/lit/ - Literature

>>11224338
How is laughter a critique of a clown? Clowns want laughter.

>>11224338
Can you please take these worthless social media screenshots to /pol/ or /r9k/ or something. This board is for the discussion of literature

>>11224338
I like the part where 'MK" addresses why she thinks he's not worth the depth.

>he's awful/ an asshole
Truly a deep scientific critique.

>>11224338
If I wanted to discuss the social drama of and on twitter, I would sign up to twitter.

>>11224350
She's right desu
It's like when /pol/edditors spam not an argument

>>11224338
>tfw the left is perfectly capable of winning the argument but are losing it intentionally.

>>11224338
TO be fair, whats the point of her pages of critique on a philosopher that has been studied and theorized to death... Like the pissing contests around academia are oh I can write an intellectually rigorous paper that 10 people will ever read including my professor.

What about going out and changing/influencing people/doing good rather than intellectually masturbating in ivy league schools that are echo chambers of similar thought/ideas under the guise of freedom.

>>11224338
everybody on twitter is a pseud (even/especially the /acc guys). please take discussion of this to twitter thanks

LOGOS

Umm sweetie, laughing at a clown isn't a critique of a clown.

>>11224338
I don't get it. can someone explain her last sentence in particular?

>>11224397
She's not right, laughter is not a critique of a clown, it is the equivalent of applause for a clown. I don't care about her opinion on Peterson, her metaphors are trash and she should frankly be ashamed.

>>11224459
She's saying critique requires substance, and since Peterson has no substance, to provide criticism of his thought would require inventing philosophical depth where there is none.

>>11224448
ummmm...sorry sweaty, clowns have feeling too

>>11224400
This desu

It's like they have self-sabotage

>>11224445
CHAOS ("WOMAN")

>>11224338
yeah it's cute a woman thinks her "opinion" has "substant" in the first place

>>11224420
>TO be fair, whats the point of her pages of critique on a philosopher that has been studied and theorized to death
The point is it'll be easy for her to copy/paste others work and pass herself off as smart dingus

>>11224338
creative way of saying "he's an idiot cus he's an idiot"

>>11224351
This

>>11224350
>>11224486
This

>>11224338
Peterson is a pseud, but this chick has no right to criticize him that way as someone below even pseud status. Like a black person calling a chimpanzee stupid.

>>11224718
shit meant chimpanzee calling a nigger stupid. How black of me.

>The left's arch-nemesis is a jungian psychologist with boomer-tier political beliefs
Woah... so this is the power of the left.

>tfw don't hate Kermit but don't think he's a profound thinker and am well aware of his blatant misreading of Pomo and NEETChee
Whoever wins, I lose

>>11224832
Wish i had the patience to go through Peterson's work, seeing a lot of people say he doesn't understand X philosopher but it seems to me to be more like him not totally endorsing all of that person's ideas.

>>11224724
I think you had it right the first time.

>>11224778
The right is a total clown show. Every enemy of the left is just as pathetic and ridiculous as Peterson.

>>11224896
I don't hate Peterson either, but it's pretty accurate to say he doesn't show any proficiency in the field of philosophy.

>>11224778
>the most credible intellectual force on the right is a manic-depressive Canadian liberal
so this is the fabled power of the red pill

>>11224778
That Jungian psychologist is very successfully instilling boomer-tier political beliefs in a great deal of alienated young millennial, so yeah, he's a worthy nemesis.

>>11224926
lmao is this real?

>>11224896
Watch LITERALLY anything about Nietzsche from him and it makes itself readily apparent he's misread him
Nietzsche was NOT trying to reform Christianity; his whole premise is that Christianity itself leads to its own destruction eventually

>>11224938
Watch another cultist come up and try to tell you this is not wat Kermit meant and that you have to read his book and watch 60h of his youtube videos to properly understand his nuance.

>>11224928
Why is the left so threatened by him? A reflection of their own intellectual prowess perhaps?

>>11224501
That's the most retarded shit I've ever heard. Plato devoted entire dialogues to trying to explain why the sophists were shit.

>>11224929
Why didn't the left get to these alienated young men first? Did the left alienate them? Sounds like a failure on their part.

>>11224501
Which is really just a way to say she doesn't have an argument as to why Peterson is wrong, but wants to feel smart and smugly superior.

What's really amazed me about Peterson is his ability to bring left wing pseuds out of the woodwork. It's not that every Peterson critic is retarded, but he seems to have antagonized every left wing pseudointellectual simultaneously which is only bolstering his popularity and making him seem smart to his worshipers.

>>11224926
Jesus christ, this reads like something from The school of life's back catalog

>>11224362
>he's not worth the depth.
He's not a Communist, obviously.

>>11224926
I don't really see the problem with this per se, he is just using "Being" as a short hand for something like "the human experience". Can someone explain the issue?

>>11225038
>why did alienated young men that were already reactionary not go to the left?

>>11225038
Men are inherently right leaning. This confuses leftists who just assume they haven't figured out the right way to seduce men to their side yet since biology doesn't real.

>>11224338
>The ideas of this person whom I disagree with lack any intellectual depth, and should therefore not be intellectually strenuous to rebut... but I'm not going to do that and instead just call them dumb
Bravissimo. Absolutely bravissimo

>>11225061
It's the current year, after all.

>>11224338
>"Why am I so miserable?"
>"Maybe it's at least partially your fault"
>"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
This is the real reason why JBP is so hated. Not because he is an ignoramus, but because he speaks a simple Truth that cannot be refuted.

>>11225056
>already reactionary
The question still stands; why didn't the left get to them first? Or were they born reactionary?

>>11224338
Also people ITT are reading too much into this. The second girl is just a Communist, that is all there is to it. Check their Twitter. No one is more assblasted about Kermit than Communists, which is the principal redeeming feature of Kermit.

>>11224338
Why do people like Peterson think they have anything valuable to say about philosophy without having read the people they criticize, yet if it was some STEM meme field of mathematics you wouldn't find this many pseuds trying to argue over there? does continental philosophy really appear to be this accessible that reading a Wikipedia page gives you enough knowledge to engage with academics?

>"If you've never read Hegelian philosophy, don't worry about it, it's incredibly difficult to read but the basic idea of Hegelian philosophy is that god is present in history .. and that history is essentially a progression from synthesis .. um thesis, antithesis to synthesis, in other words, there is one position, the opposite position, they fight with each other, and the result is a synthesis of the best of both positions and therefore history is constantly moving in a progressive direction, that is Hegelianism in two sentences right there" -Ben Shapiro explaining Hegel

Why do very few young men seem to relate to, empathise with leftist thought? Is there something wrong with the left?

>>11225075
>Or were they born reactionary?

Yes. Born with reptile brains.

>>11225089
Hegelians BTFO BY SHAPIRO LOL

>>11225100
Will leftist thought ever be pervasive than? Also if people are "born reactionary", doesn't that imply that reactionary thinking has some sort of evolutionary utility?

>>11225097
Probably because it identifies them as the principal enemy of everything good

>>11225100
Answer the question mongoloid

>>11225089
Ben Shapiro calmly DESTROYS Hegelian philosophy

>>11224338
lol the red head has me blocked on twitter. how did this bitch even find me i have 60 followers

>>11225120
she uses the block chain :^)
https://twitter.com/some_qualia/status/1000732619036864517

>>11225089
I don't like him saying "don't worry about (reading) it" in the beginning, but that aside, someone give me a better summary in the same space.

>>11225114
They REALLY don't want to admit that the left fucked up; become assimilated with liberal thought.

>>11224338
I want to make gentle love to that redhead

>>11225126
became*

>>11225126
The left was always a subset of liberal thought though? The core assumptions of the left are fundamentally liberal. Continued movement left is just taking them to their logical conclusion.

>>11225128
She is fat, that's just a flattering angle.

>>11225114
I did. Studies have shown that reactionaries have larger amygdalas, colloquially known as the reptile brain, which is the part of the brain that processes fear. Progressives have larger anterior cingulate cortexes which is the part of the brain responsible for higher-level functions like rational decision making and morality. Basically reactionaries are evolutionary flunkies and will eventually be relegated to the past for good, which is ironically where they want to be anyway.

>>11225112
Of course fear has an evolutionary utility but not when it's widely applied to phantoms and windmills, which is the reactionary M.O.

>>11224397
>someone who is obviously only here because of Reddit and who comprises Reddit's chief usage demographic pretending that /pol/ and not an argument are somehow Reddit memes

Please kill yourself.

>>11224486
>>11224350
1) >autism
2) per 1: critique is not necessarily negative; it is simply an analysis. of course, laughter isn't analysis, but only feedback, reaction, whatever. but insofar as it is a response, as a critique is a response, it is a passable analogy.
3) you fucking autistic faggots, fuck off i fucking hate you so fucking much. fuck.

>>11225134
>tfw progressives are literally too smart to win the election

>>11224593
Unironically this. Almost all of the papers I wrote in college were basically just stealing a Wikipedia outline, taking whatever sources I could find online, and citing / paraphrasing heavily. None of it involved much thought.

>>11225126
Idpol, and the reaction to it (which is also idpol), are phenomena attributable to neoliberalism and its commodification of identity. The only people who "fucked up" are those whom got swept up in this latest consumer craze. But such is life under the Spectacle.

>>11225054
he is claiming that to be what heidegger was trying to do and it's very inaccurate and poor as an interpretation

>>11225147
cheated yourself desu

>>11225134
>Lets just keep "progressing" forever, arbitrarily, ad infinitum, without any consideration of the 3000+ years of human thought that preceded us. Reactionary and conservative thought has zero utility. WE are right.
Capitalist, democratic liberals sicken me.

>>11225136

>>11225148
The left definitely fucked up. Got way too cozy with the libs; let them run all over them. Now they're just towing the line, not a thought of the ramifications.

>>11225125
You can't summarize thousands of pages of one of the most influential modernist philosophers in two sentences, and what Ben Shapiro said is completely wrong.
Hegel never used those terms, it was Fichte who coined them, and claiming that Hegel said ideas fight each other with their counter ideas is beyond retarded, Hegel implied that systems eventually negate themselves because of their inherent built-in contradictions, and that is me being extremely reductive with an introduction tier understanding of him from Frederick C. Beiser's book series on him
There are people like Dr.Sadler who have hours upon hours analyzing each page of PoS, how about you try to summarize those in two sentences.

>>11225164
I don't understand how this works, does Hegel apply the triad-style stuff to everything from natural phenomena to the evolution of philosophical systems across history? it's easy enough to get the whole "understanding-dialectical-speculative" distinction when it comes to single concepts, but how does he generalize that dynamic to everything? or coming the other way, does he reduce everything to concepts (in the sense that "being" "nothingness" "apple" are concepts)

>>11225160
The "left" doesn't even exist, especially in the US, and hasn't for quite some time. A spectre is haunting your rotted brain. What part of "neoliberalism created identity politics" do you not understand? Or are you under the delusion that neoliberalism is leftist?

>>11224957
I don't think beterson is a brainlet or anything, I just think he didn't understand that part of Nietzsche (it's a big error though). You can think that a philosopher is right about some things but not others and that's fine but it strays from that every now and then and that's where he loses me

>>11225156
>Reactionary and conservative thought has zero utility

very true, particularly in an epoch where the economic status quo is quite literally destroying the world

>>11225177
I'm speaking in the past tense you retarded faggot. Leftist thought has been assimilated by neoliberal thought. The left is a rotting corpse. Those on the "left" today are towing the liberal line, unawares.

>>11225183
>The material is the only dimension of human existence worth consideration
You will continue to fail with this line of thought.

>>11225177
It is, leftist politics typically involves:

>a conception of the rationally self-interested self-owning sovereign individual existing in a civil society
>popular governance as really-existing and reflecting the will of the people
>theory of "rights" as actually-existing and not granted by some temporal power
>a marketplace of ideas
>treating property and possession as equivalent, labor theory of property
>attempted outsourcing of governance to various systems like constitutions and bureaucracies, with a rejection of human judgement in governance in favor of Procedure, rule of law, etc.
>dissolution of hierarchies and intermediary institutions between the state/power centers and the masses to remove obstructions to exercise of power
>teleological conception of history in which society is Progressing towards some final end state, usually equivalent to the Kingdom of God on earth in some sense

I'd say the core assumptions are quite similar between Communism and Progressivism/neoliberalism. This is to be expected since Marx would've originally been informed by British economic thought. In one case we have social ownership of the means of production, except this cannot happen except through the State in practice. In the other we have corporations acting as a key part of the informal power structure.

>>11225089
Because mathematics is highly technical and relies on a set rules and premises that reach only one conclusion, while philosophy relies on language which has far more rules and premises, so you can easily bullshit your way with pseudo-jargon talking about "postmodern neomarxists" than lets say, give a wrong answer to statistics and probability laws.
The latter is easily proved to be false while the former relies heavily on a spectacle delivery and one liners to gain the audience's agreement in so called "debates"

>>11225204
Those towing the liberal idpol line are not "left" and the only reason you refer to them as such is because you are a reactionary. Moreover, reactionaries are towing the conservative idpol line as well. Porky literally traded in the possibility of class war for the guarantee of a race/gender war. That's how desperate porky is (or was I guess, since it worked).

>>11225219
>says the status quo warrior only committed to maintaining present material conditions

big thonk

>>11225237
>Everyone that disagrees with me is just reactionary

>>11225230
>it is

No. It is not. You're describing German ordoliberalism. Neoliberalism as we experience it today was created by the laissez faire capitalist faction of the Mont Pelerin Society (Hayek, Friedman, Mises).

So many words for nothing. Christ.

>>11225237
No, I'm calling them "left" because they self-identify as "left" and a have a penchent of collectivist economic policy. I'm making the the observation that those of this category seem to toe the neoliberal line without question. It's almost as almost as if one line of thought has assimilated the other. Not disagreeing in regard to conservative thought either.

>>11225238
Not at all. I just believe that that there's probably some good ideas contained within humanity's 3000+ years of history. Maybe we should reconsider some of them. Not just those in the past 200.

>>11225261
>I just believe that that there's probably some good ideas contained within humanity's 3000+ years of history

name some

>>11225248
Well, neoliberalism has:

>sovereign self-interested rational utility-maximizing individuals
>pretense of popular governance with actual power exercised by courts, bureaucracy, universities, and media
>pretense of marketplace of ideas largely created by competing corporate interests
>outsourcing governance to Constitutions, bureaucracies, international organizations like the WTO, Free Trade Agreements, etc.
>dissolution of non-State/power center institutions
>teleological progression towards spontaneously ordered society under the divine invisible hand of the Free Market

I'd say it meets most of my criteria.