Ich musste mein anderes Konto schließen, weil es voll war. Ich interessiere mich für Anarchismus, alternative Ökonomie, Geschichte und Neurowissenschaften. Lese hierzu querbeet und nicht nur die üblichen Verdächtigen, um die Frage zu beantworten, wie können wir freier werden.
I had to close my other account because it was full. I am interested in anarchism, alternative economics, history and neuroscience. Read across the board and not just the usual suspects to answer the question, how can we become more free.
The best part of the book is the preface. Heather Dundas writes how she heard an anecdote about Foucault and an LSD trip, found it so implausible that she tried to convict the anecdote of lying, and in the process surprisingly proved the existence of the LSD trip. The rest of the book is the story of a self-described disciple (!) who invites Foucault to a local college. So much status play, references, intellectual babble, show who you know, written in a gonzo style. If you're not impressed by it, it's quite funny. Foucault chops wood to demonstrate his ordinarity. When Foucault talks about attractive boys, one feels different in view of the accusations against Foucault. The book is a perfect example of hagiography and in this sense is recommended.
All: The Plot, the writing, the characters are very generic. The Shadowrunners stumble from question (Whodunnit?) to problem (who is after us?) to question. The magic is way too powerful. But somehow, it was kinda fun to read. As a sidenote: I was tricked, Berlin doesn't play a role!
Established in 2025, the purpose of the new organization was simple: To advocate for the …
Basically no plot, but a panoply of ideas
3 izar
Actually, the book has no real plot. On the basis of two persons, the book presents psychological trauma caused by climate change and how a high bureaucrat tries to convince other executives to act. Interspersed are short essays. Admittedly, I skipped about a third of the book due to repetition. I would have liked more plot. In the end, there is hope that somehow it will work out, but many sacrifices must be made along the way.
What is problematic about the book is that while societies or masses are subjects, they are somehow very manipulated, reactive, history is written by the elite, which takes away a lot agency.
What are the elementary ingredients of the world? Do time and space exist? And what …
What have physicists done in the last 100 years for Non-Physicist
4 izar
Obviously, the public is interested in what the 10,000 researching physicists are doing: the image of a black hole, Higgs boson, etc.
This book explains what physicists have been up to for the last 100 years and how our everyday understanding is being overturned as a result. To illustrate this, the author uses the history of physical thinking in antiquity and from modern times onwards.
I highly enjoyed enjoyed reading the book and learned a great deal. It cured my anger about "emanzipatorische Wissenschaftskritik", which was just a "mutual admiration sub reddit" in my opinion.
»Die Gedanken der herrschenden Klasse sind in jeder Epoche die herrschenden Gedanken.« Dieser Satz von …
Book of straw men
2 izar
As in most books of "Kritische Theorie" the basal argument is: Science happens in capitalism, therefore as a whole facilitates capitalism.
The essays were written by historians and philosophers - and it shows. For example, "Sensual fullness and spiritual potency are corrupted and amputated by data."
They don't try to prove their point in cases like quantum physics or neuroscience, which tells.
They don't mention AI in a book which was published 2022!
A few essays treat empiric questions, for example does electromagnetic radiation harm, are vaccinations helpful? But in such a one-sided and shallow way! There is no weighing in evidence. A text about psychoneuroimmunology claims, that the ibuprofen was a main driver in the covid pandemic by shutting down sickness behaviour - without any attempt to prove this claim.
The feminist critique of science is good, but more historical.
The essays don't try to distinguish science, scientifc method …
As in most books of "Kritische Theorie" the basal argument is: Science happens in capitalism, therefore as a whole facilitates capitalism.
The essays were written by historians and philosophers - and it shows. For example, "Sensual fullness and spiritual potency are corrupted and amputated by data."
They don't try to prove their point in cases like quantum physics or neuroscience, which tells.
They don't mention AI in a book which was published 2022!
A few essays treat empiric questions, for example does electromagnetic radiation harm, are vaccinations helpful? But in such a one-sided and shallow way! There is no weighing in evidence. A text about psychoneuroimmunology claims, that the ibuprofen was a main driver in the covid pandemic by shutting down sickness behaviour - without any attempt to prove this claim.
The feminist critique of science is good, but more historical.
The essays don't try to distinguish science, scientifc method or science communication.
Invoking science to lend more authority to one's own weak argument is not, after all, a problem with science per se.
One essay claims that the most emancipatory sciences are psychoanalysis and marxism! (for real: p216) The book is full of contempt of the people whose intelectual rising was in the German Marxist 60 and 70ies.
Summary: Science reduces us to numbers, can only be instrumental and therefore in capitalism capitalistic, objeticifies and therefore dominates nature and women, furthermore is a religion in the sense of Walter Benjamin's capitalism is a religion.
The last essay was a interview, which portrays the publisher's attitude:
But how do you see the extreme orientation towards mathematizable knowledge, especially in the pandemic, but also in the climate discourse? Isn't the reduction of scientific knowledge to incidences and limits (I remember that after the Paris climate conference, the now widely supported 2-degree target was strongly criticized from the left, not least because of its immanent mathematization of social natural relations) at least as dangerous? [The "at least as" refers to the danger of making facts negotiable).
"I am not against mathematizable knowledge. To speak with Adorno: Critical theory is more positivist than positivism.""
Not to say there is a lot of trouble in sciences in a authoritarian conformist society, but this book does not help in discover it. I learned more reading Science as Radicalism ( humaniterations.net/2015/08/18/science-as-radicalism/ )
Two stars: The feminist critique essays saved the book of utter destruction.
Beer and Revolution examines the rollicking life and times of German immigrant anarchists in New …
Beer and Revolution
4 izar
German anarchism may have been out of the spotlight compared to other European nations, but after reading this book, I discovered the reason: it seems all the German anarchists emigrated to New York. It's a fun and interesting read and highlights the fact that social spaces are crucial for any radical movement to 'take root'."
I was quite intrigued by the title. However, the book is mainly about how to justify to work in a local council as anarchist. To achieve that, the author dives deep in anarchist history and theory. The actual work the author in the council does, does not play a big role. I think, that would be the interesting point: Is a single council member able to achieve anarchist goals? The examples he gives are...dull, he was able to help (!) in establishing a community center. Good Sir, for that, we don't no council!
Fleisch - über Orte, Symbole, Räume, und auch Fleisch
3 izar
Das Buch fiel mir nicht leicht zu lesen, weil vermutlich mehr kulturwissenschaftliche Vorbildung benötigt wird und der Autor immer wieder kurz auf Konzepte verweist, aber diese nicht näher beschreibt.
Eigentlich habe ich das Buch mit derselben Frage wie Feuerland gelesen: Welche Rolle spielte der Staat in der Entwicklung einer oligopolischen Industrie während der Industrialisierung.
Das Buch beschreibt den Weg von Fleisch zur Massenware, sowohl die technischen und kulturellen Veränderungen, die hierfür nötig waren. Und welche Veränderungen Fleisch als Massenware angestoßen hat.
Es war eben nicht so, dass die Industrialisierung da war und man dann geschaut hat, was man mit den neuen Möglichkeiten produzieren kann, sondern gewisse Produkte wie Fleisch trieben die Industrialisierung an: Technisch, ernährungsphysiologisch und organisatorisch.
Ich nehme für mich mit, dass Fleisch als Massenware angebotsgetrieben war und Fleisch als Massenware durch veränderte Lebensbedingungen (Enge Küchen in der Stadt, höhere Mobilität, Lohnarbeit, Entstehung von Freizeit) mehr nachgefragt wurde, begleitet …
Das Buch fiel mir nicht leicht zu lesen, weil vermutlich mehr kulturwissenschaftliche Vorbildung benötigt wird und der Autor immer wieder kurz auf Konzepte verweist, aber diese nicht näher beschreibt.
Eigentlich habe ich das Buch mit derselben Frage wie Feuerland gelesen: Welche Rolle spielte der Staat in der Entwicklung einer oligopolischen Industrie während der Industrialisierung.
Das Buch beschreibt den Weg von Fleisch zur Massenware, sowohl die technischen und kulturellen Veränderungen, die hierfür nötig waren. Und welche Veränderungen Fleisch als Massenware angestoßen hat.
Es war eben nicht so, dass die Industrialisierung da war und man dann geschaut hat, was man mit den neuen Möglichkeiten produzieren kann, sondern gewisse Produkte wie Fleisch trieben die Industrialisierung an: Technisch, ernährungsphysiologisch und organisatorisch.
Ich nehme für mich mit, dass Fleisch als Massenware angebotsgetrieben war und Fleisch als Massenware durch veränderte Lebensbedingungen (Enge Küchen in der Stadt, höhere Mobilität, Lohnarbeit, Entstehung von Freizeit) mehr nachgefragt wurde, begleitet von Werbung für Fleisch als kraftspendende Ernährung.
Das Buch ist jedoch etwas obskur-metaphorisch geschrieben, was es eigentlich nicht bräuchte.
