a much larger issue.

3. Dr. Lisa Cuddy and the impossibility of love

Cuddy typifies the impossibility for American Capitalism to have a symbiotic relationship with any other entity. Though Cuddy plays off and on with House for seven seasons, the well runs dry. As John Nash pointed out, Capitalism’s intensity to pursue individual desires becomes detrimental to the extent that paranoia towards notions of love and selflessness run rampant.  

4. Caricatures of other Global Views

Here we see extremely stereotypical and naive understandings of other global players.

a. Robert Chase, the self obsessed Brit

Here, England is depicted as a vain child that is consistently trying to gain the appreciation of the more powerful and smarter American. He parallels House’s own relationship failures along the aforementioned Nashian lines when Cameron leaves him due to his obsession with following House (i.e. playing into the American ethos as seen in Blair’s relationship with Bush during the Iraq war).

b. Taub, or history’s hated jew

The show illustrates the consistent racism shown towards jews throughout all mediums of narrative. Taub is a liar who cheats on his wife repeatedly. Taub is extremely intelligent, allowing him to rationalize this behavior. He attempts at being what is often paraphrased in the show as a more humanely caring husband but fails. In this way, the show makes him out to be lacking in his ability to have human emotions. How coincidental is it that this plotline is brought out in the Jewish character?

c. Foreman, the successful African American

Foreman parallels Cuddy’s drive for the top as a minority. His exceptional grades in med school and his attentiveness to the regulations of the hospital act as an attempt to amend his childhood in juve. Foreman becomes the symbolized black culture of America, attempting to arise out of the impoverished disadvantage from which it came. The hostility between Foreman and House (as a figure of American Capitalism) stems from Foreman having risen to his place due to House while at the same time resenting House’s abuse.

d. Chi Park, the young Asian

As the global market becomes ever more impressed/frightened by the strength of the Asian power, Chi Park becomes an emblem for the youthful beginning of this Eastern world. She is demeaned and criticized through most episodes. Chase won’t even consider her poorly hidden signs of affection. Yet, the paradox is that Chi is the youngest, the one that will outlive and outsmart them all with age.

e. Cameron, ‘Thirteen,’ and Jessica

Here, we may detour to a feminist perspective. These women only have significant plot lines insofar as they are dating someone. Cameron gets some screen time when she is with Chase, Thirteen with Foreman, Jessica TBA. And rightly so in our parallel as women within global politics have still not been given their due. Cuddy, as head of the department, was a symbol of feminine power, but even then the show’s interests were devoted to her relationship with the lead protagonist.

f. Kutner, the Indian threat

Kutner as an emblem of India shares the idiosyncracies of his American boss without the ouroboros effect. He realizes the rationale behind House’s gimmicks and uses them to further the pursuit of medicine rather than as a game. However, what is startling about Kutner is the way in which he was written off the show. Rather than a simple leaving or death in the workplace event (similar to what almost happened in s. 8 ep. 11’s “Nobody’s Fault”), Kutner commits suicide.

It could be stated that this is the desire of the American consciousness, as their jobs could not be outsourced if no one was there to take them, but something more seems to be at work. It appears more, like all of these global stereotypes, that Kutner’s death relates to the way in which it is perceived by the epicenter, House. Kutner’s death as a symbol of tragedy outside of House’s (America’s) own personal stake is noted for a few episodes but the show must go on, commerce must continue, “the spice must flow.” Regardless of the other characters, the show is called House for a reason in the same way America is the big kid on the playground.

Is there global/political commentary in House?

Will the series finale do justice to this reading?

Boys You Will Inevitably Date in Your Twee Life: A Rory Gilmore Handbook pt. 1 Dean Forester

Reappropriation and Irony in Feminine Identity or Rory Gilmore: The Quintessential Twee

In a Gallup poll at your local twee hang out, one can assume who will rank highest in the running for quintessential twee. Survey says: Zooey Deschanel. Though Zooey has probably done more to popularize the brand via her singing and acting and outfits and bangs, twees came to the forefront to a greater degree in the epic American saga that was Gilmore Girls. The 153 episodes still allow for a twee crash course in a way that Zooey’s All The Real Girls/Almost Famous/Elf/She & Him/New Girl career could only hint at. This week, we can focus on episode [To be filled in later. I have it practically memorized though.] as it articulates two key concepts for both our Rory enthusiasts and twee scholars.
 
Towards the end of the episode, the forever underdog Jess walks the neighborhood and notices Rory cooking for her boyfriend Dean, who sits smiling as his lady fulfills the sexist gender role he so desires. It is the framing of the window through which Jess sees the two that makes this one of GG’s most cinematic scenes. If we were solely given the perspective from within the house and not through the eyes of Jess, the scene would have emitted a romantic nature of the two having dinner together; however, GG is written for the more saavy TV watcher that would have been as turned off as Jess. To gaze at the two through Jess’s perspective hones in on a more cynical view that is critical of Dean’s objectification of Rory. Jess and Rory would later argue about this in a real tear jerker as Jess says that this form of domestication is beneath Rory. Yet, can not the twee make the best defense of Rory’s portrayal of the 1950’s utopian lover/servant?
 
What may be most definitive to the twee life is the reappropriation of feminine identity from the post-war era as seen in Rory’s cute little outfit and meal. The minimal jewelry, ponytail/bangs, clean cut, primary-colored dress of twee culture recalls post-war American movies that represented women as secondary entities in relationships, politics, religion, the workplace. (On a divergent note, consider the disporportion of black twee girls. In order to be twee is necessarily to have an aesthetic affinity for one of the most racially tense eras of our country’s history.) Nevertheless, we don’t consider a twee’s summer dress and cooking talents similar to the social referents of the neo-Nazi clan member’s confederate flag decal. This is in part due to a two fold process of reappropriating certain elements of the era and applying them ironically to one’s identity.
 
To come to Rory’s aide, the scene is definitively 1950s (as is much of the GG’s small town of Star Hollow) which Jess, our liberal progressive counterpart, watches in contempt. What Jess misses is his own diminishment of Rory’s intelligence by erroneously assuming she is unable to make a meal for her boyfriend without being generalized to the stereotype of a submissive breadmaker. Rory thus embodies the twee’s post-feminist ideology which disapproves of viewing past representations of objectification as necessarily evil. She can be the breadmaker and be the feminist; the two are not mutually exclusive. Though, having such a stance does require one to maintain an ironic distance towards one’s referents (i.e. “I may wear pearls and high heels to dinner but am well aware of these items once being expected of my gender as symbols of oppression.”)
 
Regardless, we can safely say Jess is a shmuck, Dean’s a sexist, and both are unable to comprehend the brilliant twee-ness that is Rory Gilmore. Scenarios such as these reveal that the writing/directing/acting team of GG is very in tune to twee sensibilities, more so than any single actress/singerwriter could expound upon. (I mean, c’mon, Zooey married Ben Gibbard. #team mward)
 
(FYI: If you google “gilmore girls episode ‘rory cooks for dean,’” you get this: http://katie-undividedheart.blogspot.com/.)

(illustration from: philliprexhuddleston.tumblr.com)

‘Get My Man’ Movies: Young Adult vs My Best Friend’s Wedding

(Anne got us all to watch Young Adult the other night and sit down for a round table about our understanding of the film. The culmination of the talk followed along these lines.)

A film can be discussed in relation to the narrative it is in dialogue with. Young Adult, for example, is a film in the genre of the ‘go get your man’ movies. It most directly correlates with the late 90s film My Best Friend’s Wedding (interestingly enough, Young Adult glorifies the overly nostalgic appreciation of the 90s). 

Consider the parallels. The successful woman of the city is reminded of a man from her past that she still keeps in touch with. The conflict/climax revolves around her intent to get her man back from a woman he is currently with. As opposed to even earlier ‘get your man’ films, the audience’s supposed expectations for the protagonist and her man to reunite are thwarted by his current wife/wife-to-be being a decent person whom he loves. 

Compare/Contrast

We can suppose that there is dialectic among films within each genre to the extent that films take on the cinematic/thematic/directorial/casting conditions to be seen as within a specific genre while also progressing our understanding of that genre forward. As Young Adult parallels My Best Friend’s Wedding/other ‘get my man’ films, it is the distinctions that show the progression of this genre. One such distinction is our ambivalence towards the protagonist - by the end of the movie, we are still left to wonder if we were supposed to have any empathy for her or not.

Whereas Julia Roberts’ character in MBFW is ethically conflicted in a lightly comical way but is never purposefully cruel (even to the extent of fulfilling the social norms the audience expects/demands in a light comedy romance), Charlize Theron’s character may be considered an antithesis of this. She is purposefully breaking up a happy marriage, drinking to the point of attacking the likable Oswalt Patton character, and is driven by her contempt for the town in which she was raised. But at the same time, we pity her concluding career, her referenced divorce and thereafter loneliness in the big city, her nervous ticks and alcoholism.

Philosophy

The most common distinction between Plato and Aristotle can be seen in the painting The School of Athens wherein Plato points upward as Aristotle indicates the emphasis on the here and now. Here, the artist is referencing that Plato’s work was normative, stating how we should be in our relation to the ideal forms whereas Aristotle was descriptive of the world aside from out expectations. Is this not the distinction we find between MBFW and YA?

We could play more with the compare and contrast mode (the distinctions of the sought after men, the ways in which the other women employ the ‘nice’ card, the additional themes in YA of suburbia/city, high school nostalgia, the distinct methods of Julia Roberts and Charlize Theron), but a possibly greater point to gain is the move of mainstream movies, even in this genre, to make the dialectical leap from a Platonic ideal to an Aristotelian description.

MBFW approaches how we ought to behave in these situations - laying out the groundrules that are forever then socially expected of us, telling us the boundaries of our desires, creating a method with which to deal with these events both leading up to a kiss (i.e. “We will allow you a little disillusionment/destructive behavior up to the point where you actually kiss him.”) YA, however, comes in the form of a lineage of 21st century mainstream movies that are more interested in depicting alienation with living in a world that is absent from these ideals, one in which we have become skeptical of the pervasive light comedies of the 90s and refuse to accept these normative requirements of our lifestyles. It is only after movies such as MBFW that the groundwork for this Aristotelian interest can be formed, showing the dialectic move based off (and often against) the former movement’s signifiers.

“It’s that thing…”: The Spread of Memes pt 2

Wittgenstein’s/Morris Weitz’s work on family resemblances is necessary to recognize thingness within a potential meme. As we stated in our last post, it is the collectivity of certain signifiers that allow recognition of a thing. The concept of family resemblances notes that it is not necessary for two images to be one and the same in order for them to be cast within the same group. Rather, it is that they resemble one another (as in the example of lol cats: cute cats, ‘haz’, human-like attributes/situations).

The spread of memes is dependent upon a myriad of factors such as the receptivity of a demographic, the media which allows receptivtiy, the malleability of its signifiers. To draw us away from thinking of memes solely as internet humor, let us consider an example Daniel Dennett uses: capitalism.

Capitalism as meme

Capitalism has taken many different faces since its beginnings. Its spread may in part be due to its receptivity by promising social mobility, its widespread medium from spoken word to essay to books to academic courses and so on, and its malleability as a system. This third issue is important insofar as capitalism is uniquely willing to disrupt the core signifiers that have stuck with the term in order to salvage itself, as an iguana might sacrifice its tail to save its head. Zizek makes this point in relation to the 2008 bailout money spent:

“If the bailout plan really is a ‘socialist’ measure, it is a very peculiar one: a ‘socialist’ measure whose aim is to help not the poor but the rich, not those who borrow but those who lend. ‘Socialism’ is OK, it seems, when it serves to save capitalism.” (here)

Capitalism here is able to morph itself into socialism - that which capitalism’s own adherents have disregarded and criticized since its inception. This is indicative of what Daniel Dennett refers to in his work on memes and evolutionary biology. Evolution is often misunderstood as organisms evolving in relation to their telos. Rather, evolution is the process by which variants of a species that are able to reproduce will outlive other variants that can’t so that the former’s specific genes live on and intermingle. This characteristic of survival is what allows the meme to spread in situations where a weaker, less determined meme would not be able to reproduce itself.

What should be gained here is that the spread of memes is not only dependent on the meme but the demographic (or host) which it exists off of. Furthermore, survival implies longevity: the extent to which a meme can survive. In part 3, we will discuss the attributes which allow a meme to perpetuate itself in particular contexts. 

“What gives you the right!?” Responsibility as an Inherent Social Ethic

However you want to name them, you know who they are - those around you that lack the expected niceties required to interact with others yet are quick to be offended by your refusal to accept their behavior. Their most common rhetoric comes in the form of “What gives you the right to judge me?”

This is more of a statement than a question as it implies that you have taken some moral high ground to act as ‘judge, jury, and executioner’ (another common hyperbole). These characters will at the same time invoke socio-ethical ground rules against critiquing others yet hypocritically not see themselves as requiring the same standards. They reveal their own inherent contradiction in this way by judging your judgments on their poor behavior. 

The initial philosophical response is to note this paradox to them in the form of “No, what gives you the right to do x without concern for its repercussions?” However logically accurate this describes the event, we are all well aware that conversations on this level with such characters are not pragmatically beneficial. These types of characters are necessarily oblivious to their own irrationality. 

You want to quote Heidegger to them. You want to pull out passages of Being and Time that show that authenticity is fundamentally attached to being-alongside-others with care. You want to quote Sartre’s work on existentialism’s fundamental nature being that we are thrown into a world that we must then take responsibility for. You want to give long diatribes on Lacan’s notion of the big Other with which our social expectations communicate if only to show that ‘everyone else agrees with me.’ But to no avail. These characters embody Nietzsche’s resentful man who is purposefully antagonistic towards those whom he sees as being more rewarded by the world.  

In a front porch Philosophy sort of way, you’re reaching an age where these characters are becoming fundamentally different in their approach to the world. You imagine your 30s being more sedimented in like minded friends as these types flutter off to new circles. You sit at the local bar and overhear a table of older regulars complaining - their snide remarks and biting attacks on the more well adjusted, comfortable others that won’t give them the time of day. You think, “Nothing on earth consumes a man more quickly than the passion of resentment,” and remind yourself to walk away the next time someone says, “What gives you the right?”