/lit/ - Literature

The photoshop around her stomach is so hilariously obvious that I can't help but laugh any time I see it. It looks like her stomach was overlayed with another jpg in Paint hahahahahaha

>>12590840
hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

>>12590840
yes
more braphog pls

Define "complete" here

How could that even be the case?

>>12590894
read based Zizek

>>12590840
your question is so vastly vague that even memeing with goedel's incompleteness theorem would be a vaild answer

>>12590904
i know his analogy of the videogame that is not programmed which i assume you're referencing yet wouldn't we have to say that the way the world is somehow depends on our mind for that to be the case? seems quite bizarre.

>>12590840
>Hey, I know a new word, it's "onto...", "ontol...", "ontolologically", I mean, "ontologically", I don't even know what it means, but it sounds really cool. And I have to immemediately use it on /lit, cuz I wanna sound like a real intellectuuulul.
tl; dr: Your question doesn't make sense at all.

>>12590967

>>12590967
>I am dumb so it means nothing

>>12590966
>wouldn't we have to say that the way the world is somehow depends on our mind for that to be the case?
what do you mean by this

>>12590998
Zizek's starting point is that in what pertains to knowing the world we are closed inside a transcendental loop, Kant-style. i find that particular point of view to be entirely unconvincing

>>12590840
Quietly eating her cake.

>>12590840
No.

>>12591032
>in what pertains to knowing the world we are closed inside a transcendental loop
no he doesn't? I want to try and give you a rundown but I don't know exactly what your not getting. Kant would say that ontology is complete, but lies outside of the catagories of understanding, that there is a gap between appearances and what is really out there. Keep in mind, Zizek is a materialist. what Zizek is saying is that this gap isn't a matter of appearance, but rather a gap built into substance itself. QM should be read as uncovering the ontological fray where the real we have been expecting to find never existed.

>>12590987
>>12590997
Sigh... I know it doesn't make sense to discuss philosophy on /lit/ because most of you idiots don't even know or understand its very basics. But here we go...
The sentence "Is reality ontologically incomplete" makes exactly as much sense as the sentence "how much tobacco did Magritte smoke with the pipe on his picture?". You attribute something to a territory which can only be attributed to a map and/or vice versa, which means, your proposition is logically flawed and therefore, meaningless.
A theory of reality can be ontologically complete or ontologically incomplete. To call reality ontologically complete or incomplete is simply nonsensical.

>>12591074
my statement is from a interview he did with Jonathan Derbyshire whiich is part of a larger argument which he ends in what you said no doubt

i was merely expressing my disagreement with the kantian premisse from which he builds. his book also duplicates this line of argument.

>>12591100
cringe territory/map anon
it amazes me you wheel this trite shit out so often like it means anything while pretending it makes you above understanding philosophical concepts.

>>12591100
>Sigh...
you have to go back

>>12591100
In my extremely amateur understanding, when Zizek states that reality is ontologically incomplete, I was tempted to claim, quite naively, that quantum physics is not addressing reality, the natural world, as such, rather, what quantum physics is doing is addressing the ontological incompleteness inherent in the initial presupposiitons of science, that the inital starting point assumed too much. Quantum physics, specifically the paradoxes it presents as results, are not paradoxes of reality as such, but the paradoxes, as the shadowy "real" dimension, constitutive of the initial presupposition that the natural world is ordered.

>>12591133
Bait

>>12590840
Well, you see, some parts of reality are up to you to complete.
Imagine the universe as a frame and you are the painting; more precisely, your thoughts, ideas and desires are.
Your will shape that painting as well as your istincts: that's what you would otherwise call relativity, as in moral relativity as in anything else you could form an opinion.
I'll make you an example: Gianna Michaels is not considered by beauty standards a 10/10, ok? But in that opinion there's the reality of it, subjective by its very nature; the nature of my reality is that right now I'm going to xvideos to bust a huge one to Gianna's big tiddies because fuck yeah; also, this post has no real sense or conclusion so...

>>12591146
Why would ontology not encompass the Outside?

>>12591133
Dude, I don't know with whom you think you're talking but it's definitely not me - I don't post here very often and have never used that analogy before.
And you can call it "trite" as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact, a proposition gets nonsensical if you mix up attributes/things in it which belong to different logical categories.
But, yeah, I'm out, it doesn't make sense to try to discuss with "philosophers" who start a discusssion with an ad hominem...

>>12591182
>announcing leaving the thread
Cringe

>>12591182
then you're in good company with fellow retards

>>12591146
The reason Zizek even can call "reality" ontologically incomplete is his good old postmodern definition style of reality which he thinks isn't real but more like a fiction.
Like every postmodern philosopher, he takes words and says "hey, they mean something completely different when I use them, but I won't really define what they mean now" and simply confuses everyone else instead of helping them to gain knowledge.

>>12591235
Graham Harman, one of the leading ontologists, disagree's with Zizek but call him his "favorite philosopher", you can disagree with Zizek but pretending he doesn't know what he's talking about it just cringe. also
>Zizek is postmodern
shitty bait

>>12591235
Imagine being this retarded

Are kikes and niggers ontonogically incomplete?

>>12591235
Sorry but this is a total obfuscation of his point, his definition of reality is not a "fiction". if you've read any of his books you would be familiar with phrases like ontological incompleteness or disjecta membra (which is also a much better explication of his metaphysics than the videogame analogy) but unfortunately you're gonna go the easy route and accuse him of being "post-modern" because attacking someone with hollow critiques that don't address or even reference the author's ideas is easier than actually engaging with the material.

>>12590840
Zizek is the darth maul of contemporary philosophy. Duel-wields Hegel and Lacan while doing impressive (mental) gymnastics. No point trying to cut him in half however as he's already ontologically incomplete and will inevitably return as a Sith lord with robot legs.

>>12591251
graham harman is just some academic; he isn't a 'leading ontologist', or even a particularly able thinker
ooo is internally incoherent, and just silly besides

what are some good braphog books?

>>12591310
He's the leading member of the speculative realists and he invented an entire school of ontology; if you think he's just "some academic" you are uneducated, retarded, or a combination of the two

>>12590840
to assume onthological incompletes in a way answers the question of Theodicy but in a more ecompassing manner.
i will give you an example. lets say you are in a situation where something goes (terribly) wrong. either you blame an outside agent (the jew) or you acknowledge antagonisms which are inherent to the social structure (class divisions etc)
now to go further, in order to account for our failure to grasp reality fully (we cannot explain our observations) either you assume that something exists outside the subject (ding an sich) which somehow only appears in a limited form in order to give the subject freedom (kant's position) or reality itself is always perspectivily distorted and this appearance gives rise to the illusion that there is something behind the veil.

>>12591303
Based schizoposter

>>12591339
i've read him, man. i've read a lot of those guys
heidegger+whitehead+some unique anti-anti-kantian voodoo
he takes process as 'primary', and just declares that these are actually cognitively opaque 'objects', kinda like monads but non-simple and hey maybe they have windows, or at least one-way mirrors
the hammer actually 'wants' to hammer. to hammer is dor it to realize its best self
just goofy spit-balling shit like this
pages and pages of it
whole conferences around it

>>12591369
okay then please enlighten me this group of proper group of contemporary ontologists who are not just "some academic[s]"

>>12591339
latour's fine in my book, but he is decidedly not a part of the ooo 'school'
they're all just having fun
that's fine, but
don't make build them up to be something more than they are
just dudes. kinda smart dudes with weird, sort of interesting ideas that can't really hold water after a few pokes

>>12591387
there's no such thing, is what i'm saying

>>12591394
so he is a leading ontologist, you just don't think contemporary ontology is worthwhile so you try to frame him as a literal who; I bet you are great at this whole philosophy thing

>>12591387
Me, desu

>>12591387
Also the UX team of Facebook

>>12591414
frame this for yourself howsoever you need, that it becames a worthy pursuit to you
if you require the folks you read to not only have striking, original, thought-generative ideas, but that they be 'leaders' in their chosen 'field'--you now ensign at the right of his general, surveying the opposition with an icy calm (i see you)
shall we spare them sir or put them to the sword i do leave it you my old friend
whatever fantasy fits your fancy
go in peace, man

it is if your fucking dumb

>>12591251
>Graham Harman, one of the leading ontologists
Says who?

>Zizek is postmodern
>shitty bait
Just look at his bio and his works. He himself may distance himself from poststructuralism as much as he wants... but he clearly is a postmodern thinker. (Oh, and btw, I don't use "postmodern thinker" in a pejorativ way per se - since I actually like some of them - but if you look a little closer they are literary or art theoreticians, they are not philosophers and I hate their fucking word plays.)

>>12591285
As I said before, there's no logically correct way to attribute the term "reality" with "ontologically complete/incomplete" as long as you use the term "reality" in accordance with its normal meaning.
If you don't use it in accordance with its normal meaning you may attribute it with whatever you want, but you shouldn't expect people to understand you anymore (with the "exception" of some illuminated, circlejerking guys who tell everybody else, they're too dumb to understand them while in reality all they do is parrot their masters).

>>12591465
if you talk
like Rupi
maybe they'll listen to me
maybe they will think I know the truth and they do not
and I will tell them
the map is not the
territory

>>12591490
>Says who?
the field of academic philosophy
>Just look at his bio and his works
I've been called Zizekstack before, I know his work; he's obviously not a postmodernist

>>12591493
honestly its just easier to structure my thoughts that way.

>>12591493
friend, this not a contest; there is nothing to win here
that is my point

>>12591526
oh boy.
true, but--

>>12591507
>>Says who?
>the field of academic philosophy
Uh, yeah? And why's he teaching at SCI-Arc, then? Didn't the Ivy League knock at the door of one of the leading ontologists? Oxford, Cambridge aren't you interested in this luminary?

>>12591563
He's a Distinguished University Professor on leave at the American University in Cairo, but he teaches at SCI-Arc because he's also one of the leading figures in the philosophy of architecture.

>>12591490
>there's no logically correct way to attribute the term "reality" with "ontologically complete/incomplete" as long as you use the term "reality" in accordance with its normal meaning
firstly, stop talking about the "normal" meaning of reality without giving a definition for what that is– I guarantee that you can't find a "normal" definition for it, given that there is no general consensus on the topic with which to achieve "normality". This is kind of the point of his metaphysics, that there is no "final" or objective reality, only an assemblage composed of disparate and fragmented parts that gesture towards a whole without actually embodying it. You say people won't understand you if you use terminology like that, but talk to an archeologist about disjecta membra and they will understand you perectly– why shouldn't it also function as a model for philosophy? Again, all you're doing is getting stuck on the provocation of his phrasing rather than engaging with the ideas at hand, which is how not to read Zizek 101.

I don't even know what are you talking about

>>12591138
This, unbearably reddit mannerism

>>12591100
>I know it doesn't make sense to discuss philosophy on /lit/
GOOD
it's about time you fucking navel gazers realised that
/lit/ - literature
now fuck off

>>12591182
Where the fuck do you think you are, retard

>>12591629
so is writing "this" when you agree with a previous post

momokun is fat fucking nasty pig yet i'd still pound her fleshy holes like there was no tomorrow