The Dead are not Dead. Profile picture
May 27 10 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
I don’t know what else to do, so I’m just talking into the void now, I guess.

I study theodicy not because it’s some abstract philosophical problem.

I study it because there is something ontological about black suffering. Something that exceeds institutions.
As I say in #blacklifematter, sitting with a suffering beloved is not the moment to offer theodicean explanations. Jesus *might* work it out—and we hope that he does—but to offer this in the acute moment of pain seems insensitive at best and downright foul at worst.
To sit with someone is to look at their pain and see that it isn’t limited to them. It is to see the source of that suffering clearly, “to know and do and be from there,” as @hystericalblkns might say (I’m quoting from memory, so that might not be precise).
It is to notice them. To notice how and why they suffer. To notice and take note of the ways that their suffering is occasioned not merely by random occurrences, but also structural neglect.
To sit with someone is to do nothing less than notice that things could be different—but they are not. And in noticing this, sitting with someone requires a different approach. It is to yearn for otherwise while trying to keep your eye on exactly why things aren’t.
I do this as a philosopher. I study theodicy because it is *the* religious and philosophical logic that occasions such neglect. Ppl fawning over Augustine miss that he was the one who sought to protect *God* in the face of evil.
But God needs no protection. God needs no salvation. God needs no healing, or defense.

We need that. All of it.

I’m going to write a book about this. And I’m going to do all I can to rid us of this brutal logic.
Because it isn’t just God who functions as the object of theodicy. This world also functions that way, demanding our acquiescence and adherence in the face of the suffering it deals to us (and by us, I mean black people).
I wrote about this in #blacklifematter. And I will extend that analysis in the next work. Because theodicy kills people. It encourages what William jones called “quietism”. It siphons resignation out of resistance, and dries up the will to fight through claims of belief.
We can no longer think like this. We need something better.

I will fight for that something better. Until my last fucking breath.

Be well, beloveds.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Dead are not Dead.

The Dead are not Dead. Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BikoMandelaGray

Aug 30, 2021
Thread: All this pandemic foolishness is making me realize that institutional calls to return in person are founded upon an attempt to keep people alive under the most unlivable conditions.
The vaccine stems off "serious illness" so that we will suffer, but not die, which means that we can still be instrumentalized. What might have been a noble aim w/ the vaccine--namely, keeping people from dying--has now been mutated into making ppl objects of instrumental reason.
Let me be clearer: it's not the vaccine that's the problem. It's the logics imposed on getting vaccinated--the calls to "return to normal," etc.--that is wreaking havoc.

as long as we don't die, we can still be used.
Read 18 tweets
Jul 17, 2021
No one asked for this, but I've been thinking a lot about #abolition and #abolishthepolice for some time now. And if I may, I'd like to share my novice perspective, albeit one rooted in my own (anti-)philosophical stance. So here goes.
I'm not convinced that the #abolitionist movement--which I wholly agree with--is an oppositional movement. Philosophically, a call for abolition is not a call to opposition. This distinction, in my mind anyway, is crucial. I'll elaborate.
Hegel told us long ago that oppositional realities (or what he calls dialectics) form a totality in themselves. Think about a fight: if one person chooses not to fight, there is no fight at all--only violence on the part of the aggressor.
Read 22 tweets
Apr 20, 2021
Thread:

The Derek Chauvin trial is why virtue ethics don’t work for black people (if you can’t tell, I’m working on a project on ethics).

Let me break this down (and I’m still working my way through this, so feel free to share thoughts).
The prosecution’s closing argument seemed to lodge chauvin’s violence in his character, i.e, he’s not a virtuous man. He’s guilty bc HE—not his job—is evil.

But this isn’t quite right. Stay w/ me.
according to Aristotle, ethics is about cultivating a virtuous life—by which he means “living and acting well.”

What does it mean to live and act well? It seems to mean that one lives according to those things that are agreed upon as virtuous.
Read 18 tweets
Feb 17, 2021
Power went out where we’re staying. Sitting in a car for warmth and to charge my phone.

So here’s a thread for everyone:
1. It’s striking how quickly people shift blame. For some, it’s wind. For others, it’s the grid. For others, it’s the power companies. And for others, it’s the state. The answer is that it’s all of these things except wind—which is to say, it’s capitalism.
2. And I don’t mean capitalism in the typical twitter sense—as in, people use the word, but aren’t fully sure what they mean by it. I mean capitalism as a moral philosophy, as a way for people to make sense of what’s right and wrong.
Read 18 tweets
Feb 5, 2021
Okay, so for those who are excited about Kendi, here’s a brief analysis.
Kendi has set up an easy, but rather unsophisticated binary between racism and antiracism. This binary is popular because it is simple. It is also widely applicable: anyone can be in either of these camps at any time.
This might sound good on paper (it doesn’t to me, but it might for others), but in reality, it obscures that the very discourse of race is already a discourse of power. “Race” as we know it came into being as a hierarchical classification scheme.
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(