Eps 1173: Having A Provocative Rose Works Only Under These Conditions

The too lazy to register an account podcast

Summary not available.

Host image: StyleGAN neural net
Content creation: GPT-2, transformers, CTRL

Host

Max Cooper

Max Cooper

Podcast Content
One reason many people think sunlight is ideal for viewing art is that it appears not only natural, but neutral. Media derive their power by serving the curiosity and desire of users, rather than overpowering them.
If we are serious about changing the working conditions for women at Walmart, we may need to get a woman into the White House. For example, for low-wage workers who rarely plan a career or have the ability to negotiate their working conditions, there is no boss to train them.
Finally, I would like to criticise the policy of Rose's recent authorship from the Marxist point of view of her earlier work. She asserts that "fascism cannot be denounced in the same way as in her later works. Let me tell you now that my comments tonight will be an important point of view or a criticism, depending on the point of view.
As those who know Balint's work know, he suggests, as we know from his work, that GPs shape and change the problems they face. For this reason, Rose considers the idea that religion and the state are identical to be a fundamental speculative statement of Hegel's thinking. In fact, she approvingly cites the fact that the real possibility of something is therefore the result of the existing multiplicity of circumstances that are related to it. She ends her lecture with a small metaphor that shows the difference between the disciplines she has compiled and her own interpretation of these disciplines in the context of her work.
We see that the diagram of power is not very new in the main, but we return for a moment to the question of spiritual practice.
Even in this cursory and inevitably inadequate summary, it becomes clear that Rose does not simply take up Hegel's conceptual theory, but embarks on a comprehensive revision of its constitutive concepts. There is no doubt that he simply does not know that his own efforts to undermine moral rationality will hinder rather than encourage the development of a more rational understanding of the nature and nature of man. The Rose's willingness to risk where he or she stands, coupled with his or her negative criticism of moral autonomy, seems to give way to a decidedly irrational, voluntary policy that cannot be reconciled with the defense of reason and nihilism.
The Rose asserts that the dialectical tension sustained by opposition to antinomy implies an abstract method suspended in social and cultural life itself, rather than understanding or criticizing it, and thus excludes the understanding of aporia and its historical particularity. For Adorno does not surrender to dialectics, but is content to judge them.
Rose suggests treating the court case as a gamble and reducing the boy's fate to that. It seems to me that when we work in the extreme, when we apply the current laws of murder and manslaughter to the case of the woman killed, we cannot stand idly by while we focus on the more moderate middle ground of aporia.
Rose follows Adorno in adopting and promoting an ironic style as a placeholder for political practice. By employing shock, exaggeration, fantasy and provocative formulations, he wants to induce his readers to recognize the object and subject that is subsumed in the objectified categories of the bourgeois conspectus. Rose relies on Hegel to provide a framework for understanding the recurrence of antinomy in modern social theory. Rose thus finds an answer in Hegel's critique of modernity and in his critique of political philosophy.
But Rose does not, as the title of the essay would suggest, simply contrast Hegel with Adorno. Rose's position remains more or less the same as Adorno's, reducing speculative thinking to speculative exposure.
He claims that perspectivism can be corrected as it is by an overriding commitment to the common good. He argues that honesty and trustworthiness must be unconditional, just as he believes that moral values are truly unconditional. But, unlike his criticism of Adorno, Rose resists the temptation to draw conclusions from his criticism of him.
He implicitly acknowledges this implication, but tries to block it by further redefining the nature of speculative thinking. He distinguishes speculative from negative thinking by juxtaposing Adorno's and Horkheimer's thesis on the dialectic of enlightenment with his own idea of speculative representation.
To paraphrase the latter, for Rose, the speculative presentation is no longer important. Rose therefore asks how to avoid contradiction in general by speaking out, schematically and abstractly, truths that are not abstract. The question is how much we can occupy this space, which represents the forward movement that Adorno does not want to make.
Of the many conflicting views that have emerged in interpreting China's rise, these two stand out as the most popular and provocative.
Many would reject the idea that the US, in a modified or less ruthless form, had begun the extremism that destroyed the Weimar Republic. Rose claims that his most important contribution to criticising the Chinese government and his own thinking is the emergence of a "neo-Kantian regression" in his analysis of China's rise. Rose, for his part, precludes such a theory in advance, but he does commit himself to a critique of all forms of universalism, aimed at exposing the contradictions between the "universalism" of his theory and the political and economic history of the United States.