/lit/ - Literature

>>16844894

>>15798223
>>15798239

Is there anything more pathetic than humanities majors on this board worshipping unfalsifiable continental charlatans?

"Ah, you actually misunderstood Nietzche! When he said God was dead, this was a radical affirmation of Christianity's value! You don't think Nietzche predicted world wars 1 and 2? You misunderstood him! You don't think that misplaced comma was a radical reinterpretation of quantum mechanics? Sorry, you misunderstood him again!"

"Hegel said the will within the being and the knowing is incipient yet not immanent to the sOul. This changes my views on everything!"

"Freud had such profound things to say about society. Jung was profound, except when Peterson mentions him."

"Hey guys, how do I be transcendent? Will Eastern philosophy help me be transcendent? Western Philosophy is so narrow minded and petty."

Seeing humanitards try to break out of the "seemingly profound yet utterly vague and specious, and ultimately bullshit" box is painful. Utterly fucking painful. But when I see what is written in the New Yorker, or NY review of books, or NYT, or when I read anything by a contemporary philosopher, I realise that this sub-105 IQ midwittery is all that is left of humanities intellectualism.

It's funny also to see the profound hatred of many contemporary Anglo philosophers and humanities scholars. They present their bland trivial midwittery in such honest, relatively concise, and clear terms, they get hated for giving the game away. 50 years at the Harvard or Oxford philosophy departments doesn't give you advanced reasoning powers. It really pokes a hole in one of the favourite views of humanities frauds / midwits. "Nietzsche or any of us COULD step off our lofty metaphysical mountains and sort out crude human disagreements with our dialectic easily, we just choose not to." LOL