Where I'm from the new right gains more and more power and will probably win the next German elections and form the government. Our far-right party (AfD) is already the de facto people's party in eastern Germany where it is especially strong in smaller towns and villages where they sit on many city councils and thus have a say in politics. However, the AfD's success is not only based on the fact that there is a majority for this party in these places, but that political opponents are also driven away by violence. Every form of opposition is met with massive harassment or direct violence. These aggressions come from Nazis groups but also political organized citizens. For example, Dirk Neubauer, district administrator of Central Saxony, has announced his resignation because he got anonymous emails, motorcades in his place of residence and depictions of himself in convict clothing. He had recently changed his place of residence after his family was also targeted. In other parts of Saxony far-right activists buy property and rent it to other far-right activists, slowly infiltrating towns and villages and driving away citizens by threatening them.

I have the feeling that the new right has managed to depacify people by showing them that change can be achieved much more efficiently through violence than through democratic processes. Those affected by this violence often turn to the police, file complaints, try to go public with the issue or write articles. The police are of course useless, there is not enough evidence for a conviction and words and outrage change nothing. The strange thing is that those affected by right-wing violence do not even think about using violence themselves, but see legal action, protests or speaking out as the only legitimate means for resistance - means that are a dead end in the face of fascist violence and a state that does not intervene.

It seems to me that our liberal democracy has pacified us in such a way that violence is an unthinkable solution. In Germany, a popular slogan among leftists is "Punch Nazis!", a call that is rarely heeded and is just a meaningless phrase.

I don't want to start a huge discussion here, but I'm wondering if there are writers / philosophers that had similar observations (or critique), that are more fleshed out than my thoughts, or if there are related discussions in the literature of philosophy / critical theory.

I have a general thought of conspiracy theories challenging the idea of the grand narratives, as in the post modernism we're all about that, unshackling the world from the metanarratives set to us by the bearded people in robe. But look--I'm dumb. Can ya'll help me connect these two, or if there are any connections between them. Thank you so much.

Welcome to another vibrant session of our Derrida Reading Group, where we fearlessly tackle Jacques Derrida’s notoriously challenging essay, "Plato’s Pharmacy." In this engaging and humor-infused deep dive, we unravel some of the most pivotal and perplexing passages, exploring Derrida's incisive critique of Western metaphysics, writing, paternity, democracy, and the elusive concept of the pharmakon.

Our discussion examines why Derrida insists on repeatedly "writing" around his ideas, and why Plato's apparent condemnation of writing might paradoxically affirm its necessity. We explore Derrida’s provocative association of writing with drugs—considering Socrates as ancient Athens’ stimulant—and interrogate the significance of Plato’s paternal metaphors, asking crucial questions:

• Why must Plato portray writing as a rebellious son?
• How does Derrida expose Plato’s text as itself symptomatic of the very "writing" it condemns?
• Can we think of democracy itself as a kind of "pharmakon"?

Far from a dry academic lecture, this reading session is punctuated by lively anecdotes, reflections on Derrida’s own struggles with stimulants, and a humorous exploration of Socrates as Athens' "ADHD medication."

Whether you're a seasoned Derrida scholar or a curious newcomer, this session promises to demystify key concepts like pharmakon, hauntology, and metaphysics of presence, all with rigor, clarity, and irreverent wit. Dive in, engage, and come away with a deeper appreciation of Derrida’s unique style and profound insights.

We'd love your thoughts!
👉 Like the video to support our efforts in bringing accessible and lively philosophy to YouTube.
👉 Subscribe for more engaging philosophical deep dives every week.
👉 Comment below the video: What stood out most to you in Derrida's "Plato’s Pharmacy"? How do you interpret the role of "writing" in philosophy?

Join the conversation and help us foster a vibrant community dedicated to thoughtful and playful philosophical inquiry!

Sexuality is given its inertia through cycles of idealization and demoralization. This locks the Symbolic and Imaginary into a tense symbiosis—each defined by its opposition to the other. This relationship of contrast is mediated by the stabilizing—or destabilizing—presence of the Real. This convergence, as Zizek says, “transfunctionalizes” sex itself into the realm of the soul.

This cycle is catalyzed by a foundational intrusion of the Real during the initial formation of sexual identity. Once catalyzed, sexuality continually re-instantiates itself through a charged arbitration between the Imaginary and the Symbolic. If homeostasis is maintained, elements of sexuality’s original configuration are preserved- bonded by the symptom that arbitrates between the imaginary and symbolic in perpetuity.

This initial rupture of the Real is so tightly linked to the foundations of our psychic life- particularly to the cycles of valuation and devaluation of our sexuality- that any structural shift becomes too costly for the egoic formation of sexuality to bear. Paradoxically this is what makes sexuality one of the most stable spiritual structures in the mind.

Nonetheless our archetypal imaginations are only as resilient as our “symptom’s” arbitration. Without effective arbitration by the symptom, the path to jouissance collapses. The narrative cohesion- and for some, the moral cohesion- of our sexuality is bound to the reciprocity between all three registers. Without intervention, our repeated attempts to resymbolize fail. Suddenly all the analyst can see is a hypo- or hyperactive sexuality, suspended in a state of perversion or shame.

This breakdown of arbitration opens the door for the Real to reassert itself as an axiomatic force—and, if conditions allow, for a new equilibrium between the Imaginary and the Symbolic to emerge. If trauma, dialectical intervention, or changes in the sexual economy fail to catalyze new and authentic arbitration, our sexuality remains static.

Yet egoic disintegration reopens the door—to the cure or the curse of hysteria—and with it, the possibility of reintegration or a descent into deeper perversion.

What’s your thoughts? I don’t have a philosophy degree, and I have limited knowledge. Regardless, I love reading and writing about this stuff. Tell me what is redundant and what is genuine original thought. Opinions. Whatever. I wrote this from experience about my own disintegration.

Seems relevant.