/lit/ - Literature

>>16695298
Plato>Aristotle
Plato's republic is way better than Aristotle who naturalized slaves, etc.

>>16684077
So.... capitalism with some totalitarianism?

>>16646896
My gott, you idiot!

Alright /lit/, getting really embarrassed of people on this board who don't understand how monism works. Materialism and idealism are forms of philosophical (usually ontological) monism, which means they posit that reality consists of one particular substance and no others (there is pluralism as well, usually dualism a la Descartes). The materialist insists that everything which exists is material. The idealist insists that everything which exists is ideal (usually as thought, dream, ect.).
BOTH materialism and idealism go back to as far as philosophy does, both finding expositions in ancient Vedic philosophies, but materialism isn't really defined as a monism until the presocratics (Lucretius, Thales, Democritis, Anaximander, ect.). These materialists, and many others, did not deny thoughts or consiousness, but sought to understand them in their real, that is, material, workings. This means that materialism does not necessarily deny consciousness, and more over, idealism does not necessarily imply consciousness either (the negation of the conscious self as being a mere appearance in another's dream is one of the oldest forms of idealism).
Finally, materialism does not take a stand on the idea of epistemology. It does not necessarily imply that everything can be known or understood (not by humans for sure), and it does not necessarily imply that free will does not exist (emergent consciousness is one of the most palatable theories of mind, and totally compatible with materialism and free will). Idealism is the same, depending on the interpretation it can allow absolute knowledge or limit you to total illusion. The truth is, even if you know that someone is a materialist or an idealis, without an explication of that persons beliefs regarding matters of epistemology, morality, mind, ect. you really know absolutely nothing about their position at all. There is really nothing about one that cannot apply to the other in the right circumstances. Hopefully this post helps because I know people don't read books on /lit/, but I'm posting a reading list anyways

Reading list:

The Greeks:
Plato - Timaeus - i
Anaxagoras - Fragments - i
Lucretius - De rerum natura - m
Democritus - Fragments - m

The rest:
Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit - i
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason - i
Taylor - Philosophical Arguments - i
Feuerbach - The Essence of Christianity - m
La Mettrie - The Human Machine - m
Zizek - Less than Nothing - m

>>12902604
Identity politics doesn't aim to change the system they claim is oppressive, all they want is to see (their idea of) proper representation within that oppressive system. It's a form of symptomal healing, what Marx called Vulgar Socialism, the idea that the problem is (re)distribution of wealth/power rather than a revolutionary change in the mode of production. Take the idea of "tolerance", Zizek makes a great point here: could you even imagine someone like Martin Luther King arguing for tolerance? It's an embarrassing idea to even imagine, he was fighting for nothing less than political and legal equality. To reduce true revolutionary civil movements like that to mere tolerance is to reduce it to a farce. This is why you can get literally millions of people in the street protesting the financial system or the president and all the change that comes of it is selfies and Instagram stories and a feeling of #makingadifference #Pepsirevolution. If you want to be a neoliberal, I wont stop you, but don't pretend to be a Marxist at the same time. Read the Critique of the Gotha Program

>>12198122
WS: What are you telling us to do Slavoj? Sit around and think?
SZ: Yea *sniff*
WS:You're a philosopher Slavoj, you have to tell people what to do.
SZ: We need new theory.
WS:What, we're all supposed to read books? You expect people to read?
SZ:What's your problem, mein gott, I'm doing philosophy.
WS:A real philosopher would tell me what to do! You're nothing but a cultural critic!

>>11776576
>posts a leftist who is anti-migration, anti-political correctness, anti-sjwism, and ultimately, anti-liberal

good point.

>>11692728
EdGY

AcCeSsibLe PhILOsoPhY SUcKs, right?

Why give narratives different from the traditionally academic philosophical standpoint? surely all philosophy must be written at great lengths in a book! Why try to offer some interesting comparative mythology and biblical analysis to a bunch of DUMBASS PSEUDS on the internet? LOL fuckin morons, can't they see JP is actually a bit post-modernist himself? Can't they see he doesn't have a perfect grasp on what Derrida is ACKSHUALLY trying to say?

Why should "philosophers" tailor their modus operandi to the times? EVERYONE KNOWS PHILSOOPHERS MUST WRITE TURGID PROSE! SIMPLICITY IS ANTI-INTELLECTUAL!

RAAGHHHGHHH TIME TO GO WATCH MORE SLAVOJ ZIZEK VIDEOS AND RAGE AT THEM! FUCK THAT GUY IS SUCH AA PSEUD

>>11692116
most all writers are projecting and self-loathing, i'd imagine. doesn't mean we should cast aside the dreams they spin.

>his writers are poetical novels with flair
that's kind of the point of his philosophy, not to have an overly technical/academic approach to truth

you're proving his point by autistically needing turgid prose, proofs, and grand theorems to consider something philosophy. technical definiteions and divisions of "this is philosophy"---"this is not" is really fuggin gay.

got into an argument with an anon last night who rejected my claim that shakespeare and kubrick are great philosophers.

>>11689666
/pol/ tier argument. slavoj would hate you.

>>11395087
An example about dicks isn't the best way to illustrate the difference between exo/esoteric religious behavior.

>>11343645
that anamnesis means unforgetting, not remembering like it's usually discussed as. hook me up with resources to learn greek (preferably attic), or fuck off, either or

>>11244392
>he can't tell which music is good or bad in a vacuum
>needs the plebeians to confirm his tastes as patrician through negation

>>11158781
>Against a backdrop of constant socio-technological upheaval, how could any kind of authentic change take place? In such a context, Zizek argues, there can be no great social triumph--because lasting revolution has already come into the scene, like a thief in broad daylight, stealing into sight right before our ever eyes. What we must do now is wake up and see it.
much more cynical than that

The answer is Zizek you psudes. Commies used to hate Hegel for his idealism till Zizek claimed Marx was the true idealist. Now only most commies hate Hegel.

>smacks lips
umm actually
>looks like Luke Skywalker had a baby with the plague
Zizek is the greatest
>hurr durr muh gulags but it was irony guys lol trolled you
philosopher of our time
>unironically supports marxism in 2060-42
you pseudos!

>>10894091
>tfw you can't see the notion of the absolute synthesis of memes becoming through the negative dialectic of Land and Sadler
>tfw it's accelerating at you from the future but you just can't even

l'ogre gros

Is there anyone more destructive to human progress than this absolute turd of a man?

Imagine having this much hatred of logic, science and rationality.
Imagine denying human biological instincts.
Imagine actually being dumb enough a marxist.
Imagine being able to brainwash countless amounts of college attending young people.

What does /lit/ think of Žižek?

Can I take him seriously about Marxism and leftist thinking? Or is he just a meme and I should look up for more serious marxist philosophers like Istvan Meszaros?

>>10369255
>Implying you can be any sort of philosophical scholar without reading the CoPR

>>10338271

>>10288616