I'm fine with it so long as whoever I'm speaking with could qualify their use of the term. I largely come from a psychology background, and only occasionally dabble in philosophy. Shifting gears isn't too hard but some people do get hard to parse once the concepts are starting to stack.

Hey there i really liked your video. I have a question if you wouldnt mind helping me out. Ive recently found myself falling further to the left but am dealing with an internal conflict. Well i now value concepts such as workers ownership of the means of production, i still find myself valueing free expression and free speech. I ask are these two things reconcilable? On the surface the look like they clearly are but conditioning from the right that has created this assumption that to be on the left and to value anything that may be a individual value and not a collective one is oxymoronic. Can one be a socialist while holding onto certain liberal values or is their some contradiction hidden that i have yet to discover?

Seems arbitrary, primates don't seeks a narrative to fit their experience into, the narrative is a trivial afterthought. Its the innate biological desire for hierarchy and being seen as the top that drives those narratives and what the images are stimulating... we can do away with the narrative speak completely and understand the topic more effectively.

@@brad5696 sorry to interject, just wanted to mention that the goal of communism is actually to free the individual i.e. to be both free from hunger/pain/dependency and free to fully express themselves. Any so-called left-wing theorist who embraces authoritarianism (Stalinists for example) is either willfully or unconsciously misinterpreting Marx' and Engel's theories. In (ideal) communism the dialectic between collective and individual interest would not be this massive divide that it is right now (as self-interest reigns supreme in capitalism).

@@brad5696 I would argue that the left is ready to take liberalism to its conclusion (that being libertarianism, theres a reason this term was initially used for social anarchists). Free expression and free speech are both not only compatible with leftist values, but especially the first one is one of our core principles. This is also why many great artists (such as picasso) were communists. As slavoj zizek once put it "Communism is when everybody gets to live out their stupidity". Leftism, in its core, is the rejection of hierarchy, both economic (private ownership of the means of production) and political (we want maximum democracy or sometimes even more self-determination than that). The only instances of authoritarian leftism were specifically meant to be a transitional stage on the way to true freedom. The "freedom of speech" bit is of course a little tricky. First of all, fascism too dangerous to be ignored IMO. Cracking down on Nazis, even with violence if necessary, is honestly just self-defense (these people literally want to commit genocide). We should also remain critical of our language. This, however, is something you cannot enforce by law. Finally, and this is fairly controversial within the left, some people would prefer to have protection against speech that is harmful, such as transphobic rhetoric, which (and this is scientific fact) can directly incite violence against vulnerable groups. The rights of the vulnerable not to be put in danger trumps the right of bigots to spout their disgusting crap. Edit: Collectivism has nothing to do with conformism, individualism has nothing to do with individuality. It is the individualists who will insult you on the street for wearing clothes that society thinks aren`t ok for your gender. I know that question wasn`t for me, but still, i hope i was helpful in your radicalization ;)

I felt this in my soul

you obviously have a huge ego.

Just spent 15 minutes trying to articulate why I am not searching for superiority. Any argument I make supports the idea that I am searching for superiority, just like trying to show a lack of pride reinforces pride. I've come to the conclusion that, sure, I'm looking for a better ideology. Is that a bad thing? Especially if I'm trying to use it to make everyone's life better. I just want everyone to have a foundational standard of living, and I'm not afraid to lower my own standard of living to get it. By lottery of birth, I happen to be fairly well-off. I want everyone to have what they need, because I could've been born where they are.

@@aldenheterodyne2833 This is one of those issues inbred in our culture to an extreme. We learn that we need to grow, our societies needs to grow and grow and simply overlook that this is not what it takes to make us more happy (given a certain living standard). We are injected what we "want" and confuse it with what we "need" to be fully integrated and therfore "happy". To say "hey, we have to give up some of our comfort" is like an argument that hits our mentality towards materialistic growth so hard, that basically many people will stop listening. Truth is not being taken well and while I fully sign your position in this as I draw my "happiness" from mostly other things, to argue in such a way is impossible in order to reach change. I can just think of education. Here is a good example, there was media which claimed that young people don't know how to deal with finances well, not having saving strategies for their elder stages. It was suggested that we bring such topics into education, as if that is what we need. It makes me very upset, where is philosophy class, some Socrates in early stages of life to implant a great respect in spouting opinions, some ethics that can teach us how to interpret the world around us? We need education that teaches how to think, not how to best survive or thrive in a system that challenges our very existence.

Asura Heterodyne that’s called self worth, Just Make sure you rid yourself of evil first before you try and rid the world of it

Yes. this is extremely important to recognize, and is vital to observe how people are radicalized online because of it.

Xdye What’s your solution to this?

​@@aboxintheblack9530 I don't think I can pinpoint a single simple and easy solution to such a complicated problem. I would need to think about it a lot more.

Xdye I understand. It sucks that positive ideas aren’t usually presented on subjects like these.

ounocat Can’t there be another alternative?

+

More like a community.

Jesus christ

Barbies rise up

SEIZE THE MEANS OF BARBIE CONSUMPTION

I got Holiday Barbie. I'm glad I'm still able to enjoy things & not overthink them like a stupid fool.

@Der Einzige honey, it's a joke. calm down.

I got Guerrillera Barbie

I got Malibu barbie. They have to go.

I got Holocaust Barbie.

Hahahaha. Never been there. Neither have my nieces. Eff you

+

That's soo realtable lmao

@@crt1848 Thanks for replying- I usually hesitate to say we're too divided to all come together against capitalism, because a lot of leftists take that idea and run too far with it, letting folks get a free pass for some really terrible words/actions under the claim that we have to have solidarity with each other, but I do agree with the sentiment.

@z g I 100% agree with what you're sayin here- I mean, compare the amount of media attention Nancy Pelosi got for ripping up Trump's speech, "whooooaahh so bold and brave!" (sarcasm), compared to what her policies actually do, most of which are honestly pretty Trumpian. The modern democrat or republican distinction is like trying to define two groups without much of a difference, especially when it comes to things like how much the US gets involved in the Middle East and how. It almost does feel like the modern political parties of today were invented to keep us bickering about the super small distinctions while the larger issues go completely unchallenged.

Capitalism wants us to so that we consume more by being different every day, which makes us all the same in the end.

And what do you guys think of postmoderism?

I think I generally agree and I think the modern US (specifically the middle class in it) is really the end point of this process, the reason why that is, is because the US was a country shaped by capitalism throughout it's entire history. It's pretty consistent that Europeans will accuse the US of having no culture and while this critique is often elitist it's not entirely wrong because it's pretty clear that the US really lacks any significant cultural identity other than capitalism. Like what is US culture? The only thing people can really point to is various corporations and consumption, the American dream for example is literally about being a consumer. There's no American holiday that is not about consumption in some way, Christmas is basically only about shopping and eating, Thanksgiving is too, Easter is barely celebrated, the 4th of July is just about eating and loudly declared loyalty to the state. And the so called "Christian Values" that American conservatives might point to are not even consistent to American Christianity but also are often kinda meaningless, and their own Christianity is also largely about consumption as megachurches advise their participants to consume their religion. The heavy atomization and colonial violence of the US is what enabled this to form, so it's also found in other settler colonial states such as Australia and Canada. Their culture is hard to see as diverging from the UK's culture in any way other than like having one or two unique brands and then basing everything on that. But that is not to say that this is unique to the US and can't happen elsewhere, I think in general capitalism seeks to erode away culture for the simple reason that anything that is not based on either work or consumption is not beneficial to it. It's clearly happening in Europe too where slowly unique traditions are disappearing and losing their meaning, at which point they become empty signifies that you can argue about forever. For example the whole "War on Christmas" narrative only exists because Christmas has completely lost everything associated with it that is not just consumption, it has not and could not find footing in a country like Denmark where everyone would scoff at the idea because Christmas is understood to mean a lot more than just consumption with a vague connection to Christianity. Basically by their nature as being human things most cultural traditions were communal in some way and often involved taking a break from whatever your daily life was and having fun, this however is unacceptable to capitalism as it is not very profitable. Not working reduces profits and so does not consuming, if Christmas for you is mainly about kindness and community then you might even fuck things up for capitalism by forming something like a mutual aid network. The only part of culture that capitalism will allow to remain is the dressing up of it, the visual elements and the words but the actions it involves can not.

Agreed. It's pitch-perfect. Learned more in those 20min than from reading entire books on these subjects. He really knows his stuff and is extremely good at communicating the ideas contained within.

Completely agree. I just started watching Ceika's videos 3 days ago but he is able to explain complex philosophical topics so clearly. It has been a huge eyeopener so far. Defintelely recommend his videos on Miyazaki, the Simpsons and The Matrix as well. I feel like I finally understand why I have been feeling so detached, unfocused and unfulfilled all these years.

@@DE-bs9cf he did one on The Matrix? I've not seen it

Omg 😅

lol

UH MAZIN!

They really had us in that first half

Same, for me it was the societies of control video, completely different way of looking at the world!

This is the best reply

Capitalist Realism was a horror story, not a libertatory text

I thought you had bought some grey sweaters and cartons of cigarettes?

Christopher Stanley I don’t think he was arguing against the potentiality of non capitalist societies. I think he was instead arguing that engaging in capitalist systems for the purpose of survival while living under a capitalist system is not a hypocritical thing to do. He isn’t saying other systems aren’t possible, rather that while working towards creating those systems, you are forced to acquire the material needs for your survival by selling your labor power. I read his point as a simple restatement of Marx’s central thesis, not a statement of fatalism

@@huckthatdish He isn't arguing that, he's been on other threads, but I really like your argument defending his potential argument. It was clever.

@@yurinabesima honestly I didn't realize anyone likes buzzfeed unironically lmao I mean I do a quiz or watch a video from time to time for funsies but who on earth is out here like "YEA buzzfeed that's my dudes"

@@yurinabesima even more to the point, Peretti should be aware of how his company isn't really accelerating any cultural breakdown; they're clearly just participating in the profiteering. The guy has been deep in theory throughout his life- and I don't think that excuses becoming a capitalist to own the libs.

Accelerationism sounds like the perfect pretext to behave like a psychopath.

@@Agora13 that's usually what it means yeah

Trump is the greatest Accelerationist.

Saturation, threshold, reversal. Something like that.

@@TWD66 Explain please?

@@prod.by3zko It's a classic pattern in Baudrillard's late works. He applies it to very many different fields. In a historical perspective, he uses thresholds or breaking points to describe the change in meaning (or the abolition of meaning) of different things. Inversion. Example : freedom. At first there was a will for freedom (Ancient Regime / feminist movements), then there was the actual emancipation (Revolution / Civil rights), then there is an imperative to be free (Modernity). In the last stage - the imperative - there is a reversal or abolition of the meaning of the previous stages. (ex : the will is a collective desire ; the imperative is an individual burden) So, here it is : desire, event, imperative. The imperative contradicts the desire, with the event as a breaking point. Applied to information : the abundance of information in modern societies abolishes the fact. Threshold : information has become integral (encompasses all). When integral, information becomes its own end and its meaning is reversed. Example : there is no hierarchy in information anymore. It becomes a self-serving system. Sorry for the maybe not so enlightening answer, I believe The Intelligence of Evil and Simulacra and Simulation are the two works in which those concepts are taken to the extreme. If you frequent a public library... :)

@@TWD66 It was thick (I've just begun to dip my toes into this sort of thing), but no, your answer was excellent! Thank you for taking the time to write that! I don't read too much hard literature at the moment, but I have a list of books I intend to read, I added them to that. Thank you again friend.

And this is why Metal Gear Solid 2 is the greatest game of all time.

Hi from one Paul M to another, you're definitely on the right track here. You may not have much experience in Philosophy but you have clearly thought about the content of the video and applied it your own experience. Memes are a good example of how signs work in a cultural sense. Therefore they are definitely representative of society as a whole. May I suggest Roland Barthes 'Mythologies' if you're interested in the semiotic aspect of this video?

F. Jameson, Post-modernism or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. It might shed some light on this. Basically explains how items become more and more separated from their signifiers as they're cited from author to author and can then get an entirely new meaning or absence of meaning. Concretely, imagine a photographer makes a famous photo of, say, a meeting; then film director A cites the photo in movie A; some years later film director B cites the scene from movie A into a movie B; some time later again a painter paints a piece inspired by the scene in movie B; and so on. So the scene becomes frequent in pop culture but time after time it becomes another symbol entirely than what it represented originally (a meeting). Well, read Jameson, he explains it better than me XD TL;DR: Yes, memes are totally a post-modern language.

Paul M nothing wrong with not having a serious experience with philosophy so long as your thinking and engaging with the ideas presented to you! The more difficult and challenging the better! The more your current thoughts and ideas subvert your previous notions, and teach you a deeper truth and perspective about the experience of being alive the better! To me that’s always been my use of philosophy! To find a better way of seeing the world that makes me excited to think about the world. I used to be depressed, but philosophy and exploring new ways of looking at my experience, and the world, and other people really changed that for me! Keep it up!!

@J R It will stabilize eventually, or evolve into something else, or stop brutally. Depends on a lot of things. Genres and schools coexist and go with the changes in society. If I take Cinema as an example, modernism lasted roughly 50 years, it's still there marginally.

You dont need to be experienced in Philosophy to form your own thoughts. You have language, and you should use it, no shame or self doubt. Leave the doubting of your thoughts to other people. I have picked up the slight notion in leftist intellectual circles that people get shamed if the dont use "the right terminology" and simply speak whats in their mind with the tools (language, etc.) they inhereted. This imo often leads to sect like structures, suprisingly also in leftist groups that indentify themselves as libertarian, antiauthoritarian or anarchist.

Aqua started off as a parody of ultrapop groups, but then they were assimilated by the very system they were mocking.

Never understood how people could take the song to be anything but ironic. The mockery is obvious.

@@oftinuvielskin9020 Barbie's unwillingness to answer Ken's calls for nighttime entertainment with anything but postverbal cheers is clearly reminescent of Barthes' application of linguistics to the post-modernist analytical framework. In this essay I will-

@@decepticonne Go on

@@decepticonne continue

Ikr I’m doing laundry and I am so lost .

u so silly >:^)

RoboLamp bit of an elitist attitude

can't wait till you hear about the gacha culture

It's the notion of teaching people how to think critically. Some people do want to, and others take it so far it becomes a fault. As the most controversial media critic of last decade said, it's okay to enjoy media while understanding it's problematic or pernicious aspects. I have friends who are avid game collector nerds. I myself adore certain franchises while completely aware they are made to sell me more stuff. I don't think it's necessary to judge the victims of this process, as they were never given the tools necessary to detect these problems, and really, why should they care? What are we telling them: even when they are told they can still enjoy Pokemon, or the Avengers, or Game of Thrones, they feel something is being taken from them when they are pressed to recognize the faults created by a late capitalism nightmare. The blame is with the advertisers and the producers for creating false insecurities and needs, for capitalizing, really preying on human emotional needs. With the government for allowing education to become a commodity for those that can afford it. The victims, there are worse things to pity people for, I would sooner say people who don't have access to a job they loved if only they could have if education and money were easier to come by sooner deserve pity than any ignorant hardcore geek. At least their passions, as valuable or silly as they are, are being filled.

​@@antonevan443i was also thinking about gacha culture, i do play but at least i dont put any money on it

I have noticed that the reactionaries/right wingers are beginning to reject capitalism. Some are even referring to "cultural Marxism" as cultural capitalism. While the "left" is increasingly becoming occupied by Neo-liberals.

@@grandmastersreaction1267 theyre NazBols

So you're saying we need National Socialism?

@@noumena9463 Yes.

​@@accelerationquanta5816we need socialism period

same lol

people who learns the sword uses the sword.

bilibiliism this requires one to rebuke their ideals and accept the pull of profit and power.

@CountFenrir its a win in every outcome, either you overthrow capitalism or die rich.

No one does capitalism better than anti-capitalists. That's funny, but we should still be critical of these ex-leftist capitalists.

He's not holding Communism back or furthering Capitalist propaganda, he is just taking part into the system he is forced to take part into, the same way any wage worker does

waterguyroks Check out his other videos on postmodernism/postmodernity. He discusses Jameson in depth there as well.

in defence of computer history museums: without curation and maintenance, by the time computers would hit the age of typical museum relics, there would be no curation possible. computers _absolutely require_ regular restoration, as capacitors can and regularly do 'blow' or 'explode' without direct power over a matter of time, and the battery acid that leaks will devour the components. while it may be possible to restore to a workable condition even after heavy corrosion damage, it wouldn't be possible while maintaining the same appearance and useability as preservation can do. and i would argue this is a legitimate pursuit, this maintenance, because the computer, for better or worse, has such a wide spread cultural significance, one which, looking back at the earliest computers and personal computers, is hard to understand _how_ they caught the kind of interest they did (of course, we take it for granted, but beyond a lot of quoted promises from the industry, it is almost impossible to understand how these machines were beneficial, especially PCs that only offered a text interface that only took BASIC input). against the defence of computer history museums: some of these fucking displays are absurd and show a lot of nothing that truly matters, such as the original semi-translucent imacs, which, other than having eye-catching designs, mostly seem only to be on display so that anyone who is sceptical can affirm that it is all driven largely by nostalgia for archaic nerd tech. yes, yes, i too wanted the pretty purple grape imac 'monitor' over our beige box monitor, but it is hardly a substantial point of the history of these computers which dominate our lives. but again, i think computer history, and the maintenance of working early models, can be extremely helpful in critical analysis of the development and drives behind its acceptance--something even the most staunchly wary critics of the computer technology often do not take the time to detail in their criticisms. they, too, take it as a given that the computer was always significant, always going to change the world, but it is extremely hard to see the appeal of a device which, in its early iterations especially, seemed only good at doing what calculators and typewriters already did, and mostly business garbage if anything else. i also find the entire notion of 'classical meme' curation to be repulsive if it is not a small display in the corner of current art display sets. (which do happen, mind.) an aside: one thing worth noting is that mark fisher in particular points to this dissolution in context of generation-binding music in particular, a phenomenon that is only applicable to a very short subsect of human history, and only got significant importance after the spread of reliable and easy music recordings (particularly vinyl records; reel to reel is too finicky, very expensive, not as embraced as the record). before that, even, music on local radio was the domain of the 'radio star'; this wasn't so long ago, my grandmother was one such 'radio star', her occupation was literally singing the lyrics over a classical music reel-to-reel, as reel tapes don't tend to have clear vocals). so, not too long before fisher's foundational binding of cultural identity through common music in his youth, the common music binding people was situated within the voice of the radio stars of one's community as well. i'm not saying this to discredit fisher, but pointing out that these ideas of time-and-place for identity foundations _were already unravelling_ by the time fisher found identity as etched in record needles. this also dissolved in 'commercial art' as the photograph became easier to produce quickly, as tv took the dominant advertisment vehicle. my 'radio star' grandmother had a brother who was a professional commercial artist, i own his textbooks from the fine arts school which he attended to be at parity. while ads today can quickly jump from trend to trend as quickly as possible (thanks to photos and preferences away from drawn depictions to filmed acted ads), the field of commercial art could be argued to bind a culture within a familiar artistic style (often a semi-realism based on extremely idealised proportions). while it may be remiss to say 'ah, ads are A Good Art, Actually!' it is worth pondering that the reason we can identify an early 20th century ad so extremely easily is _an explicit consistent stylisation_ that situates it by purpose (commercial art is distinctly commercial art), time (the period of handdrawn and painted newspaper/magazine ads) and place (the specific stylisation that is meant to appeal to the culture). that this style is also appreciated in a curiously nostalgic way is also telling. there is a primary focus shift on ads recorded on VHS showcasing the ~90s period of less appreciation of the artistic representation and more as commentary on the trends of the time period. this continues even up to now (the ubiquitous ukelele ads of the last decade come to mind). identification comes less from a binding representation of time-and-place to the fashion and colloquial trends by the 1990s, and further to generating 'weird' ads in the 2000s and 2010s to grab attention. confusion was the goal in most successful ads (and now, it seems, corporate nihilistic quips on twitter).

I am not that much aware of the notion that you are mentioning, however I'll investigate it and come back to you as to give my own opinion. Hopefully someone else might help better than I can at the moment, because the connection that you mention reads as a very interesting one.

@@YowaneHakuu okay.. Thank you. I will be waiting.

Here is a piece on it: philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/the-disappearance-of-human/ Also, your idea was very well communicated & your English was perfect (Actually better than Alicia's lol.)

I think there is a relationship. I have my own interpretation, i am not a Foucault scholar but read his work. I think there is something specific with Foucault. The death of God that Nietzsche explains was the death of a social order that centered around a specific grand narrative. Gradually we gained another narrative which could be called humanism which tried to understand the essence of what it means to be “man”. And yet our humanistic ideas are equally structurally bounded. There are certain set of Episteme which uphold the idea of “Man” similar to a certain set of Episteme that upheld the idea of God. So the way I interpret Foucault is that a certain point the “myth of Man” will disintegrate. For example we have come to believe a myth of universal attributes of “Man” which we fantasize to be universal across time and culture. And yet upon closer inspection the myth does not hold. I think what Foucault was doing with the idea was criticizing our notion of universal humanism in the same way that Nietzsche criticized Christianity. Humanism “Man” becomes just another narrow concept that has nothing to do with the real potentiality of man, just as Christianity became a perversion of conformity and slave morality described by Nietzsche a perversion of what Christ might have originally taught.

I think that when F. talked about the "disappearance of man", he was referring "man" as a category, a concept, in the abstract, and not the subject of self-experience. You can still have an operational concept of "man" when analyzing what is the target of identities. Even if the subject doesn't experience herself as a unity, the fact that we can still have a discourse about individuals as totalities is the proof that the category has indeed not disappeared.I think it would be more accurate to point that the category of "man" would have taken a real blow if psychoanalysis had had a greater longevity in social studies and would have had less the tendency to inherit the dogmatism of Freud. By breaking the unity of "man" the concept would have become useless outside of the legal sphere. It would have shown how historically contingent the idea of "man" is, just like how the idea of "atoms" as the smallest individual particle is.

I know this is an old comment but this actually seems like a good idea. Better than some of the other methods

@@vincentstark7093 What's a single advantage of this framework?

I woke up by a desert road covered in a weird orange dust that smelled of citrus, with a strange gas canister right next to me and what looked like a blown up camper van a few hundred yards down the road. Come to think about it, I remember briefly hearing a helicopter fly overhead before losing conscious again.

all i got was this dank sense of consumer-dread

Dude! I’m in space! My spacesuit is made of fish scales and the sweet scent of jasmine floats lazily in the atmosphere of my fishsuit. ...how do I get down from here?

I'm still in my room, but there's a boa constrictor in my hosiery drawer and there are no longer any windowpanes in my windows.

Not a Christian, but you nailed this. This is what drove me to Stoicism and keeps me grounded.

That wasn't real schizophrenia.

Radical versions of deleuzianism, or the most vulgar ones at least, pave the way for nomad decentralized primitivists who like to hippie all day long in their fragmentary chambers. Others like Nick Land take it into cybernetics. Jameson's view is still modernist and progressive, in the sense that in still cherishes civilization, progress, and social order.

@@lupo-femme Yeah, I've been thinking about this a bit more and the sort of accelerationism argued for by Deleuze and Guattari according to this vid (I've read very little Deleuze myself) seems treacherous. If the Buzzfeed guy is supposed to be engaging in this process of acceleration, then he is also engaging in capitalist exploitation at the same time. How do we know exactly what the limits of capital are and how do we accelerate them in a way that won't lead to awful outcomes? Maybe there are similar problems in Marxist theory and praxis, too. Again, I don't know.

I've only recently been reading on signifiers/signs, the signifying chain, and its relation to schizophrenia (or I think as Lacan originally wrote, psychosis). But its less the "dissolving of signifiers" and more the dissolution of the "signifying chain", the signifying chain being a group of signifiers combined other to convey a coherent idea or narrative. In a literal sense, I gather, a symptom of schizophrenia lacan targets is the seeming inability to string together coherent sentences. In this case, words are signifiers, and sentences are signifying chains. A common symptom of schizophrenia is word salad, which in a lacanian perspective is the signifying chain (coherent strings of words to convey ideas) completely breaking down and becoming a mess of unrelated signifiers. There's also other aspects he goes into such as the inability to distinguish metaphor from literal meaning, which is a different form of the breakdown of signifiers/signifying chain, as metaphor is a complex use of related signifiers in a signifying chain to convey a more abstract "signified" thing indirectly. In example, the schizophrenic might find meaning in literal prose where there is none, or may take metaphorical prose as literal reality. Sorry if thats a bit of a mess, I'm still getting a grapple upon it myself, so I havent worked out how to better convey it

note also that these writings come from the mid 20th century when schizophrenia was less understood than it is now, so some of the assumptions and ways we identify schizophrenia have changed as we have a somewhat better modern understanding. Nevertheless as mentioned in the video, some thinkers use the lacanian perspective on schizophrenia to relate to culture, where instead of words, cultural signifiers are things pertaining to cultural identity such as religion, ethics, subculture, hobbies/interests, etc. Capitalism is related then to schizophrenia since it similarly breaks down the coherence of these signifying chains by incentivizing the rapid interchange and adoption of cultural signifiers such that the narrative that chains them together is no longer relevant so long as they can use the signifiers to get you to buy stuff ie generate capital

@@RyanCacophony as i wrote below, i don't agree with that part- in my opinion, advertising i splaying much more on our need to relate to the most dominant (successful) individual than on our need for philosophical suicide, which it seems to be thought of as in my opinion