Authors

  • __nancyfraser_nd1

    Nancy Fraser

    Nancy Fraser is Loeb Professor of Philosophy and Politics at the New School for Social Research,...
  • Annette-fuentes

    Annette Fuentes

    "‘Zero-tolerance' policies funnel students into prisons."
  • Img_8481

    Franco Moretti

    Franco Moretti teaches Literature at Stanford, where is the Director of the Literary Lab. He is...
  • Owen-jones

    Owen Jones

    "A work of passion, sympathy and moral grace." Dwight Garner, New York Times

     

  • Prashad__vijay

    Vijay Prashad

    Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Professor of South Asian History at Trinity...
  • Benjamin_medea

    Medea Benjamin

    Medea Benjamin is a cofounder of the peace group CODEPINK and the international human rights...

Books

Blog

View all blog posts

Discussions

  • Has anyone else read this book?

    The comments seem like none of those people have ever read this book - yes, including Mr. Jones. I'm not even thirty pages in and I have learned nothing, except that the cartoon is like vaudeville, and that Felix was awesome. (I've read Felix: The Twisted Tale of the World's Most Famous Cat, and I'm sorry to say, it was a much better read than this.) 

    He claims to start in 1928 - and yet talks about nothing but the 19th century for a good two pages. The first chapter is a waste of pages and words. 

    The reason I'm bringing this up is because I'm attempting to write a book on the history of American animation. The books I have found are awful. If anyone could help me find either books pertaining to this subject or could point me in the right direction, I'd be forever indebted. I took this book from the library assuming it would be the best thing I've ever read pertaining to this subject. 

    0 responses

  • <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties> <o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template> <o:Revision>0</o:Revision> <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Pages>1</o:Pages> <o:Words>17</o:Words> <o:Characters>98</o:Characters> <o:Company>Unive

    For philosophy, framing the phenomenological gift aligns an eidetic point that begins to bracket in Nothingness, which may or may not give rise to the Encounter. It is a matter of thinking about contingency.  The primacy of thinking about contingency is simply the facticity of existing there within the Unconscious and the ether of unreal atoms—parallelism ad nausea. “The world is a ‘gift’ that we have been given,” Althusser elucidated, “the ‘fact of the fact’ that we have not chosen, and it ‘opens up’ before us in the facticity of its contingency, and even beyond this facticity, in what is not merely an observation, but a ‘being-in-the-world’ that commands all possible Meaning.” Opening this gift does frame “being-in-the-world.” There is the possibility of meaning and the meaning of the possibility—there is an effect of fictional subjectivity. There are effects stemming from the facticity of this very contingency of being-in-the-world. It is an eidetic effect as philosophical effect. Philosophy postulates eidetic points. As materialist portrait, nothingness is nothing but the theoretical understanding of non-materiality--the original of Being-- and hence there is a retroactive excursion, more or less, that may or may not find nothingness as a material object that is idyllically graced by the Philosophical Void.

    0 responses

  • Not new. not a review by Marx.

    These translations are not, as is alleged here, "new". Hanfi translated them 40 years ago.  The review "Luther between Strauss and Feuerbach", quoted from here, has been known not to be by Marx for almost as long. See MECW Vol. 1, 1975.

    0 responses