6 ms·

> anarchist in the apolitical sense Hm. But how is the founding of Survivre (a political group publishing antimilitary etc. texts) and serving as its editor ap

• Melting_Harps 7y ago
  It isn't, and this is the vocal anti-anarchist contingent voicing their POV as fact when in reality he had stepped down from IHES after he realized his work was being funded by the French Military [1] in some Academic-Military collusion and couldn't continue any longer--not unlike DARPA has with MIT in modern times. He had a greater regard and estimation in his colleagues and Academia as a whole that turned out to be false as none followed him in protest and he then dedicated his Life to Environmentalism. He even shunned his Field's medal and rejected all the awards that followed. He, like many other Anarchists, felt that the State's continual and expansionist military activity needlessly contributes to the haphazard and headlong demise of the World's Ecology--which threatens all of Life on Earth--and wrote at great length about it. And sees the State as an imminent threat to Humanity as it accelerates our demise as a Species. I learned about Grothendieck's amazing Life and his work upon his death in 2014 (a month or 2 after Hal Finney died) in a very defining period of my Life, not just as an anarchist myself but as a Human and this article's final paragraph summed up what I think he wanted to be remembered the most as it was a Life well lived.: The man who had advanced mathematics in the most profound ways did not believe that math was the answer to everything. He taught us that life is more valuable than any equation. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/science/the-lives-of-alexander-grothendieck-a-mathematical-visionary.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/science/the-lives-of-alex...
  • wfn 7y ago
    Thanks for the comment. ...yeah. All this also reminded me of the story when he gave lectures on category theory in the forests near Hanoi when it was being bombed...
• mikorym 7y ago
  I don't regard being antimilitary as being political at all. Maybe the working definition of politics is different, but if you are not involved in a political party that tries to exercise influence and prescription to others, then I would call one apolitical. In the same way, many Soviet intellectuals that were against their government still referred to themselves as apolitical.
  • wfn 7y ago
    Hm, that seems to be a rather peculiar and particular interpretation of the term. Grassroots organisations, political activist movements of all kinds would then fall outside your criterion. I mean... Women's suffrage movement (which changed the definition of who can vote in the first place), civil rights movement, etc. would also fall outwith your definition of the notion. (edit) The political processes which culminated in the French, the 1917 communist revolutions, etc... I don't see a point in defining the term in that way at all.
    • bmelton 7y ago
      I'm sort of down for it. "I don't like cats" is a fairly apolitical statement, that is until such point as political parties start taking stances on cats and arguing in favor of who subsidizes what kinds of feline activities. I have many beliefs that I regard as accidentally political - which is to say that I believe these things regardless of whether or which politicians happen to agree, or what their political affiliations are, or how closely tied their affiliations are to mine. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether others regard those beliefs as political or not, but it seems that we're approaching an era in which anything and everything can be deemed 'political' in some way merely because parties choose to take positions on them, and that may be completely at odds with how an individual may have come to conclusions on their own.
      • wfn 7y ago
        I think I see what you mean, maybe there is a need to differentiate (individual conclusions "on their own", though there'd be arguments in favour of viewing those as political as well, etc.) But perhaps not at the expense of the term "political" (but rather introduction of some other term). Because it's simply not the case that something is necessarily apolitical "until such point as political parties start taking stances on cats". Some revolutions, changes in political regime, etc. happened not via the process of already existing political establishment systems (of which parliamentary parties is a mere (and not necessary (being descriptive here, not prescriptive)) subset of) accepting / incorporating / etc. some views at all (rather the exact opposite, say). Also, "I don't like cats" is a sort of easy example to use here, but if you take e.g. "domestic violence should not happen", where do you draw the line in terms of when it becomes political (let's say you start a grassroots network where victims of domestic violence can support each other, and gradually build political capital, and so on)... That said, differentiation along your lines is maybe useful, but severely redefining the scope of the term "political" seems a weird way to go about it.