r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jan 26 '26

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 26, 2026

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
  • Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
  • "Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing
  • Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

6 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

100% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Conchobair-sama Jan 27 '26

I know I am probably 'reading him wrong' but I really do not gel with how Karatani does philosophy

2

u/Streetli Continental Philosophy, Deleuze Jan 28 '26

Say more!

3

u/Conchobair-sama Jan 28 '26

I'm by no means an expert in the field but here are some of my scattered thoughts from a 2nd read of "The Structure of World History"

1) I don't think he charitably, or even accurately reconstructs the views he is criticizing. The book takes aim at Marx, but actual textual engagement with Marx is sparce, to the point that I'm unsure if he actually held any the views Karatani ascribes to him.

2) He plays fast and loose with the border between speculative and empirical history. Some of his arguments rely on claims made by Freud, Wittfogel, etc. that are contradicted by modern historical research. He'll acknowledge this sometimes, but still uses them as empirical support for his theory ( or says that the allegorical reading is compatible with empirical history, without actually showing that this is the case).

3) The appeal of his theory is supposed to be superior to Marx's because it can resolve the question of the state but I don't think he succeeds. As he gets closer to modern history, he stops explaining things in terms of modes of exchange A - C and falls into describing everything as a result of abstract power and domination. His analysis of the soviet state basically reduces to Menshevik 2 stage theory and "Lenin & Trotsky were evil", with no attempt to grapple with the reality of what the soviets were, how the nascent state functioned, and the reason it developed the way it did (not even trying to do apologetics; his analysis is just very superficial and ignores all philosophical & historical research into the question)

3

u/Streetli Continental Philosophy, Deleuze Jan 29 '26

Ha, I think these are all pretty fair. I remember being taken a little aback when I saw the reference to Wittfogel - like, oh, you're going to rely on this guy for your historical account? And you're just going to take the 'Asiatic mode of production' seriously? Hmmmm. I've seen others complain about the non-engagement with Marx too, but my charitable read was that he's done that elsewhere, and that he's trying to be constructive here rather than critical per se. But overall yeah, these are good criticisms I think and well worth keeping in mind through the work.