/lit/ - Literature

>>13055372
>>13055380
Classical logic is just a different language in which to "reason". To deny that truth can be found in classical logic is to deny that truth can be found in language, which is to say that, you admit that everything you write is unreasonable, and I wont disagree with that!

>>12880760
>I think you should
>for a good five hours
It's so easy to spot a fag.
I think you should meditate on the contradictory nature of what you just said for a good five hours, then proceed to burn yourself! Ah, oh wait! You already have! Let me explain:
you say that Baudrillard is wrong because by saying truth doesn't exist, you are demonstrating a truth! You find contradiction in the thing he says! But, by you finding this contradiction, we realize Baudrillard's truth that nothing is true isn't actually even true! If your argument was based off the the fact that Baudrillard was demonstrating a truth of untruth, then your argument would therefore be proving this truth of untruth untrue - thereby actually proving his argument that nothing is true! And then we reach the paradox that Baudrillard himself was completely aware of.

>>12769052
Nietzsche split the history of philosophy into two. There is a before him, and an after him. No one before had fully espoused "evil", let alone elevated it above "good": not even the daoist sages, not even Heraclitus. But that is only part of it. The other part is that, though he was very good at presenting complex ideas simply, his most valuable ideas were nevertheless terrifically complex. Witness Alain Badiou telling us that doctors create a disease by naming it, then being chased off stage by doctors laughing at his pathetic attempts to explain what that means. The idea is correct, but you have to be a fucking genius to understand it, much less explain it to people, especially to doctors, who will roast your ass over hot coals, as they should, if you are not a complete and total master of the idea. These are such complex conceptions that non-geniuses simply have no hope with them. At best, they grasp one part here, a corollary there, some application to their daily life; but the essence of the idea, and its relationship to all others, remains forever beyond them. Deleuze, Artaud, Bataille: they each grasped some things, and Baudrillard by far the most. The mess of gibberish produced on the continent is the result of their sometimes sincere, sometimes dishonest grasping with these terrifically complex conceptions that Nietzsche bequeathed us, just as the simplistic stupidities of the "analytic" morons is how they dealt with the same stuff. No one would propose that Rorty or Dewey invented their best stuff: it's got N's mark all over it, and they copied it straight off him (and in the instances where they denied him credit, they plagiarized...) Or Adorno and Horkheimer. Or Heidegger. One after another, failed attempts at understanding what N had said. And the HIGHEST ideas of his of all have not even been TOUCHED on. I have yet to read of anyone even MENTIONING his invention of the central ideas of quantum mechanics, decades before the quantum mechanists ran up against them in the lab. Or the Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle decades before the astronomers dreamt it up. I am literally the first person to find these ideas and the beginnings of such ideas in Nietzsche, while everyone else had trouble parsing such simple statements as "men aren't equal". Deleuze was still trying to "deconstruct" that lol (read: convince us that he meant the opposite lol). All this is simply what happens when genius texts fall into the hands of merely above-average intelligences, and the fact that two entire massive traditions — the "analytic", and the "postmodern" — flowed directly from him, is merely a symptom of how vast the power of his intellect was, and therefore, naturally enough, how vast his influence, for better or worse (and in the case of the "analytics" and the "postmoderns", clearly for the worse).

>>12663226
He's too big to fail.

>>12580461
Phyl-Undhu was good, but it had problems and was hard to take seriously. Land can't write children, was its main problem. He's a very good writer though, and I recommend you check out Chasm. It is more fleshed out, even if a bit more cliché.