I think that in the first two Titus books, the plot is crucial, an indispensable skeleton. With Perdido, it seems like the story either doesn’t matter or it matters too much. What I mean by that is that the monster hunt plot takes over, but on the other hand it’s like the author gives up and surrenders to the needs of a thriller-style plot.

I didn’t like the way it degenerated into a monster hunt. The world building was great, the plot, not so much. It felt a bit like an action movie: fascinating premise, then boring.

On the other hand, what I liked about it made me read his other books, so it’s still up there in my favourite books.

@Benj96 @fdrake

This open access paper, published last month, is quite interesting:

The Rage of Lonely Men: Loneliness and Misogyny in the Online Movement of “Involuntary Celibates” (Incels)

Four things about it:

1. Incels or proto-incels feel loneliness in three ways: in terms of intimacy, friends, and social status.

2. Their loneliness is transformed into misogyny by means of ressentiment.

3. Joining the incel community exacerbates this loneliness, fostering or producing ressentiment, even while providing some degree of social acceptance. This is because it does not provide the kind of social acceptance that they need, i.e., it does not provide intimacy, real friends, or respectability/status in wider society.

4. Joining the incel community means joining a movement with a doctrine. Thus new members undergo indoctrination.

EDIT: Sorry everyone, I forgot to say: incels are really bad! Grrr! :wink:

Do you see a way to thread the needle here without steering into right wing nut job territory? We were also pretty close when trying to humanise "pre-incels". — fdrake

Close to right-wing nut job territory? I don’t think so.

What’s better than submitting to the cancelling mob with self-censorship is thinking things through and speaking your mind. If you’re not a right-wing nut job but what you say makes people think you are, then those people are the problem.*

But I’m the wrong person to ask. I don’t much like joining things.

* It’s a bit more complicated than that.

It's political correctness gone mad!

Is it another example of what Adorno referred to as pseudo-activism, where what matters is the badges you wear, the signals you transmit, and the minimal action you take—no matter how useless—according to templates that define your political fashion?

Not an expert, but I think the pick up artist people sprouted off into the incels. An incel being a pick up artist failure who can't even manipulate women to get laid. — fdrake

But this goes against the idea that we seem to have taken for granted, that misogyny is a result of a lack of success with women. What you’re saying here is that they begin in misogyny.

I'm super sensitised to this because one of my mates lost a lot of their acquaintances because they complained about a bad run of dates, in public, in a frustrated manner. Entitled, resentment, etc. Rumour spread like wildfire. — fdrake

They were cancelled?

There's absolutely no reason to have sympathy with "incels" in their online incarnation — Baden

But there is reason to have sympathy for young men at risk of becoming part of that subculture. Just like Islamic radicalism.

And as victimhood and being different is so fashionable today, the idea of being an incel isn't so bad, at least in the horrible self-help groups of internet echo chambers. — ssu

So the interesting thought here, which I think someone else has expressed in this discussion already, is that what is lacking is shame. In a closely-knit real-world community, one avoids shame at all costs, unless one is out of control. There is a clear distinction between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. And now, with social fragmentation, this is lacking. Since the community that these young men feel is most important in their lives is made up of remote individuals who are free to ratchet up the extreme opinions without any personal consequences, they never meet the healthy opposition that they would have met in the old-style community of people, most of whom they would not have chosen to associate with.

That’s the traditional (communitarian) conservative critique of modernity and postmodernity, and it has a lot going for it.

Not sure I do either.

Nietzsche could have been an incel, but he wasn’t that boring. It’s partly thanks to him that we can identify this certain kind of resentment (ressentiment) in incels. That’s what he criticized. He is to be admired for making himself into something better (but sometimes worse) than what he was—through his writing. In his real life he remained, probably, involuntarily celibate for the most part. But in his writing he is never mean, resentful, or jealous. He still sounds pretty misogynist sometimes, but from a different direction.

I know a young man who, though definitely not an incel, is now a follower of Andrew Tate and, from the way he talks, has absorbed a lot of his ideas from the “manosphere”. I used to think of him as a friend but his sociopathic and misogynist tendencies made me back away, partly just because they made him so horrible to be with.

He and his online pals are part of a self-reinforcing community in which charismatic sociopaths bewitch the less disturbed men with their strong opinions and their charm.

So I wonder how much crossover there is between incels and the sexually successful misogynist “pick-up artists”. Maybe you can graduate from the former to the latter.

I don’t know if you should be worried, but it’s a nasty thing in our society along with many other nasty things, so it’s probably good to be aware of it.

Maybe such thoughts turn to misogyny when the intrusive thoughts become egosyntonic. When anger becomes justice. — fdrake

A scary thought. But then … how and when does that happen?

When the person in front in the queue is old and slow, I have ageist-lite thoughts that I never admit to, so it’s quite a good analogy.

Well, why not then start with the obvious: the internet. The ability there to find your own echo chamber. How public discourse has change because of social media.

One should look first at the general reasons and look what is similar to other hate groups which don't have anything to do with sexuality. — ssu

I agree, that’s a start. It’s also a form of identity politics, which is another interesting dimension.

:up:

Go for it!

Similarly, if someone is a misogynist and uses violence, it isn't important what the reasons are. It is the action, using violence etc, which is the main issue and ought to be condemned. — ssu

No, it’s not about moralizing, it’s about understanding what is going on. This is explicit in the OP. It is important what the reasons are, because it’s a new movement with its own particular characteristics and causes. This discussion, if it’s good for anything, is about working out what those are.

In any case, while I would say philosophy played a significant role in me personally losing my religion, I'm skeptical towards the idea that philosophy plays more of a role in undermining religious belief than it does in sustaining religious beliefs. — wonderer1

Maybe this is because most philosophy is bad philosophy.

Can't a guy just be frustrated at being alone? — fdrake

I can relate to a lot of what you say. What disturbed me were the intrusive alien thoughts that I disagreed with, the misogyny in embryo. Maybe you’re saying that that’s just how male frustration manifests itself (in this society etc.), and that this in itself is not indicative of incel tendencies, though it’s probably a necessary condition.

EDIT: I just realized that quoting you out of context like that makes it look a bit like you’re defending incels. Sorry about that :grin:

Not if you actually look at the OP, actually — ssu

The OP need not comprehensively describe or define incels, since it’s a pretty well-known subculture notorious for its abusive and sometimes violent misogyny. It’s probably wise to look into it rather than throwing around accusations of wokeness. Even just a quick look at Wikipedia would work:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

It doesn’t follow from the fact that “incel” is a word formed from “involuntary celibate” that when we use “incel” we are merely referring to people who are involuntarily celibate tout court.

To be completely honest, I went through it again around 2016-2017. I went a bit mad with resentment and, the flipside, an unhealthy infatuation (which never led me to do anything abusive or creepy, I should add. Well, maybe mildly creepy.). Come to think of it, over the course of my life I seem to have oscillated between periods of quiet incel resentment that I was saved from at the last minute by the women in my life.

It doesn’t hurt that you have a rich set of radically progressive beliefs to keep you away from the dark side. When I was going through it I had already been calling myself a communist for a couple of years, so I wonder if this helped prevent my descent into misogyny. I don’t think that was the main thing though.

At the time I felt a kind of disgusted resentment at the thought—which I couldn’t stop thinking—that there were women at that very moment having sex with other men. And at the same time I knew this was stupid. But as a socially anxious person I didn’t know what to do about it, and it was only by accident that things improved.

Anyway, it’s probably better to target one’s ressentiment at the abstract woman than actual women. I don’t know if the former leads to the latter in a smooth progression or if something just breaks at some point based on individual psychology or circumstances.

Yeah I think that's compatible with my view.

I have personal experience of it. In my youth I was unsuccessful with women, and I noticed I was feeling a rising resentment about it. I knew this was wrong so I didn't let it develop too far. At the time I did not have many friends, let alone female friends. All of the toxic feelings disappeared once my sex life became as astonishingly rich and exciting as it remains today.

That was 30 years ago. What is different now? Would I have become a misogynist if I had been exposed to the "manosphere"? I don't think so, actually. The answer to "why not?" might be more than just "because I'm a nice guy". That is, it might be to do with the positive social constraints or influences that prevented it, which might not be in effect as much today.

I had in mind something like dharma - which is at once ‘purpose’, ‘law’ and ‘duty’. If described as ‘cosmic’, it is on the basis that human beings are microcosms - the universe in miniature. So individuals realising their purpose - if they do it truly, in accordance with moral principles - just is a way in which the cosmos realises its purpose. — Wayfarer

Well, I can certainly see the attraction.

This sensitive-new-age-guy thing you've got going on is creepy. The strong, stubborn, competent women I know think it's creepy too. — T Clark

:up: :up:

Young people everywhere are struggling with developing intimate relationships (and relationships in general), and that is a serious problem.

I think increasing social atomization is at the root of this, basically forcing young people into an artificial dating scene that for obvious reasons doesn't appeal to nor suit many of them.

The way this topic is treated in regards to young men is especially worrying, and some of the replies to this thread are an indication of that. Trying to force people who are clearly suffering into silence through derision and shame is exactly what creates resentment and pushes people over the edge to commit terrible deeds. — Tzeentch

Yes, I think it's important to try to understand it as a new phenomenon. So I say let's have more sociology and less moralizing. One can do this at the same time as being intolerant of the intolerant, in the words of @180 Proof.

A good analogy is Islamic radicalism (in fact it's more than analogy, because I think they share some underlying causes). There are academics, organizations, and policies specifically aimed at working out why some young Muslim men are attracted to violent fundamentalism, and working out how communities can help them avoid it. It's no use saying oh, that's just regressive dogma. It might be that, but it's more than that.

The incels represent a resistance to the liberation of women, but this is its self-image, its ideology, a manifestation of an underlying problem--and, I would say, a self-consciously countercultural reaching back to a patriarchal worldview that they have not in fact developed naturally from their communities (which again parallels Islamic radicalism). There are specific reasons why in the current situation, the liberation of women might be seen as a problem to these young men. If this is not accepted, and we are merely dismissive, then we end up just blaming, say, the innately sexist nature of men. That is, we lapse into moralism.

And what said. :clap:

Contemporary society is a thoroughly alienating experience for many people -- not everyone, but a good share. Social media, dating apps, etc. bring the chilly competitiveness of business to the more intimate business of finding friends and sexual partners. It's great for the winners, not so hot for the losers. — BC

Yes. I think we're used to thinking of capitalism as an old system that arrived fully formed or transformed society in a short while, but in fact, the commodification of life has actually been quite a gradual process, and the associated social fragmentation and atomization is still happening. I realize it's facile to answer the problem of incels by saying "it's capitalism!" but I don't have anything else. has put some insightful flesh on that bone.

Two questions I can ask myself about cosmic purpose:

1. Is it possible that there is no cosmic purpose?
2. Would life be worth living, or would human existence have value, if there were no cosmic purpose?

I answer yes to both. I think it follows that there wouldn't be much point in arguing for a cosmic purpose even if I personally felt there was one, since I would still admit that I could be wrong. Unless I wanted to advocate a myth, i.e., a noble lie.

I banned @Varnaj42 for low quality and religious spam.

John Haugeland also synthesised the Kantian notion of the synthetic priori and of the phenomenological/existential notion of the always already there in his paper Truth and Rule Following. — Pierre-Normand

Excellent, thanks :smile:

I wouldn’t be surprised if the twentieth century use of “always already” is actually a self-conscious modern version of the a priori, though relocated outside of an abstract consciousness. Kant actually used the same term in the CPR:

[the transcendental subject of thoughts] is cognized only through the thoughts that are its predicates, and apart from them we can never have the least concept of it; hence we revolve around it in a constant circle, since in order to make any judgment regarding it we must always already make use of its presentation. — B 404

Maybe Heidegger got it from there.

the notion that humans did things before there were cultures or societies for their activities to be a product of, is hardly self-contradictory — Mww

Since living in societies is part of what it is to be human, the notion is indeed self-contradictory. A society is a human social group; proto-human apes had social groups; it follows that there have never been humans that didn’t live in a society.

That’s not the real issue though. The real issue is the one you allude to, regarding the causality. I’d say roughly that it’s a two-way, reciprocal causality between the way we live and the way we think, with, probably, our practices as in some way primary.

Yes, I did expect you to say that it’s precisely the supposed reduction of ideas to the socially material that is characteristic of secular humanist sciences such as sociology. Anyway yeh, it’s for another discussion.

It’s not a particularly Marxist view any more. That beliefs cannot be disentangled from society, or that they do not float free of society, is pretty standard in sociology, anthropology, historiography, etc.

Everything humans do is a product of culture and society, and always has been.

I understand that marxism will generally depict religious ideas as being product of culture and society. But consider Buddhism, if you can call Buddhism a religion. It is certainly a social institution now, but it originated as a renunciate movement, deliberately outside social convention. — Wayfarer

And as such, a product of culture and society. But sure, it wasn’t institutional. Not sure what the point was here.

I believe that you approach a very significant and important ontological subject here — Metaphysician Undercover

That’s the way I roll :cool:

But I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Interesting though.

In the sense of ‘known first person’ not ‘particular to the individual’ or ‘private’. — Wayfarer

Ok. :chin:

There is no way of distentangling religious thought institutions and social reality

Is this a rewording to make a statement that you agree with? If so, what you’ve got here is a truism, since institutions are social reality.

I wonder if by "experiential" you also mean personal, as opposed to ritualistic?

Insofar as I know what you mean, I might agree.

I actually do have an e-copy, I've read sections of it, but must find the time to give it a more thorough reading. I had encountered his criticism of the malign effects of Darwinism on philosophy on another site, that is what caught my eye (but only as a critic of scientific materialism, *not* as an ID sympathizer.) — Wayfarer

I was not quite happy with his criticism of Darwinism, because he often fails to distinguish Darwinism and popular Darwinism, the latter including Social Darwinism.

Otherwise, I found the sections about positivism, pragmatism, and Thomism a bit tedious, partly because they are very much of their time and not fit for purpose--regarding the first two--in a critique of contemporary analytic philosophy or pragmatism.

When I was studying comparative religion, I had a theory that the kind of enlightenment prized in yoga and Buddhism - not Enlightenment in the European sense! - was similar to what the early gnostic schools had been based around. And that the victory of what came to be Catholic orthodoxy was because it was much more politically expedient to organise belief, than the esoteric knowledge represented by gnosticism. I found a scholar by the name of Elaine Pagels, whose book Beyond Belief affirmed a similar thesis. It concerns exegesis of the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic text that was found in Egypt in 1945 as part of the Nag Hammadi Library discovery. Through analysis of the sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas, Pagels demonstrates its themes of self-discovery, spiritual enlightenment, and the pursuit of a direct connection with the divine. She reveals the influence of Gnosticism on the Gospel of Thomas and examines its contrasts with orthodox Christianity and the political and theological tensions that led to the suppression and exclusion of Gnostic texts from the canon of the New Testament. She explores the power struggles within early Christianity and how the emerging orthodoxy based on the Gospel of John sought (successfully) to define and control the faith. And as always, history is written by the victors.

At the time I was doing this reading, I had the view that this was a watershed in the history of Western culture, and that had more of the gnostic elements been admitted, it would have resulted in a much more practice-oriented and 'eastern' form of spirituality. The fact that these exotic forms of religion have had such a huge impact in Western culture the last few centuries is because that approach was suppressed in, and absent from, its own indigenous religious culture. That's what made it 'weak'. — Wayfarer

Interesting. I'm happy enough to agree that "the victory of what came to be Catholic orthodoxy was because it was much more politically expedient to organise belief, than the esoteric knowledge represented by gnosticism," but since my conception of history is much more materialist (in the Marxian sense) than yours, I don't accept your emphasis on the primacy of ideas. That's not to say, by the way, that I believe in a crude economic determinism or the one-way causal power of the mode of production, but it was no accident that the gnostic element wasn't admitted, and therefore I think that such a counterfactual history doesn't tell us much.

Unless, maybe, we ask, "what would society have had to be like to allow gnosticism to take hold?". But then, gnosticism is what it is owing to its heretical, outsider status, and how much of that character would have been preserved in its institutionalization? Think of how much the words of Jesus, as accepted in Catholic orthodoxy, were performatively contradicted in medieval Europe.

There is no way of distentangling religious thought and social reality or of preserving the purity of a set of ideas, unless they have become museum pieces. And even then, we interpret them.

There’s an interesting tension in it. On the one hand he doesn’t openly lament the loss of the old manifestations of objective reason, motivated no doubt by the hope that some sort of Marxist humanism is the right kind of objective reason for the twentieth century; but on the other hand the tone is often one of lament, nostalgia, and pessimism.

EDIT: It might also be worth noting that in his later years he became even more pessimistic, and more sympathetic to religion.

Yes, Horkheimer's account is pretty much in line with yours, but there are three things to note here.

First, with the Greeks, subjective and objective were not separate, logos being originally subjective--"I say"; so subjective reason is not new. Second, logos as the animating principle of the universe was just one manifestation of objective reason, another being the reason of the bourgeois Enlightenment. Thirdly and most importantly, he does not lament the loss of past manifestations of objective reason and does not see objective reason as necessarily transcendent.

He discusses some attempts to bring back objective reason:

Today there is a general tendency to revive past theories of objective reason in order to give some philosophical foundation to the rapidly disintegrating hierarchy of generally accepted values. Along with pseudo-religious or half-scientific mind cures, spiritualism, astrology, cheap brands of past philosophies such as Yoga, Buddhism, or mysticism, and popular adaptations of classical objectivistic philosophies, medieval ontologies are recommended for modern use.

But the transition from objective to subjective reason was not an accident, and the process of development of ideas cannot arbitrarily at any given moment be reversed. If subjective reason in the form of enlightenment has dissolved the philosophical basis of beliefs that have been an essential part of Western culture, it has been able to do so because this basis proved to be too weak. Their revival, therefore, is completely artificial: it serves the purpose of filling a gap. — Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason

Then he launches a critique of modern Thomism.