/lit/ - Literature

Indubitably the last great philosopher; after him it's all been going downhill and becoming more irrelevant and repetitive.

>>14006801
>refutes op
nothing personnel kid

Indubitably the last great philosopher; after him it's all been going downhill and becoming more irrelevant and repetitive.

>>14006907
his facial features are way too fucking b ig for his skull. Thats my critique.

>>14006900
>he never read Sokal
heh, nothing personal, kid. But Sokal absolutely destroys this pseud you just posted.

>>14007005
Hmm I can't seem to find any writings by this man about Deleuze.

>>14006801
Quine was a worthy successor.

>>14006801
reminder: if you can't easily follow along with this video you are unintelligent and not suitable for the task of philosophy:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OyN2mQVzWb4

>>14006801
>latin title
>written in vernacular
lol fuck off with this pseud trash

Indubitably the last great philosopher; after him it's all been going downhill and becoming more irrelevant and repetitive.

>>14007542
>not knowing who Wittgenstein is

>>14007005
just wrong homie, sokal did nothing to postmodern philosophy as a whole, or postmodern philosphers individually.
Sokal sent in admissions of gibberish to one paper, that was not peer reviewed and they published it. How is this supposed to do anything to postmodernism? It says more about the place that published it.

>>14006900
Still cant work out if this is a meme

>>14006900
continentals are nothing but memes, even deleuze who is a naturalist and takes an interest in natural sciences can't remain coherent with his definitions.

Sellars was arguably better

>>14006801
Not having hundreds of videos on YouTube helps. The less you say the more profound and interesting you seem. And most interesting areas have been covered and now they are being regurgitated

Indubitably the last great philosopher; after him it's all been going downhill and becoming more irrelevant and repetitive.

>>14007005
Honestly Sokal ends up supporting Deleuze more than anything else, even if he didn’t intend to.

also Deleuze only died thirty years ago, talking about the decline of philosophy after him isn’t really saying much

>>14008700
this but unironically

Indubitably the last great philosopher; after her it's all been going downhill and becoming more irrelevant and repetitive.

>>14006801

weren't you the guy who wrote a book and threatened to kill yourself?
and if so could I get a link to said book?

>>14009151
>her
stopped reading there
opinion discarded

>>14007005
The Sokal affair is a meme. It proves nothing, and Sokal himself would admit if he wasn't so busy seething about postmodernism.

>>14006801
That is because we dont need more philosophers after him. Smile because it happened.

>>14009266
>It proves nothing,
It did prove something though, that that particular publication was a meme

>>14009286
The dumbest thing is like half of that so called hoax is actually just clichès that arent necessarily wrong, or untrue, just bland and unoriginal. The whole hoax is complete charlatanism. He puts in the parts of postmodern thought that he as a modernist positivist hates (science has axioms that may not be true, reality to the human is merely an image, imperfect, composed of symbols, we can never really know certain truth), sprinkles in some very-bad physics pseudoscience and goes "Aha!!! See!! All that post modern crap is wrong!!" How? You simply put two things in a paper. One that is wrong, one you dislike. It in no way shows that they are mutually dependent or inclusive.

How does it prove anything? How does it show anything but the journal he was published in was bad and submitted to his stupid credentials? It never begins to even argue against postmodern ideas in any way. In fact it affirms them because postmodern thought would be what questions the legitimacy of academic credentials and journals, this legitimacy which was the entire meaning of his hoax.

>>14007005
Even Sokal himself didn’t claim that he “destroyed” Deleuze’s philosophy. He merely took a couple of passages from his works where Deleuze uses scientific terms and said that he finds this passages incomprehensible. He didn’t even analyze those particular passages in detail, he just said “I don’t understand them, therefore they must be nonsensical”.

>>14009340
It proves they don't fact check the legitimacy of the hard science stuff, that was the point.>>14009340
>How does it show anything but the journal he was published in was bad and submitted to his stupid credentials?
that is what I said lol.

>>14009286
Ironically that publication introduced peer-review after the affair, so Sokal might have unwittigly bettered it.

>>14006900
“Deleuze was one of the targets of the polemic in Sokal and Bricmont 1999. As much of their chapter on Deleuze consists of exasperated exclamations of incomprehension, it is hard to say what it is that Sokal and Bricmont think they have accomplished. One thing is clear though: Deleuze was perfectly aware of the finitist revolution in the history of the differential calculus, despite Sokal and Bricmont’s intimations otherwise. He writes in Difference and Repetition, “it is a mistake to tie the value of the symbol dx to the existence of infinitesimals; but it is also a mistake to refuse it any ontological or gnoseological value in the name of a refusal of the latter. In fact, there is a treasure buried within the old so-called barbaric or pre-scientific interpretations of the differential calculus, which must be separated from its infinitesimal matrix. A great deal of heart and a great deal of truly philosophical naivety is needed in order to take the symbol dx seriously …” (170). It seems obvious here that Deleuze’s treatment of early forms of the differential calculus is not meant as an intervention into the history of mathematics, or an attempt at a philosophy of mathematics, but as an investigation seeking to form a properly philosophical concept of difference by means of extracting certain forms of thought from what he clearly labels as antiquated mathematical methods. (For positive views of Deleuze’s use of mathematics as provocations for the formation of his philosophical concepts, see the essays in Duffy 2006.)”

>>14009639
meant for: >>14007005