/lit/ - Literature

There is literally ZERO discernible talent on the right side.

Who are the 2 guys next to William James?

I'm pretty sure Shapiro is left from what I've heard of him. I'm not American so and they are very stupid. Also Deleuze fits better besides guenon than Marx.

>>14176183
>no Wittgenstein
This is garbage.

>>14176268
Deleuze is literally a Marxist. And Shapiro fits perfectly. Anti-relativist, conservacuck, baby tier philosophy, pseud.

>>14176292
linguistic turn was a mistake

>>14176183
based vs cringe: the debate

>>14176293
>Deleuze is literally a Marxist

>>14176293
Deleuze isn't a marxist. He simply understands marx, is able to critically engage with, and can say he was right aome places, and wrong some places.

I feel like Spinoza is important to the left side enough to be included, he had large influence on marx, nietzsche, and deleuze. Spot on otherwise though.

>>14176220
Carl Schmitt has its value, the others can be thrown into the trashcan though

>>14176183
even as a meme this is serviceable

>>14176331
Spinoza is too based to be in that pic.

>>14176293
why do you talk about a philosopher you haven't read? It's embarrassing.

>>14176268
>Deleuze fitting with Guenon
do you get all your knowledge from one line shitposts?
>>14176260
Bateson and Bookchin

>>14176183
solid meme

>>14176365
>do you get all your knowledge from one line shitposts?
No I've read them both. They want the same goal, full organless bodies. Just go different ways on how to get there.

>>14176386
They cannot be more opposite from one another.

>>14176408
yes they can

>>14176331
>>14176349
>>14176292
Spinoza and Wittgenstein can go in the middle third column.

>>14176183
Schmitt doesn't deserve to be wronged like this.

I don't get it

This is a bad meme

>>14176183
Why is that meme Jew Ben Shapiro in here, get him out of here.

>>14176220
Carl Schmitt is pretty based.

t. Marxist

Is that Murray Bookchin in the beret? Absolutely haram if so.

>>14176454
Jews are based you retard. Shapiro is a shame to Jews though.

>>14176465
Bookchin is cool

>>14176467
Yeah, you're right some are.
But there's also allot of Jews like the ones on the TV, politics and Soviet philosophers like Marxist himself who are badly based.

>>14176454
Shapiro and fashies are two sides of the same coin

>>14176467
Yeah, you're right some are.
But there's also allot of Jews like the ones on the TV, politics and Soviet philosophers like Marxist himself who are badly based.

>>14176485
Shapiro is a puppet Paleoconservative like the rest of the alt-right memes.

>>14176496
>Shapiro is a puppet
Exactly. Two sides of the same coin.

The winners
>whitehead
>deleuze
>marx
>nietzsche
>foucault
>benjamin
>james
>bateson
>schmitt

Lmao the left inside btfo the right one

>>14176512
Today's politicians are puppets/ muppets, they're all the same, can't stand them anyway.

>>14176183
Take out Shapiro and Peterson and put in Adi Shankara and de Maistre, and it would be perfect.

>>14176183
>Ben Shapiro
>Anything but controlled opposition.

I stopped taking him seriously when he started getting overly defensive about any criticism of the free market despite people like Tucker who aren't even smart making good arguments for how globalism and other factors have weakened local economies etc etc. Hes nothing but a click baiter who makes you think hes your friend because you're laughing together at retards has no more depth then a faggot like Sargon.

>>14176268
Ben is controlled opposition and nothing more and has never given me a reason to think otherwise. But people seem happy to see him btfo out of low IQ college kids like that matters.

>>14176543
he doesn't btfo anyone. People are just stupid to think that.

>>14176467
>Jews as based
>Cockroach lizard race that no one wants and sponges off real power well injecting itself to control it like a parasite.
>Is pretty much the downfall of the West currently for its own benefit and feigns antisemitism at any and all criticism.

If the jew disappeared the world would not be at war half as often.

>>14176183
Am I supposed to take this seriously?

>>14176555
Yes

>>14176183
>The neoliberal globalist squad + a few actual philosophers vs. the neoliberal globalist squad + a few actual philosophers

Most of all, fuck Foucault, Shapiro, and Juden Peterstein.

>>14176316
t. brainlet

Also Wittgenstein was thoroughly against the philosophers who spearheaded the "linguistic turn" (well, really he was more so critical of positivists and the Vienna circle, which were actually a distinct milieu from the 'linguistic turn' folk, but there's a lot of overlap).

>>14176183
plato

>>14176690
>neoliberal
seems like this word has lost all its meaning

>>14176467
>Jews are based

Then explain:
-Dancing Israelis
-Kafr Qassim Massacre
-The Lavon Affair
-Israeli Sponsored third world immigration
-Palestinian organ harvesting by the IDF
etc.

>>14176707
Lost all meaning? No, "neoliberal" is and always has been an umbrella term for the various pseudo-liberal, pro-capitalist, pro-foreign intervention style centrist politicians that dominate mainstream "left-wing" and "right-wing" discourse. It refers to politicians and public figures as diverse as George Soros, Ronald Reagan, Hilary Clinton, Jordan Peterson, Mark Zuckerberg, Barack Obama, and George Bush.

>>14176707
it's a meme term so that commie retards can claim that Obama is the same as Pinochet by completely ignoring everything except the economy and eliding the fact that commies and 'neoliberals' like Obama are in lockstep on most social issues

>>14176735
No one is a neoliberal in that image other than peterson and shapiro
>>14176745
obama is a neoliberal

>>14176755
Nah Foucault is a neoliberal too.

>>14176745
Don't know about commies, but speaking for myself, I'm a libertarian environmentalist and white nationalist.

>>14176220
> Plato
> Talentless
kek

>>14176810
>Foucault
>neoliberal
this place is garbage. everyone that uses /pol/ needs to be euthanized.

>>14176822
>everyone that uses /pol/ needs to be euthanized.
Based

>>14176822
/pol/ is shit, but so is /lit/, and every other board on here.
Foucault was nominally a Marxist and claimed to question modernity, but philosophically and historically, he played right into the hands of the neoliberal sociocultural metanarrative: he promoted epistemological relativism, skepticism of the scientific method, hedonism, and homosexuality. The only real respect in which his philosophy is thoroughly in conflict with neoliberalism is that he did definitely resist the modernist tendency to atomize the individual and recognized the intrinsic relationship between the self and their sociohistorical context.

>>14176816
Plato isn't even on there
>>14176862
>Foucault was nominally a Marxist
Stopped reading there. I'm going to kill myself now.

>>14176268
You will never be a woman.

>>14176918
Who's the bust then? Aristotle?

>>14176918
>Imagine being so obsessed with your specific brand of terminology that you can't even engage a well thought out and articulate post on a topic

It's amusing that you bitch about how "everyone that uses pol needs to be euthanized", and you apparently find my usage of the term "Marxist" in reference to Foucault to be distasteful, and yet you can't amass enough effort or intelligence to share any thoughts of your own. This is especially amusing, given my obvious good faith attempt to engage in the discussion and elaborate on my previous post despite your obvious hostility.

It's also worth mentioning that if I had used a term like "postmodernist", "post-structuralist", or "heterodox socialist", then you would have objected to that terminology as well. I'll admit that for expository purposes it's useful and important to use correct/canonical terminology, but it's also super autistic to categorically reject and ignore someone's entire contribution to a discussion on the grounds that they made some sort of mistake in applying their knowledge (or lack thereof) of the lexical minutiae associated with a relatively specialized topic.

>>14176862
This could be said for all those French fucks except Celine and especially Sartre.

>>14177029
Foucault OUTRIGHT rejected and had qualms with Marxism. You would know this if you read a book. Stop posting.

>>14177029
And there is no good faith discussion to have with a self proclaimed white nationalist and reactionary.

>>14176978
Parmenides.

>>14176183
Garbage-tier meme. Doesn't make any sense.

>>14177067
>If you aren't an expert of Foucault's philosophy, then everything you have to say is worthless and you have no right participating in the conversation

Even if this was true (which it isn't), there's no conversation going on here, there's no "intellectual" discussion, so even if I am radically misinformed on Foucault's philosophy, I'd still be contributing more than you.

You're claim that he outright rejected Marxism is simply false because a supported collectivist politics and was literally a member of the communist or socialist party (admittedly I can't remember the exact details). But again, all of that is irrelevant to the point I was making, which would be pretty clear to anyone attempting to engage in a good-faith discussion or debate on these topic. If you're really that obsessed with terminological convention, you can ignore the first part of myy post and respond to everything after the colon, viz. "he promoted. . . sociohistorical context" (>>14176862).

Anyway, you're splitting hair over irrelevant points, and as I mentioned, I'm sure you would have objected to any ideological label I might ascribe to Foucault, but since 'post-structuralist' is probably the least controversial, pretend I said that. The fact of the matter is the upshot of my post is pretty clear: I was point out the asymmetry between Foucault's alleged radical leftist status and the fact that he promoted various forms of epistemological relativism and hedonism. Now you might wish to dispute those point, and I think that's a perfectly fair thing to do, but right now you're coming off as a brainlet and like someone who's not used to engaging in academic discussions or analysis.

Speaking for myself, I'd be perfectly happy engaging in a discussion or a debate with someone even if I felt like I new a lot more about the topic then they do. The fact that you're unable to do so suggests to me that literature, philosophy, and the social sciences (to say nothing of the natural sciences) might not be the most suitable interest for someone of your temperament.

>>14176822
>he played right into the hands of the neoliberal sociocultural metanarrative
He gives one of the best cold and penetrating critiques of neoliberalism (The Birth of Biopolitics}
>epistemological relativism and homosexuality
Nothing wrong with these
>hedonism
Where
>skepticism of the scientific method
He gives an outlook into the epistemological shifts that have occured throughout history and excavates the origins of the human sciences. The focus of his questioning is the modern human sciences (biological, psychological, social). These purport to offer universal scientific truths about human nature that are, in fact, often mere expressions of ethical and political commitments of a particular society. Foucault’s critical philosophy undermines such claims by exhibiting how they are the outcome of contingent historical forces, not scientifically grounded truths.

based

>>14177088
>>14177067
>>14177043
Unlike you, this anon >>14177147 puts forth an actual argument. You one the other hand are a brainlet.

>And there is no good faith discussion to have with a self proclaimed white nationalist and reactionary.

Nonsense. That's literally a logical fallacy. Anyone can make an argument and engage in a debate regardless of their ideology, and the truth or falsity of their claims and the strength of their argument is entirery independent of their ideology.

I'll also add that I'm not a white supremacist. I actually have a half turkish/Vietnamese daughter. I call myself a white nationalist because I support a white homeland and I'm against imperialism and population displace (for instance, European colonization of the new world). I think displacing native populations and cultures is wrong regardless of whether they are white, brown, or black, and so it follows that I support a homeland for Europeans just as much as I support and end to neoimperialism in the middle-east.

Anyway, you're a waste of my time, and it's clear that you have no intellectual proclivities and will never have any success in academia, unless it's in a meme field like gender studies or some shit.

>>14177187
I'm the same person :/

>>14177088
absolutely gay and sheltered. You can't even express your ideas properly or talk to people with le ebil ideas.

You guys are the ones operating in monstrous quantities of 'bad faith' by saying that discussions are literally impossible with people who disagree with you, and framing this as a fucking virtue on your part. Mindkilled robotic little plebs the lot of you

>>14176183
Everyone on the right except Parmenides and maybe Spengler is not a real philosopher. The left automatically wins.

>>14177205
At least you eventually put in some effort, so I respect you a little more given that, but I still think you're a faggot.

pic related is smarter than the entirety of the right side, combined

>>14177227
8/8

>>14177207
This is what is behind every white nationalist and reactionary
https://soundcloud.com/user-546964481/leaked-audio-richard-spencer-reacts-to-the-death-of-heather-heyer-explicit

>>14177235
>left side still wins
amazing

>>14177227
BTFO'd by Chomsky

>>14177227
Vidal and Chomsky embarrassed Buck, and Foucault made Chomsky his bitch. Sucks for the right.

>>14177236
I have no views of the sort, but I'm willing to accept your supposition, if you admit that pic-related is a depiction of what every leftist faps to at night. In other words, I'll agree that all right wingers are racist, Nazi bigots, if you agree that all leftists are literal pedophiles and pedophile apologists that want to bring back the gulags.

>>14176292
>>14176316
he did nothing wrong but anglos like russell couldn't appreciate him well

>>14176183
Why in the fuck is Neech on the left? Why is shitpiro and Peterson and Dugin even listed anywhere?

>>14177397
Based. If they want to include a contemporary right wind voice, someone like Immanuel Wallerstein, or even Jared Taylor would be a better candidate.

>>14177287
lost

>>14177402
>Jared Taylor
kek

a challenger appears

>>14177397
>anti state
>anti conservacuck
>anti anti semite
>anti reactionary
>anti moralcuck
>anti dogma
Nietzsche was an anarchist. He belongs with us, sorry bud.

>>14177451
>Nietzsche was an anarchist
Lmao what? He's always bragging about anarchists in his books

>>14177463
The whatever anarchist party of his time sure. His principles are anarchist though.

>>14177465
Nietzsche's vision of the Ubermensch is an individual who exerts his will over masses of inferior beings. Is that really anarchist

>>14177402
It's not even that I don't think they're right wing, I'm sure any cuckold who opposes castrating 7 year olds to suit their deranged librul mother is right wing these days anyway. But I don't agree with those three guys on almost anything. Why not Celine, Gabriele D'Annunzio, Dominique Venner, Ezra Pound, John Jay, why not blatant antisemites and racists like me? Why not Neech even? I have always considered Neech to be illiberal and opposed to any sort of socialist approach to political philosophy.

>>14177451
You have nothing, faggot pieces of shit like you mocked and smeared him after his death.

>Whitehead
>Deleuze
>Marx
It's already over

>>14177486
retroactively refuted by guenon

>>14177498
>whitehead
>refuted

Pick one, cuckboi.

>>14176183
I would actually put Foucault and Deleuze against everyone else.

>>14176339
Schmitt and Parmenides are in a different league, but the upper right are certainly not pseuds.

>Whitehead, James, Deleuze, Bateson
>but no Peirce
:(

>>14177397
Shapiro and Peterson are of the same level of intellectual rigor of everyone on the right side

>Nietzsche
>Whitehead
>Foucault
>worth anything

>>14176183
This is fuckign garbage, its either a troll thread or someone who has gotten all their philosophical knowledge from memes

>>14176293
The contemporary right is all about Marxism tho

>>14176613
nut it's so obviously a joke

>>14176816
that's parmesan

Why is Nietzsche on the left?

>>14176959
I didn't post a woman you creepy weirdo, I posted a boy reading.
Did you post a pic of yourself?

>>14177465
Yeah the necessity of an order of rank is pretty anarchist.

>>14178287
The contemporary right doesnt even read

read theory

What is this?

Bump

>>14176292
depends on what you mean by "garbage"

>>14176810
>libertarian
>ethnonationalist
how do you reconcile your views?

>>14176959
Emphasis on the LUMP

>>14180364
by being a retard

>>14177235
somehow the right side is still worse here

Why is he not on the chart?

The right side is missing some of its most important intellectuals
Pic related

>>14180643
yikes

>>14180643
I'm sensing some kind of...pattern in these 5 individuals. What could it be

>>14179335
Neocons and neolibs don't count and never will

>>14180643
I don't know which faction of the right wing is more cringe desu

>>14178582
I think their thought process goes something like this: "Nietzsche is a rebel because le god is dead quote, I am a rebel because fuck my dad, Nietzsche is my spirit animal!"

>>14181363
It's more like we are mature adults who don't live in fantasy land and don't indulge in ideology.

>>14176183
Nietzsche and Marx do not go together, and if so only one very few points, despite what modern lefties would like to believe.

>>14181377
He neither goes perfectly with fascism, or liberalism. Anyone who wants to make politics and knows Nietzsche will simply pick/choose/interpret his philosophy as they think suits them. And this is what Nietzsche would have wanted, there is no truth, just power.

>>14181400
>And this is what Nietzsche would have wanted
yeah really don't think what he wanted was to be tossed around like a hot potato by retarded realpolitikers who don't carefully read him

Actually reading Spengler has made me doubt why he is always placed in these charts. None of you have actually read him right?

>>14181400
You're retarded.

>>14181374
>my ideology is so true that the only my enemies are capable of ideology
yikes, unironically based Schmitt (bottom right of ops pic) might be able to unspook your brain

>>14181412
Oh no, anon. I've carefully read him. His philosophy is purely spiritual. It is higher than politics, yet politics must exist, even if those politics have the goal of abolishing politics. Don't you see you are stuck? If you have the higher goal of the free spirit, you need a plan to get there.

Is communism not a promised freedom of the spirit, from the decadent and stupid bourgeois oppression,? Freedom from alienation and slavery? Is not our current paradigm nothing but the triumph of slave, as slave?? Wouldnt this society which lacks economic classes only define their social classes by the beauty of a man's spirit? Wouldnt this society be the dawn of an aristocratic class, not of factory owners, but.. poets and heroes? Is not the overman the one who CREATES NEW VALUES for himself?? The one who goes beyond what values we have now? Our values are stuck in materialist economics. Wouldn't a freedom from the threat of poverty, starvation, and far less required labour, be the fertile bed for this overman??

Or perhaps youre a fascist Nietzsche appropriator. What is the fascist's dream but the perfect hierarchy, all working like a beauty body, in perfect organization, in harmony, as nature intended! The overman is an aristocrat, he dominates the masses with his immensely strong will. Our civilization exists now as merely a training exercise to make reacrive of the higher man as it is. Even though we have "freedom" it is not real freedom, because the lower kinds of men do not know what to do with it! And the higher men are not free to do as they would! So a hierarchy, where the higher man (master, over) makes slaves of the lower men, and is able to create values. The lower men would be happier to be slaves, its all theyre fit for, and the higher men would be unburdened, and create.

So, which is the true Nietzsche? Neither. He does not have a political system. He has a goal, to bring about the overman, to avoid the fatal fall into nihilism, but how to bring it about?

>no lacan/freud, barthes or chomsky on the left side
>bookchin
>putting memes like dugin, shapiro and peterson on the right side

>>14182151
Bookchin is fine

>>14182188
His ideology is a fringe meme. The guy is some bizarre trotsky-anarchist-environmentalist combination that just doesn't work. You might as well have put a mutualist like carson or proudhon up there.

>>14176220
cute bait OP

Would Bataille be in the left or in the right side? My first answer is he would be in the left but he's really far from a typical leftist of any variety imho

>>14176268
>>14176293
Shapiro is a liberal.

I fixed your dumb meme op

>>14182308
He was an anarchist

>>14182393
Wow you somehow made it much worse

>>14182393
The other one is funnier

>>14182393
On the left I see a bunch of dead white males, on the right a monkey and four non-whites. I think we all know which team deserves a platform.

>>14176183
where's Stirner

>>14178287
I wouldn't say that the right is all about Marx so much as that Marx was manifestly correct about certain things and it's dumb to refuse to accept that. Plus communism is fucking dead since the 60s, and liberalism has revealed itself as the great filter and cosmic evil that it always was, so why defend its economic system no matter what political orientation you are?

>>14176220
that's the joke

>>14176183
I don't get it. wat mean?

>>14183232
See >>14176318

>>14183235
Really? Plenty of the left side is cringe as well, though.

>>14177451
You didn't read him well if you think that those possitions can all be found in his books, and if you think they represent what he wants well.
If we are going to use a list of characteristics to say false things about persons/ideologies: fascism claims to be revolutionary and is, thus, not rightist. Since you are an anarchist you probably disagree with this; I could compile a list of the same length of yours and it wouldn't proof anything. Hence you made no argument.
First point, I don't remember him actually complaining about the existence of states. But, yeah, that is just a 'I don't remember'. And if he against the state, I believe it is against the 'state', i.e. modernist variant, since he never argues, for example, against feudalist states.
Second point, he obviously disagreed with the conservacucks of his time, and we can also add the later conservacucks. Does this mean that he is against them. The tone, when speaking about conservatives, is a pitying one, whilst speaking about leftists it is about the, by him, identified illness of his time.
He does, of course, not like vulgar anti semitism. Just like he wouldn't like a vulgar ideology like anarchism.
The anti reactionary is just plainly false, except if you define reactionary by a handful of political stances and fail to look at any picture. If we compare Nietzsche with the political stances of his reactionary contemporaries, we can obviously find differences. And, like the conservacucks, he pities them ovef their differences. But we should add that Nietzsche believed in natural aristocracy and believed that those aristocrats are inherently worth more then the general populace. A pfetty reactionary view to hold in a society more and more dominated by capitalism and democratic currents. This, of course doesn't prove anything. Thus, I add, in order to argue better, that Nietzsche wrote his books to tell about a perceived decline, perceived through superimposing Socratic Greece onto the modern times, and he asks how this decline can be overcome. This makes it entirely clear why he pities conservacucks and some subset of reactionaries whily being a reactionary oneself.
Anti moralcuck is something that I am willing to cede to you. But remember that his biggest opposition is to Socratic moralism, and not every kind. This explains even bettef all his pitying od conservatives and racing against leftists.
Anti dogma, somewhat true, although he is pretty dogmatic about art, you know. I don't think that he is able to question the possibility of art without letting his whole edifice collapse.

Bump

>>14184464
Why are retards still bumping this troll (and probably Jewish psyop) thread

>>14184530
t. assblasted polyp

>>14184530
t. braindead fashie
bump

>>14176220
Coomaraswamy alone speaks more languages and is read in more literatures than the entire left side combined

>>14176959
I was not prepared for this

Dafuq is Ben Shapiro doing there?

>>14176183
who invited the yootoober and the self-help guy?

embarrassing

materialist V idealist???

I have no idea what dichotomy OP is trying to portray

>>14186831
Left: intelligent
Right: unintelligent

>>14178404
kek

>>14182430
>left
>white-men
nice try rabbi

>>14182393
plato => Hegel => [[marx, [deleuze, foucalt, walter]], [Nietzche, [Heidegger, Spengler, Evolam Schmitt]]]