data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1e2d2/1e2d25be1b3f5ab5888e2ed52965823230be4eee" alt=""
We too easily forget that "these" 3 bananas do not equal "those" 3 bananas? The abstraction of number doesn't work well with Plato's idea - ideal image of what stands behind appointed objects.
In other words, the particular/concrete doesn't have universal equivalents? Money is inherently abstract.
It is amusing that the etymology of philanthropy is very much the same as the etymology of philanderer. The etymology = Love + (hu)man.
Not sure what money has to do with it? Are these two different aspects or articulations of the economy of excess: one emphasizing accumulation and the other emphasizing expenditure?
Do philanthropists necessarily embrace the anthropocene? No. I think the philanthropist loves the genre /abstraction of man - and pays tribute. Philanderers love specific instances of the human - and they spend themselves- directly throwing themselves at and into the lives/bodies of these specific humans.
The antidote to the patriarchy packed into these two ugly terms may be 'polyandry'?
If I could tell a joke it would start: these three bananas walked into a bar...
No comments:
Post a Comment