I was recently interviewed on the New Books Network about my recent book, The Dialectical Self: Kierkegaard, Marx, and the Making of the Modern Subject. If you’re interesting in Kierkegaard and Marx (and Hegel), or about how personal and political freedom are deeply intertwined, (or if you're just looking to pass some time), give it a listen!!!
Read MoreAs a philosopher, Marx is a particularly interesting figure. While philosophers tend to offer their philosophical claims directly, with Marx, we often receive them tangentially. The reason for this is that Marx’s concern often lies in the world of political economy, so that much of what he actually writes takes the form of an analysis of that world. That is, he often writes about economics and politics. However, Marx’s real philosophical contribution lies in the method of his analysis. That is, his philosophical genius doesn’t necessary lie in the specific claims he makes about economics and politics, many of which do happen to be quite brilliant, but rather, it lies in the method that he uses to make these claims. It is this method that illuminated the world in a fundamentally new way, and it is this method that continues to do so. And while Marx does sometimes explain his method, oftentimes we only see it indirectly, when we reflect on how Marx managed to see what he reveals to us.
However, at times, Marx’s philosophical brilliance hits you in the face. And recently, this happened to me. The other day, I was reading Marx’s Capital, Vol. 1, and I came across a short passage that blew me away. Located in Chapter 1, a chapter whose main purpose lies in the realm of economic analysis (Marx is explaining the nature of a “commodity”), Marx breaks from the main narrative in order to offer a brief digression about Aristotle. And as brilliant as is Chapter 1 of Capital, it was this digression that bowled me over. And I thought some people might enjoy reading an analysis of this passage, because I think it really shows Marx at his best. No knowledge of Marx, Aristotle, economics, or philosophy required!!!
Read MoreAs has happened in Texas and Wisconsin, legislators from the minority party fled Oregon in order to obstruct the passage of legislation by preventing quorum. However, unlike in those states, the legislators didn't merely flee, but they also called upon local far-right terror groups for "protection." That is, the Oregon GOP called on groups like the Oregon 3-Percenters, asking them to arm themselves so that they could resist - violently, if necessary - any attempt to return the legislators to the legislature (even though such a move would be lawful). More simply, the GOP is asking terrorists to intervene in the democratic process – they are using violence as a tool in the legislative process. This is fascism.
However, one of the differences between the current rise of fascism and that which happened in the 1920s and 1930s is the diffuse nature of the current strand. Whereas the Brownshirts were card carrying members of the Nazi party, there is often no direct institutional tie between the GOP and militia groups like the 3-Percenters. And this has allowed a measure of plausible deniability, as the GOP can claim that it doesn't support these terrorists, while nonetheless acting in ways that do. And then, when the GOP needs these armed groups, they happen to be there ready for orders.
Read MoreI woke up to a Facebook post recounting the exorbitant healthcare bills that some of my Facebook friends have received, scrolled to a story about State Department officials who were banned from speaking about the threat posed by climate change, before then scrolling to a story about how surveillance software is being used to monitor millions of K-12 student's digital lives (including their private phones and computers), and which is being justified (rationalized) by the worry over school shootings.
The solutions to so many of these problems is simple - universal healthcare, eliminating fossil fuels in favor of renewables, and banning firearms - but our political system is so corrupt that what should be obvious isn't. Unfortunately, the obvious answer is an answer that serves the public good rather than private profit, and private profit rules. Consequently, the obvious answer has to be obfuscated, so that the citizenry doesn't unite behind it, and we instead argue amongst ourselves about the various profit-friendly "solutions" that are offered to us.
Read MoreLast week, billionaire Robert F. Smith announced that he would pay off the student loans of the 2019 graduating class of Morehouse. And I figured I’d write something because I feel pretty conflicted about it—or I at least feel like I should be more conflicted about it.
The general atmosphere surrounding this gift was one of jubilation. I had many colleagues, friends, and acquaintances celebrating the gift, as did public figures I admire, like the civil rights activist Shaun King. But my initial response was one of anger. Anger at a system that creates student debt in the first place, and anger over the celebration of an individual who is one of few beneficiaries of that system (Smith has 4.4 billion dollars). It struck me as akin to celebrating our feudal lord for feeding us in a time of famine (which was a feudal obligation). Worse yet, it's actually more akin to celebrating our feudal lord for feeding us while his hoarding of grain helped cause the famine in the first place. The charity is only required because of the crime that necessitated it.
But I caught a little blowback for expressing my frustration, and I think I can see where people were coming from.
Read MoreRecently, a Jeff Koons balloon sculpture sold for 91 million dollars, setting a record for the highest price for a work of art by a living artist. It reminded me of a film I recently saw, on a flight back from Los Angeles.
Entitled "The Price of Everything," the filmmakers managed to interview many of the artists, buyers, and dealers involved in the contemporary art market. And it didn't take very much to realize what was going on. Basically, the super-rich are so rich that they've run out of things to buy.
Read MoreA few days ago, my wife and I went for a walk on the Venice Canals, which is a Los Angeles neighborhood next to Venice Beach. You can tell that this must have once been a sleepy beach town, with cute little bungalows lining a few acres of crisscrossing canals. But over time, they've mostly been bought up and replaced with mansions. And while the conspicuous wealth of LA can be pretty depressing, this neighborhood was quite beautiful, as everyone clearly spent a lot of time (or money) on landscaping. So, we had a really enjoyable stroll through the canals, with my wife indulging my desire to photograph every last tree, flower, and plant.
But we began noticing these very political looking lawn signs. No dummies, we were both very suspicious of their message to "Stop the Monster." And we were right. The "monster" these people wanted to stop was a very modest public housing development.
Read MoreHaving lived in NYC for what is now the majority of my adult life, catching a glimpse of the skyline still doesn't disappoint. Whether I'm taking a far-off look from my bedroom window, catching a glimpse on the subway as it crosses the bridge, or most dramatically, during nighttime plane landings when the cloud cover is punctuated with cavernous peeks of rainbow skyscrapers, this city really doesn't disappoint. But there's been a lot of new construction in recent years, changing the outline of our horizon, and I wasn't sure what to make of the general aesthetic. But it occurred to me that what might be governing the aesthetic is actually the horizon itself. However, I don’t mean that developers are developing with an eye for how our shared horizon will change, but that I think they are developing from the point of view of those who live on the horizon—those who live among the clouds.
Read MoreI was listening to a radio broadcast about El Chapo Guzman, and it was discussing the prison conditions that he will face in solitary confinement at the Supermax facility in Colorado. As described by a former prisoner and a former prison guard, solitary entails a constant battle to remain human.
And it reminded me of our post-9/11 conversations about things like "enhanced interrogation," “extraterritorial rendition,” and “targeted killing.”
Read MoreI saw the movie Sully when it was released and I recently caught a few minutes of it on TV. It was a frustrating film to watch, but it does have something interesting to say, if it wasn't what the director Clint Eastwood wanted to say. Instead, I think it’s a pretty good example of how libertarianism only makes sense within a fantasy world, but because that world doesn’t exist, libertarians needs to invent it.
Read More