On second thought, maybe I'll just use the ring real quick to put down this communist revolution. In fact, maybe I should work with Sauron to stamp out communism everywhere...
Foucault, Chomsky, and Fanon are all radical leftists in one way or another.
Foucault is best known for his analysis of the power structures in modern European societies and how they have evolved in the last several centuries. His work examining institutions such as hospitals, prisons, and schools had an enormous impact on sociology, philosophy, and leftist thinking. He rarely gave any positive accounts of what we should do, and in fact refused to give an account of what an ideal society would look like in his debate with Chomsky. Because of this, it is hard to say exactly what he thought we should do, but he was probably some kind of anarchist.
Chomsky is best known for his political criticism of Western society, the United states in particular (in the context of what's presented this comic at least, although I wouldn't be surprised if Elrond were some kind of linguistic persriptivist, so maybe he would have criticism on that front too). He explains how the powers in the United States are mostly committed to protect the wealthy property owners, and expanding their interests and assets abroad and within the Country. Some of the parts in the comic are direct parallels to things he brings up, such as a poll that was conducted where most of the world believes the United States is the number one threat to world peace.
Frantz Fanon was a radical anti-colonial philosopher and psychiatrist, who is best known for works such as The Wretched of the Earth where he makes the case that Marx did not understand how intertwined racial ideology was with capitalism. He says that it is a crucial element in allowing European powers to maintain their colonies, and expand their ownership and domination of Africa and elsewhere, while at the same time believing they are helping lift the colonies from poverty, and educating them. Without this ideology, which existed in Europe, and was exported into Africa itself, the colonies would collapse. He worked in his life to help free Algeria from French colonization, and also wrote prolifically on the psychological and phenomenological aspects of living in colonized Africa, under European rule.
Foucault is best known for his analysis of the power structures in modern European societies and how they have evolved in the last several centuries. His work examining institutions such as hospitals, prisons, and schools had an enormous impact on sociology, philosophy, and leftist thinking. He rarely gave any positive accounts of what we should do, and in fact refused to give an account of what an ideal society would look like in his debate with Chomsky. Because of this, it is hard to say exactly what he thought we should do, but he was probably some kind of anarchist.
Chomsky is best known for his political criticism of Western society, the United states in particular (in the context of what's presented this comic at least, although I wouldn't be surprised if Elrond were some kind of linguistic persriptivist, so maybe he would have criticism on that front too). He explains how the powers in the United States are mostly committed to protect the wealthy property owners, and expanding their interests and assets abroad and within the Country. Some of the parts in the comic are direct parallels to things he brings up, such as a poll that was conducted where most of the world believes the United States is the number one threat to world peace.
Frantz Fanon was a radical anti-colonial philosopher and psychiatrist, who is best known for works such as The Wretched of the Earth where he makes the case that Marx did not understand how intertwined racial ideology was with capitalism. He says that it is a crucial element in allowing European powers to maintain their colonies, and expand their ownership and domination of Africa and elsewhere, while at the same time believing they are helping lift the colonies from poverty, and educating them. Without this ideology, which existed in Europe, and was exported into Africa itself, the colonies would collapse. He worked in his life to help free Algeria from French colonization, and also wrote prolifically on the psychological and phenomenological aspects of living in colonized Africa, under European rule.
"Wait, but isn't stealing also wrong, according the the Categorical Imperative?"
"Ah, common mistake, you are applying the category too broadly. The category of what we are doing isn't 'stealing', it is 'getting one over on Nietzsche', which as you know is not only morally permissible, but in fact a moral imperative."
"Ah, common mistake, you are applying the category too broadly. The category of what we are doing isn't 'stealing', it is 'getting one over on Nietzsche', which as you know is not only morally permissible, but in fact a moral imperative."
"Wait, but isn't stealing also wrong, according the the Categorical Imperative?"
"Ah, common mistake, you are applying the maxim too broadly. The maxim of what we are doing isn't 'stealing', it is 'getting one over on Nietzsche', which as you know is not only morally permissible, but in fact a moral imperative."
"Ah, common mistake, you are applying the maxim too broadly. The maxim of what we are doing isn't 'stealing', it is 'getting one over on Nietzsche', which as you know is not only morally permissible, but in fact a moral imperative."
Edmond Gettier was a 20th century philosopher, best known for his challenge to the idea that knowledge was "justified true belief", which was a long held belief, possibly as long as 2000 years, going back to Plato, and probably Socrates. "Knowledge" was thought to be a special kind of belief that was both true (you can't know things that are false) and justified (you can't simply have guessed the truth). Gettier came up with situations where you both believed something that was true, and you had strong justification for that belief, but it still didn't seem like you "knew" it, because the reason for the justification was disjointed from the reason for why it was true. These scenarios because known as "Gettier cases" or "Gettier problems".
David Lewis was a 20th century philosophy known for his work on counterfactuals. A counterfactual is a statement about what would happen if things weren't as they are in a certain way. For example, you might say, "Al Gore would have been president if he had won Florida". David Lewis realized that these kinds of statements were extremely problematic in the way that we normally think about truth, because something is true if it corresponds to a thing that exists in the world. In other words, something that exists in reality makes it true (if I say a cup is red colored, it is true because of a property of existence - the redness of the cup), but for a counterfactual statement you can't point to anything existing that makes it true, because it is about things as they don't exist. David Lewis came up with the rather bizarre solution that counterfactuals must point to possible worlds, which exist not only in theory, but in fact. It is the possible worlds which guaranteed the truth condition about statements of what could have been, to rescue their coherence.
David Lewis was a 20th century philosophy known for his work on counterfactuals. A counterfactual is a statement about what would happen if things weren't as they are in a certain way. For example, you might say, "Al Gore would have been president if he had won Florida". David Lewis realized that these kinds of statements were extremely problematic in the way that we normally think about truth, because something is true if it corresponds to a thing that exists in the world. In other words, something that exists in reality makes it true (if I say a cup is red colored, it is true because of a property of existence - the redness of the cup), but for a counterfactual statement you can't point to anything existing that makes it true, because it is about things as they don't exist. David Lewis came up with the rather bizarre solution that counterfactuals must point to possible worlds, which exist not only in theory, but in fact. It is the possible worlds which guaranteed the truth condition about statements of what could have been, to rescue their coherence.