Дежуловић

fernoux-h wrote:Aha, dobro, bio je ciničan. (Nisam čitao Dežulovića ranije) Ipak, mi biramo prema čemu ćemo da budemo cinični, on je izabrao da to bude prema žrtvama ISIS, jer je hrvatski mejnstrim protiv ISIS, a takav odnos gaji prema srpskim žrtvama. To što je izabrao baš Salopeka da se sprda je svakako gadost.

We must distinguish this cynical position strictly from what Sloterdijk calls kynicism. Kynicism represents the popular, plebeian rejection of the official culture by means of irony and sarcasm: the classical kynical procedure is to confront the pathetic phrases of the ruling official ideology — its solemn, grave tonality — with everyday banality and to hold them up to ridicule, thus exposing behind the sublime noblesse of the ideological phrases the egotistical interests, the violence, the brutal claims to power. This procedure, then, is more pragmatic than argumentative: it subverts the official proposition by confronting it with the situation of its enunciation; it proceeds ad hominem (for example when a politician preaches the duty of patriotic sacrifice, kynicism exposes the personal gain he is making from the sacrifice of others).

it is the classic concept of ideology as 'false consciousness', misrecognition of the social reality which is part of this reality itself. Our question is: Does this concept of ideology as a naive consciousness still apply to today's world? Is it still operating today? In the Critique of Cynical Reason, a great bestseller in Germany (Sloterdijk, 1983), Peter Sloterdijk puts forward the thesis that ideology's dominant mode of functioning is cynical, which renders impossible- or, more precisely, vain — the classic critical-ideological procedure. The cynical subject is quite aware of the distance between the ideological mask and the social reality, but he none the less still insists upon the mask. The formula, as proposed by Sloterdijk, would then be: "they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it". Cynical reason is no longer naïve, but is a paradox of an enlightened false consciousness: one knows the falsehood very well, one is well aware of a particular interest hidden behind an ideological universality, but still one does not renounce it.

We must distinguish this cynical position strictly from what Sloterdijk calls kynicism. Kynicism represents the popular, plebeian rejection of the official culture by means of irony and sarcasm: the classical kynical procedure is to confront the pathetic phrases of the ruling official ideology — its solemn, grave tonality — with everyday banality and to hold them up to ridicule, thus exposing behind the sublime noblesse of the ideological phrases the egotistical interests, the violence, the brutal claims to power. This procedure, then, is more pragmatic than argumentative: it subverts the official proposition by confronting it with the situation of its enunciation; it proceeds ad hominem (for example when a politician preaches the duty of patriotic sacrifice, kynicism exposes the personal gain he is making from the sacrifice of others).

Cynicism is the answer of the ruling culture to this kynical subversion: it recognizes, it takes into account, the particular interest behind the ideological universality, the distance between the ideological mask and the reality, but it still finds reasons to retain the mask. This cynicism is not a direct position of immorality, it is more like morality itself put in the service of immorality — the model of cynical wisdom is to conceive probity, integrity, as a supreme form of dishonesty, and morals as a supreme form of profligacy, the truth as the most effective form of a lie. This cynicism is therefore a kind of perverted 'negation of the negation' of the official ideology: confronted with illegal enrichment, with robbery, the cynical reaction consists in saying that legal enrichment is a lot more effective and, moreover, protected by the law. As Bertolt Brecht puts it in his Threepenny Opera: "what is the robbery of a bank compared to the founding of a new bank?"

it subverts the official proposition by confronting it with the situation of its enunciation; it proceeds ad hominem (for example when a politician preaches the duty of patriotic sacrifice, kynicism exposes the personal gain he is making from the sacrifice of others).

fernoux-h wrote:Aha, dobro, bio je ciničan. (Nisam čitao Dežulovića ranije) Ipak, mi biramo prema čemu ćemo da budemo cinični, on je izabrao da to bude prema žrtvama ISIS, jer je hrvatski mejnstrim protiv ISIS, a takav odnos gaji prema srpskim žrtvama. To što je izabrao baš Salopeka da se sprda je svakako gadost.

William Murderface wrote:Pa da, ali Dežulović priča o građaninu pokornom koji se sablažnjava nad ISIS-om, a Glavaša i "ubij, ubij, ubij Srbina!" otpisuje kao nebitno skretanje pažnje sa pravih, ekonomskih tema. Zapravo je ideologija kou Dežulović demaskira, ne nacizam, nego pristojni liberalni nacionalizam.

William Murderface wrote:Naravno da je ideologija u pitanju nacionalizam - ali i kapitalizam (it's the economy, stupid!), i naravno da je Dežulović tretira upravo kinički.

William Murderface wrote:Hoćemo li dočekati odgovor na pitanje kako je Dežulović ciničan prema žrtvama ISIS-a, ili ćeš i to, kao i sve do sad, premostiti frazama i samopouzdanjem?

William Murderface wrote:Pa da, ali Dežulović priča o građaninu pokornom koji se sablažnjava nad ISIS-om, a Glavaša i "ubij, ubij, ubij Srbina!" otpisuje kao nebitno skretanje pažnje sa pravih, ekonomskih tema

fernoux-h wrote:

William Murderface wrote:Hoćemo li dočekati odgovor na pitanje kako je Dežulović ciničan prema žrtvama ISIS-a, ili ćeš i to, kao i sve do sad, premostiti frazama i samopouzdanjem?

William Murderface wrote:Pa da, ali Dežulović priča o građaninu pokornom koji se sablažnjava nad ISIS-om, a Glavaša i "ubij, ubij, ubij Srbina!" otpisuje kao nebitno skretanje pažnje sa pravih, ekonomskih tema

Naravno, treba pročitati i tekst da bi se videlo na koji je način Dežulke to artikulisao. Bar jedna stvar oko koje smo se složili - u pitanju je obično demaskiranje nacionalizma, ukazivanje na dvostruke aršine i stvari koje svi već znamo, i, ja bih dodao, sve to napisano na nivou Vedrane Rudan (hint: palestina i izrael).

Naravno, postoji popriličan broj razloga da Salopek bude vest br. 1 sledećih mesec dana (meni je više zanimljivo to što njegovo ubistvo to nije). Na terorizam je ovde (na Balkanu) gledano kao na nešto čemu je mesto ili na razvijenom Zapadu ili na Bliskom Istoku, nešto što ne može da ima veze sa nama. Ovo je prvi hrvatski građanin koji je stradao od ISIS-a, odsečena mu je glava uz javni prenos na internetu, i ako je nešto bilo za očekivati to je da će mediji ovo pažljivo pratiti iz dana u dan i pisati o tome pre nego o nečemu što se desilo pre dvadeset godina.

ostap bender wrote:pa ne.

kod vedrane rudan bi bilo ovako: dok deca gore pod bombama SSA u siriji mi jecamo sto je jedan hrvatcic ostao bez glave. da li je ta jedna hrvatska glava vrednija od tisucu palestinske dece a o srbima da i ne govorimo...