It’s going to be so humiliating to have to explain to future generations that people actually called it “contemporary art.” We are gonna get so incredibly clowned on
@simmy396705 Be nicer to people please. It will help you feel more at ease and allow your inner monologue to be kinder to yourself. I’m sorry you’re feeling this way right now
@James_Martell_ At some point people gotta get over this dumb continental/analytic divide. Searle had many interesting things to say, philosophy students should stop trying to turn philosophy into like, the k-pop fandom
Ah! You see, the story is almost too perfect. The man encounters her in the museum, in front of Rothko. And what is Rothko? A black void, a red abyss, the silent scream of modernity. It is a demand for stillness, for confrontation with nothingness. And what does he do? Instead of confronting the void, he runs from it. He fills the silence with himself. He goes home, finds her blog, and writes: “we share interests, I read your post, I disagree.” Already, the act is obscene. The Rothko asks for silence, and he answers with a DM.
This is the Hegelian trick. On the surface, he performs philosophy. He frames his words as serious critique. But in truth, it is abstract negation. It is like Coke Zero, you know. Disagreement without the sugar of real engagement. He does not move the thought forward, he re-presents her own words back to her, only stamped with his authority: “I disagree.”
Now comes the reversal. She screenshots it. She posts it with the caption, “I am begging the men of the world to be normal.” Here, the dialectic achieves its completion. His attempt at recognition collapses into objecthood. He wanted to be interlocutor, he becomes exhibit. His seriousness is aufgehoben into comedy. He thought he was engaging in philosophy, but he is transformed into what Lacan would call the objet petit DM, the tiny kernel of humiliation now circulating in the meme economy.
And this is the paradox. The message was never private. Every DM already carries within it the possibility of its public unveiling. The truth of the DM is not in what it says, but in what it becomes. By posting it, she does not betray the interaction. She reveals it.
The Rothko was the warning. The void demanded contemplation. He could not endure it. He rushed to fill it with pseudo-philosophy. And so his words fell into the same abyss, only to return as content.
@penelopep4386 I know, sorry if I came off as misinterpreting your point. I was merely building off your comparison between “I don’t see color” (obviously untrue, demeaning) and “anyone can be anything” (obviously untrue, demeaning). You were probably just pointing it out as virtue signaling
@BludSquirrel@SCHUGARandspice@girldrawsghosts Nowhere does this post argue that Frankenstein’s monster’s acts aren’t evil. It just (correctly) points out that in the novel, the monster is a sympathetic character. He undergoes incredible mistreatment by Dr. Frankenstein and then lashes out. Also, DND references? Immature.
@AllLivebeMatter@agentofchaos427@MidyettRox@microwave_user Hey, you seem really angry. It’s honestly worrying. Normally when I see comments like yours on the internet I just roll my eyes and move on, maybe give a playful jab or two. But in this case, I’m just hoping you’ve got someone to turn to when you get so worked up
@fridakhalhoe What’s especially weird is that you are unlike literally all people. You’re not even like most freaky art history students that are (lapsed?) Catholic and from Texas in their mid twenties that dress like 19th century french women