It means that those who explain culture through material circumstances reject the idea that our economic system is merely a playing out of psycho-sexual desires, because that argument sets up its terms as absolutes and then fits every experience into the framework. As such the explanation is historically situated within the time from which those categories developed. Instead of deriving our knowledge of psycho-sexuality from lived experience, it attempts to explain lived experience by a bunch of pre-determined categories (unlike historical materialism).
In your first sentence, what is the ‘because’ referring to? (Let’s assume ‘those who explain culture through material circumstances’ = cultural materialists). I take it to mean ‘cultural materialists reject the psycho-sexual explanation because it sets up its terms as absolutes and then fits every experience into the framework’. So am i right in thinking that cultural materialists work the other way around, derive some kind of model or absolute rule from the context?
So then the psycho-sexual approach “attempts to explain lived experience by a bunch of pre-determined categories”.
It means the Author that wrote that may be a self-absorbed, pretentious ass, to resort to logorrhoea. XP
Ugh, uhmm… lesse, cut, cut, cut, chop, cut…
People are dismissing that theory (that I never heard of), because it makes Marxist, even though there is no proof for or against. Except that the Author isn’t applying it to Econ. But, (according to the Author) it applies to gender relations, ie; the Author views women as the Poleteriat.
Short short version:
Author is saying: “Men are capitalist pig-dogs, my vagaina’d comrades.”
Noooo lexo, it means that Marxists think your lived circumstances, which includes-but-is-not-limited-to money, are a better place to begin to understand things than pure theory based on pre-conceived categories that sound cool. It means, “look at what happens around you first!”
This *could* lead you to “sex drives everything” just as much as “money drives everything” – the point is you don’t know until you take peoples lived experiences into account.
It’s about epistemology, and avoiding reification.
Xu-kitty i love your short-short version, but i found your explanation more confusing than the original thing :P
(also, re: epistemology and reification. I’m sorry. THEY IS NICE WORDS TO SAY.)
It means that those who explain culture through material circumstances reject the idea that our economic system is merely a playing out of psycho-sexual desires, because that argument sets up its terms as absolutes and then fits every experience into the framework. As such the explanation is historically situated within the time from which those categories developed. Instead of deriving our knowledge of psycho-sexuality from lived experience, it attempts to explain lived experience by a bunch of pre-determined categories (unlike historical materialism).
In your first sentence, what is the ‘because’ referring to? (Let’s assume ‘those who explain culture through material circumstances’ = cultural materialists). I take it to mean ‘cultural materialists reject the psycho-sexual explanation because it sets up its terms as absolutes and then fits every experience into the framework’. So am i right in thinking that cultural materialists work the other way around, derive some kind of model or absolute rule from the context?
So then the psycho-sexual approach “attempts to explain lived experience by a bunch of pre-determined categories”.
OK i think in understand now, thanks!
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
i got lost before the first letter 8s
It means the Author that wrote that may be a self-absorbed, pretentious ass, to resort to logorrhoea. XP
Ugh, uhmm… lesse, cut, cut, cut, chop, cut…
People are dismissing that theory (that I never heard of), because it makes Marxist, even though there is no proof for or against. Except that the Author isn’t applying it to Econ. But, (according to the Author) it applies to gender relations, ie; the Author views women as the Poleteriat.
Short short version:
Author is saying: “Men are capitalist pig-dogs, my vagaina’d comrades.”
It means that some genius out there figured out they could make big $$$ with a thesaurus and the wonder of tertiary education’s captive audiences.
It means that Marxists think that money drives everything and disagree with those who think that sex drives everything.
I like how rhetorical questions in mediums with commentary forums always get answered. Though I must admit that if no one had done it I’d have :p
Noooo lexo, it means that Marxists think your lived circumstances, which includes-but-is-not-limited-to money, are a better place to begin to understand things than pure theory based on pre-conceived categories that sound cool. It means, “look at what happens around you first!”
This *could* lead you to “sex drives everything” just as much as “money drives everything” – the point is you don’t know until you take peoples lived experiences into account.
It’s about epistemology, and avoiding reification.
Xu-kitty i love your short-short version, but i found your explanation more confusing than the original thing :P
(also, re: epistemology and reification. I’m sorry. THEY IS NICE WORDS TO SAY.)
All dialectical philosophy is gibberish.
People…questions like this posed in comics are *rhetorical*.
Thank you!