[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.10814247 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10814247

I copypaste retarded takes on philosophy from r/jordanpeterson and my threads always get 100+ replies.

>> No.10784869 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10784869

As far as I'm concerned, nearly the entire school of postmodernism rises from rotten soil (largely German idealism, Continential philosophy, Marxism, and phenomenology) and is thoroughly anti-rational. One of my favorite philosophy books, The Ominous Parallels examines how German idealism and postmodernism gave rise to totalitarian political philosophies (especially the Nazis) and how even post-fascism, post-modernism is still pushing people in the same direction.

In essence post-modernism argues that because nearly all human knowledge has its ultimate origin in some subjective judgment or observation about the world, therefore all human knowledge is subject to subjective interpretation and criticism. It seeks to undermine rationality (man's primary tool for making sense of the world) by declaring everything to subjective and/or a social construct - to be interpreted by the viewer in any way they see fit. As if all history is just the story we agree to tell, all science is just people's best guesses, economics how we steal from each other, and philosophy the lies we tell to justify the world being how it is.

My next big beef with post-modernism is their willful exercise of obscurantism. The term refers to the deliberate use of vague, unclear, or jargon-heavy language for the purpose of concealing the true meaning of the text, rather than just saying it in clear and understandable prose. Derrida is practically the poster-boy for this, and he learned from Heidegger the card-carrying Nazi.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I'm one of the most voracious readers I've ever met. I'm the kinda guy who reads philosophy for fun, and I've read a lot of it. And every time I've tried to read post-modernist texts, I've walked away in frustration as I had no idea what they were actually trying to say. Their logic is invariably impossible to follow, their texts filled with bullshit and filler, and their actual ideas to be thin gruel and trivial at best, or flat out wrong at worst.

>> No.10683247 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10683247

I've been seeing so many people complain about Dr. Peterson's understanding of postmodern doctrine. I recently took a college class on postmodern philosophy and came to realize that very few people actually understand the philosophy.

I'm not going to write up a comprehensive history of philosophy starting from Hegel and Kant, or delve into the intricacies of individual contemporary postmodern thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, et al., since this is not an intellectual exercise. Instead, I'm going to contrast the most important beliefs of enlightenment and postmodern philosophy, since postmodernism is a direct reaction to the former.

Enlightenment

Knowledge: Objective knowledge is possible.
Truth: Universal truths exist independent of individual minds/societies.
Reason: Reason is used to gain/justify knowledge of the world.
Goal: Progress is made by thinking rationally in relation to objective knowledge.

Postmodernism

Skepticism: It's impossible to have objective knowledge (e.g. our senses are easily fooled).
Relativism: No absolute truths. They (the truths) are only social constructs based on gender, race, etc. created for the purposes of power. Language is a big source of oppression. (Structuralist beliefs are a bit more complicated.)
Rejection of grand narratives/theories/ideologies: Since postmodernists are relativists, they are opposed to single all-encompassing narratives. (This is humorous since all postmodernists are skewed to particular ideologies but are opposed to religion.)
Denial of reason/logocentrism: Reason is used by the powerful to oppress the weak. Emotions/experiences of the oppressed are more valid and grounded in reality than logocentrism.
Goal: Progress is made by fighting oppression through the exposure of meta-narratives that are used by the powerful to oppress the weak. (Postmodernists love the word hegemony.)

>> No.10663629 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10663629

I've been seeing so many people complain about Dr. Peterson's understanding of postmodern doctrine. I recently took a college class on postmodern philosophy and came to realize that very few people actually understand the philosophy.

I'm not going to write up a comprehensive history of philosophy starting from Hegel and Kant, or delve into the intricacies of individual contemporary postmodern thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, et al., since this is not an intellectual exercise. Instead, I'm going to contrast the most important beliefs of enlightenment and postmodern philosophy, since postmodernism is a direct reaction to the former.

Enlightenment

Knowledge: Objective knowledge is possible.
Truth: Universal truths exist independent of individual minds/societies.
Reason: Reason is used to gain/justify knowledge of the world.
Goal: Progress is made by thinking rationally in relation to objective knowledge.

Postmodernism

Skepticism: It's impossible to have objective knowledge (e.g. our senses are easily fooled).
Relativism: No absolute truths. They (the truths) are only social constructs based on gender, race, etc. created for the purposes of power. Language is a big source of oppression. (Structuralist beliefs are a bit more complicated.)
Rejection of grand narratives/theories/ideologies: Since postmodernists are relativists, they are opposed to single all-encompassing narratives. (This is humorous since all postmodernists are skewed to particular ideologies but are opposed to religion.)
Denial of reason/logocentrism: Reason is used by the powerful to oppress the weak. Emotions/experiences of the oppressed are more valid and grounded in reality than logocentrism.
Goal: Progress is made by fighting oppression through the exposure of meta-narratives that are used by the powerful to oppress the weak. (Postmodernists love the word hegemony.)

>> No.10449051 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10449051

Post Modernists = logic doesnt real, there is only subjective experience. Believe rhetoric is only a tool to power, use it to seem populist to forward selfish careers and bilk money out of the education system. This is the definition of Sophistry.
Seneca = Stoicism = basically Existentialism = Both are about accepting reality for what it is and focusing on mastering yourself rather than the world = Jordan Peterson. The only thing that makes this slightly complex is that Sartre was a moral relativist, but all the other existentialists were moral absolutists and besides Sartre is the bridge between existentialism and post modernism so hes half of both.
Socrates = political activist, radical, cranky old man who wants to stick it to the establishment and thinks both sophistry and publicans are full of shit, will say anything to anyone anywhere but mostly likes to tell people what they dont want to hear = Noam Chomsky. This is so true of Noam it almost makes you think hes the reincarnation of socrates.
Plato = Platonism = Values w belief in a spirit realm. Plato also wasnt a particularly impressive thinker compared to the others but was brilliant in his own right, he was also a staunch pro-republic character. Joe Rogan fits this mold well as Joe, while putting off an air of being a simpleton can go toe to toe in debates with serious scholars
Aristotle = Father of logic. Empiricist, Logical Positivist as fuck, or rather the greek equivalent. Champions logic but his values are actually grounded in virtue ethics similar to christianity = this is a perfect description of Sam Harris

>> No.10407806 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10407806

Post Modernists = logic doesnt real, there is only subjective experience. Believe rhetoric is only a tool to power, use it to seem populist to forward selfish careers and bilk money out of the education system. This is the definition of Sophistry.
Seneca = Stoicism = basically Existentialism = Both are about accepting reality for what it is and focusing on mastering yourself rather than the world = Jordan Peterson. The only thing that makes this slightly complex is that Sartre was a moral relativist, but all the other existentialists were moral absolutists and besides Sartre is the bridge between existentialism and post modernism so hes half of both.
Socrates = political activist, radical, cranky old man who wants to stick it to the establishment and thinks both sophistry and publicans are full of shit, will say anything to anyone anywhere but mostly likes to tell people what they dont want to hear = Noam Chomsky. This is so true of Noam it almost makes you think hes the reincarnation of socrates.
Plato = Platonism = Values w belief in a spirit realm. Plato also wasnt a particularly impressive thinker compared to the others but was brilliant in his own right, he was also a staunch pro-republic character. Joe Rogan fits this mold well as Joe, while putting off an air of being a simpleton can go toe to toe in debates with serious scholars
Aristotle = Father of logic. Empiricist, Logical Positivist as fuck, or rather the greek equivalent. Champions logic but his values are actually grounded in virtue ethics similar to christianity = this is a perfect description of Sam Harris

>> No.10398692 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10398692

Post Modernists = logic doesnt real, there is only subjective experience. Believe rhetoric is only a tool to power, use it to seem populist to forward selfish careers and bilk money out of the education system. This is the definition of Sophistry.
Seneca = Stoicism = basically Existentialism = Both are about accepting reality for what it is and focusing on mastering yourself rather than the world = Jordan Peterson. The only thing that makes this slightly complex is that Sartre was a moral relativist, but all the other existentialists were moral absolutists and besides Sartre is the bridge between existentialism and post modernism so hes half of both.
Socrates = political activist, radical, cranky old man who wants to stick it to the establishment and thinks both sophistry and publicans are full of shit, will say anything to anyone anywhere but mostly likes to tell people what they dont want to hear = Noam Chomsky. This is so true of Noam it almost makes you think hes the reincarnation of socrates.
Plato = Platonism = Values w belief in a spirit realm. Plato also wasnt a particularly impressive thinker compared to the others but was brilliant in his own right, he was also a staunch pro-republic character. Joe Rogan fits this mold well as Joe, while putting off an air of being a simpleton can go toe to toe in debates with serious scholars
Aristotle = Father of logic. Empiricist, Logical Positivist as fuck, or rather the greek equivalent. Champions logic but his values are actually grounded in virtue ethics similar to christianity = this is a perfect description of Sam Harris

>> No.10387085 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10387085

Post Modernists = logic doesnt real, there is only subjective experience. Believe rhetoric is only a tool to power, use it to seem populist to forward selfish careers and bilk money out of the education system. This is the definition of Sophistry.
Seneca = Stoicism = basically Existentialism = Both are about accepting reality for what it is and focusing on mastering yourself rather than the world = Jordan Peterson. The only thing that makes this slightly complex is that Sartre was a moral relativist, but all the other existentialists were moral absolutists and besides Sartre is the bridge between existentialism and post modernism so hes half of both.
Socrates = political activist, radical, cranky old man who wants to stick it to the establishment and thinks both sophistry and publicans are full of shit, will say anything to anyone anywhere but mostly likes to tell people what they dont want to hear = Noam Chomsky. This is so true of Noam it almost makes you think hes the reincarnation of socrates.
Plato = Platonism = Values w belief in a spirit realm. Plato also wasnt a particularly impressive thinker compared to the others but was brilliant in his own right, he was also a staunch pro-republic character. Joe Rogan fits this mold well as Joe, while putting off an air of being a simpleton can go toe to toe in debates with serious scholars
Aristotle = Father of logic. Empiricist, Logical Positivist as fuck, or rather the greek equivalent. Champions logic but his values are actually grounded in virtue ethics similar to christianity = this is a perfect description of Sam Harris

>> No.10375004 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, 1512513684107.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10375004

What are some books?

>> No.10359900 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10359900

banksy tier "woke" kitsch

>> No.10284467 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10284467

Identifying with the underground man is my new favourite sign of an invisible fedora, along with anime avatars in youtube comments.

>> No.10231070 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10231070

>thread that recognizes Candide for the piece of shit it is
good, anytime someone tries to defend Candide he should be declared for the closeted redditor he is and publicly shamed

>> No.10172848 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10172848

>>10171808
Ah here we go, classic spic damage control. Well, I'm sure seeing what uma delicia it is in original, I would even bring myself to oversee Cervantes' tedious inclination to constant didacticism. Pity there's like ten languages with richer literary canon overall I'd rather learn sooner.

>> No.9742475 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9742475

I get a perverse sense of satisfaction out of buying a new book and then slowly and torturously, over the course of many hours and days, destroying it. It is almost unnoticeable at first. I go page by page, but soon it starts to crack. Just a slight crease in the bindings. Later I inevitably torture it with the "unintentional" spill of my hot coffee. An ugly brown stain forever marking it. Sometimes I will place it somewhere where it is bound to get sat on or tossed aside, bending its cover, crumpling its pages. Eventually, as my work my way through it, its spine snaps. By then, though, as I reach its inevitable demise I speed up my machinations until I have turned every page. Satisfied with its now ruined state, it is placed back on the shelf, next to its other ruined cohorts. Never satisfied, I reach for the next new book and start again.

>> No.9738422 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9738422

>>9737096
>>9737876
t. Paul Kaninchen

>> No.9714036 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9714036

Your post reads like someone's stand up routine.

>> No.9612471 [View]
File: 4 KB, 420x420, smuge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9612471

>>9611586
>Modest Mouse
t.numale

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]