Scan barcode
levi_masuli's review against another edition
1.0
Disappointing. Has a few interesting points, especially the ones regarding totalitarianism, art, and others. But the most frustrating aspect is Groy's subordination of actual historical conditions to the concerns of language, working under the assumption of the 'linguistification of society,' the idea of communist authority as based on linguistic mastery, capability for paradox, and so on. Also has a lot of ridiculous assertions such as the Soviet Union reaching the point where class ceases to exist (perhaps following one of Stalin's more flawed assertions, that the classes are diminishing in Soviet Russia), and that philosophy and language has succeeded the concrete analysis of socio-economic conditions as matters of social and political relevance. This book is dangerous, because it promotes a lot of reactionary ideas under the guise of being 'hip' and revolutionary (heck, even Nazism is being revived as a fashionable today) because of its trendy glorification of Stalinist Russia and totalitarianism.
capitalreader4512's review against another edition
2.0
Found this very repetitive, didn't say much about philosophy of language or communism, very eclectic, bad critique of formal logic (I don't think Groys really understands it), not worth reading except for some occasional interesting passages.
jacob_wren's review against another edition
5.0
Boris Groys writes:
Whenever Socrates diagnoses an internal contradiction in a speaker, he immediately disqualifies that speech a non-evident, exposing the speaker as unfit for the just exercise of state power. Socrates’ questions break through the smooth, glittering surfaces of sophistical speech and uncover its contradictory, paradoxical core. It emerges that such speech only superficially appears to be well-knit and coherent. In its internal logical structure, however, it is obscure and dark because it is paradoxical. Hence, such speech cannot serve as a manifestation of clear and evident thinking but is good only as a commodity in the marketplace of ideas. The principle reproach directed against the sophists is that they compose their speeches solely for the sake of payment. This allows for an initial definition to be given for the functioning of paradox: a paradox that conceals its paradoxical nature becomes a commodity.
Also this interview about the book is very good:
http://xz.gif.ru/numbers/digest-2005-2007/postscript-to-the/
.
Whenever Socrates diagnoses an internal contradiction in a speaker, he immediately disqualifies that speech a non-evident, exposing the speaker as unfit for the just exercise of state power. Socrates’ questions break through the smooth, glittering surfaces of sophistical speech and uncover its contradictory, paradoxical core. It emerges that such speech only superficially appears to be well-knit and coherent. In its internal logical structure, however, it is obscure and dark because it is paradoxical. Hence, such speech cannot serve as a manifestation of clear and evident thinking but is good only as a commodity in the marketplace of ideas. The principle reproach directed against the sophists is that they compose their speeches solely for the sake of payment. This allows for an initial definition to be given for the functioning of paradox: a paradox that conceals its paradoxical nature becomes a commodity.
Also this interview about the book is very good:
http://xz.gif.ru/numbers/digest-2005-2007/postscript-to-the/
.
More...