/lit/ - Literature

No because they just rely on reacting to things without thought

Yes, it's called reading philosophy and history, except instead of saying it on social media you juts actually do it.

Gramsci, Guenon, Evola, Debord, Baudrillard

Go outside.

The right has real practice experience based on thousands of years of history. We don't live in the abstract and need "muh theory" like leftcringes

>>14304763
How are most of those right wing?

>>14304768
>t. discord leftist

Go back to revleft, tranny.

>>14304769
They work with right wing views better than left

Yes and it's better

>>14304768
All people have different experiences throughout history and systems are constantly evolving, changing, and being taken over by something else, so no there is no "real practice." Your post just highlights that all the right have is blind reaction and indulgence in flimsy ideology and nothing of intellectual rigor.

>>14304768 #
All people have different experiences throughout history and systems are constantly evolving, changing, and being taken over by something else, so no there is no "real practice." Your post, in its blatant ahistorical account, just highlights that all the right have is blind reaction and indulgence in flimsy ideology and nothing of intellectual rigor.

>>14304753
Every history book on communism ever written.

>>14304787
was here to post this

Have white children

>>14304753
Lift weights

Queue the leftists insisting the right doesn’t have any intellectual roots because it doesn’t look and feel exactly like there’s does. “Why don’t fascists have economic theory?” Because they don’t even regard Economics as that important. Why would they have stacks of theory?

In addition to the vast majority of literature involving religion, mythology, and philosophy that we have from the last few thousand years of thought (shocking that conservatives want to conserve historical thought, I know) there’s just as much literature which the left likes to claim for themselves that’s equally associated with the right wing. Nietzsche, for example, was a primary inspiration of the conservative revolution though the left likes to claim him.

If you’re looking for some sort of massive quantity of intellectual literature from the right wing from the 1700s onward in the same vein as left wing thought, you won’t find it for multiple reasons. For one, the far right mindset regards quantity to be inferior to quality so they simply don’t engage with literature in that way and second, the ideological currents of history since then have been predominantly progressive so I’m not sure why leftists would expect some giant treasure trove of right wing intellectuals. Most of the world is left wing.

>>14304753
"Go outside"

>>14304768
Takes like this don't make us look good. Just point to the fact that read theory posters define the supposedly neutral word "theory" as "non-fiction books about the practice of advancing socialism and social egalitarianism". Since the right obviously doesn't have any books that fit this standard (how could it) the chortling leftists here proclaim that the right has "no theory" per their politically motivated definition of the word.

With that said, the left does probably have MORE "theory" in a neutral sense of the word since the late nineteenth century, but to claim that their opponents have none is just a blatant demoralization scheme.

Read Theory

>>14304768
/thread

>>14304753
>ctrf+f Adam Smith
0 results for an obvious answer.

>>14304814
so you skip everything else? Even then you'd find enough to consider it a worthy alternative.

i don't need theory for hating niggers and trannies, it comes naturally

>>14304763
>Gramsci
>Right wing

More evidence that "right wing/left-wing" is the most retarded categorisation ever devised by the human mind.

>>14304807
Yes, but that doesn’t mean in a works historically relevant place you can juxtapose your nu-age perspective onto it. There is a “real practice”, you just choose to ignore the context because it doesn’t allow you to justify your views objectively.

>>14304753

Study Economics.

the genre of theory is nothing more than an edifice of sheer gibberish and would constitute a monumental embarrassment for the left if they were at all self aware

itt retards that don't read. surprise surprise on a literature board.

>>14307437
>conflating philosophy proper with asinine leftist psychobabble

>>14307483
How can people read this and go "Ah yes, that makes perfect sense."

Its called tradition

>>14307483
>>14307504
>thinks that is difficult to read

>>14307504
What parts don't you get? Its not something you just jump into without having a background knowledge of Freud and Lacan.

>>14307532
>>14307536
leftists defending absolute nonsense

>>14307536
>>14307532
Sum it up in your own words

Why are so many pop stars marxists?

>>14307555
>Didn't put any time into reading it
>"what is all this nonsense!"

brainlet

>>14304753
Nigger who the fuck cares except a small clique of leftists about theory

>>14307577
it's gobbledigook and you know it, shithead

>>14304753
Define theory for me pls

>>14307582
Again how would you know it if you didn't put the time into reading the people he was responding to or learning the context as to why he wrote it in such a peculiar way

>>14304753
Yeah it's called economics.

>>14307586
What is the important idea expressed in there and why should I give it my timenin order to understand it.

>>14307577
Oh my gullible friend, to paraphrase Brecht by way of Adorno, “The palace of theory is built with dogshit”.

>>14307596
>>14307557
>>14307504
First off, that part of the text is pretty much shitposting before the Internet. D&G admitted to having laughed a lot while writing and this particular passage which, I believe, is from A Thousand Plateaus is even more on the nose because at that point D&G were tired of psychoanalysis. The rest of the book and the remainder of their career they barely speak about it anymore. Also, keep in mind that the Wolf Man, Freud's famous patient, is called that after his dreams so the weird things D&G are describing have to do with dream logic in some sense, with the pluralistic (disorganized) larval subject that lives and develops when we are asleep.

>Who could ever believe that the anal machine bears no relation to the wolf machine, or that the two are only linked by an Oedipal apparatus, by the all-too-human figure of the Father?

The anal stage for Freud had to do with production and about how later in life, based on that moment in infancy, we end up treating what we produce or own (not just feces, pretty much everything: how easily we let go of things, how harshly we judge our work etc.). D&G use it here as far as I can tell in a more literal sense of how the anus is connected to the psyche in an assemblage: the image of the anus, the sensations associated with it (solar anus means just that although it can certainly be artistically extended to mean the black sun or whatever as Bataille did), the feelings we have towards it (revulsion or attraction or both at different times etc.).

So for D&G it's all about a philosophy of connections, of becoming as unlikely connections (as in neuroplasticity, D&G said that their concept of rhizome is based on how the brain develops and changes). A machine is for D&G not something mechanical, but something that's prone to unlikely connections that change its focus and what it means to us (like the mouth used to eat, talk, smile, kiss, bite, threaten, give oral sex etc. all within different assemblages). D&G say that Freud was wrong to think these connections (which for them pertain to metaphysics itself, not just the human psyche or brain) as being only possible due to the psychoanalytic figure of the Father (what the father means to the child in his unconscious).

(to be continued)

>>14307639
cont.

So basically the assemblages the anus is part of and the assemblages that wolves are part of (recognizing a wolf, running away from it, thinking it would make for a cute pet etc. everyone has their own assemblages, some weirder than others) interact without the need for an Oedipal mediator.

> For in the end the anus also expresses an intensity, in this case the approach to zero of a distance that cannot be decomposed without its elements changing in nature.

An intensity for D&G is something that has its own internal logic out of which extension is created. The approach to zero thing is a bit more difficult to explain because Deleuze liked the Leibnizian-Spinozist idea of actual infinities (turtles all the way down, but with emergent properties based on relations within multiplicities otherwise it would just be infinite regress with no becoming). Imagine that you have a bag that can only hold dicks. Even if it's empty it can still only hold dicks and any attempt to change it makes it not-a-dickbag, it loses its properties. It is what Bergson called "the indivisible": it can be divided, but it loses its properties in the process and there's no way around it.

So the anus is connected to this intensity of emptiness which is itself a thing and has "positive" consequences (nothing is a mode of Being for Deleuze).

I should mention that for Freud and the anthropologists of his day, the anus was also associated with verticality: humans, in their long evolutionary history, ended up seeing the sky as something superior and the ground as something dirty and this is mapped on their body as well (especially due to upright position becoming a thing) so that their anus and its functions becomes something to be avoided, which is very different from how animals use it.

D&G see a connection being formed within the logic of the larval subject that dreams when we're asleep between the emptiness associated with the anus and the child's other dream productions (his place in the "pack" and the fact that he is himself in his lonesome a pack in order to have properties of any kind, the difference between jaw and anus in their intensities and "vertical" opposition). The thing is that within dreams all the everyday territorializations that become consolidated through repetition and taken for granted in waking life get freed and start having strange interactions and even form new connections that have the potential for consolidation (Medieval philosophers often talked about dreams based on their effects on the dreamer and placed great value on the dreams that forever changed him).

>>14307648
And to add on, the most important thing before getting into Deleuze is to understand the concept of the dogmatic image of thought. If you see the world is to be done in a certain way, your thinking will yield the same. For Deleuze, our first task is to break/rupture this dogmatic image and to replace it with something that's as non-distorting as possible at its base. Note that this doesn't exclude the previous dogmatic image as always invalid and bad, but merely pointing out that philosophy does not function well enough when constrained. Essentially an admittance of the existence error or negativity at the base of thought will necessarily cut you off from some of the answers.All modes of thought can be instrumentally useful. This includes stupidity, paradox ect.
This french pseudointellectual jargon is precicely an attempt to shock you out of the common modes of thinking.

>>14307639
>>14307648
>>14307680
You could of just said nothing

>>14307687
Retard. This is why no one effort posts anymore. Fuck off.

>>14307639
So you admit it's something of a shitpost and written in "dream logic". That's a good first step. What I'm struggling to understand is not the ontology or Freudian ideas but what could all this possibly have to do with leftism? And why are academic leftist types except real straight guys like Chomsky so dazzled and enamoured by this kind of silliness?

>>14307746
>>14307680

>>14304766

Came here to post this.

>>14307746
It was a shitpost against Lacan but its not like he's wrong.

yall niggas forgetting about this dude

>>14307639
>>14307648
>>14307680
>it's not that complicated
Jesus Christ lmao what's with you people and not being able to give a tl;dr

Anyways, in what manner shape or form would I be benefitted from having read this as opposed to not?

>>14307753
>This french pseudointellectual jargon is precicely an attempt to shock you out of the common modes of thinking.
And what are the real, practical results of this in terms of the emancipatory project for mankind? All it does is let you practice your cant with other "initiates" in the theory-bubble who are also just bloodless bookworms who ain't going to do shit or who were already always going to be activists besides. You can just take acid you know, instead of trying to squeeze blood from the stone of decrypting French hogwash.

>>14307791
>Anyways, in what manner shape or form would I be benefitted from having read this as opposed to not?
He ain't gonna respond to this

>>14307867
Kek they never have an answer for the question of in what manner is their so called "theory" practical

>>14307867
>>14307884
Gave an answer here.>>14307680
If you are too retarded to see what this entails that is in you. This board is garbage.

>>14307680
>>14307648
>>14307639

But why bother with any of that stuff if it's unfalsifiable? Why make prescriptive claims about society with something that is unfalsifiable and ultimately critical instead of positive?

It's like the is-ought problem but there isn't even an is. It's like the retardedniggerisms-ought problem

Yes, it's analytic consequentialism but with an emphasis on purportedly scientific evidence of whatever right-wing ideas they hold

Fundamentally the modern battleground between left and right is continental vs analytic. Don't @ me

>>14307905
Nigger I can question and critique my thought patterns without the need of a french faggot talking about wolf anus machines

>>14307971
The fact that you dismiss it as such means you are still stuck in the dogmatic image of thought :^)

>>14307575
I know about Charlie, Lorde and Ariana being Marxist but do you have a source on Charli XCX?

>>14307350
adam smith was like left-liberal

>>14307982
Dude, isn't like questioning stuff n shiet literally the point of philosophy since socrates?

>>14307982

Get your will to power away from me academist faggot. i will rape your girlfriend

>>14307905
and you can't answer what this purported broadening of the mind accomplishes except the production of more flowery neologisms and more reams of paper in an ironically elitist and insular circle jerk

Every philosophy before Marx was right wing because Marx was the one who invented the left

>>14307982
Also doesn't this comment imply that you hold mr. Anus Machine man's thought as dogmatical?

>>14308047
no because it is in the manner which he dismisses it
https://www.iep.utm.edu/deleuze/#SH4d

Foucault is to fascism what Marx is to communism

>>14304753
Human history

>>14304753
>read theory
>become a sissy
two synonymous sentences

>>14304768
based retard

>>14308060
didnt heidegger - who deleuze complains is oppressive - make some very similar points some 40 years earlier?

>>14304753
yeah right here

>>14308099
no

>>14307905
You never answered his question.

>"What you're referring to is what's called "theory." And when I said I'm not interested in theory, what I meant is, I'm not interested in posturing--using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there's no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can't. So I'm not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don't see anything to what he's saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven't the slightest idea. I don't see anything there that should be influential."

>>14308060
What does it refers to when it says "the two powers of difference and repetition"? No wall of text, just a tl;dr

>>14304753
Yes, read Codreanu.

>>14308128
Damn that articulates my feelings pretty well, where is this quote from?

>>14308154
It's from Chomsky. I've never seen someone able to respond to his criticisms.

>"Since no one has succeeded in showing me what I'm missing, we're left with the second option: I'm just incapable of understanding. I'm certainly willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm afraid I'll have to remain suspicious, for what seem good reasons. There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out."

>>14308111
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opphil.2018.1.issue-1/opphil-2018-0013/opphil-2018-0013.pdf

>>14308154
Chomsky I think. Type in "Chomsky and zizek" or "chomsky postmodernism" into YouTube and it should come up

>>14305110
>don't make us look good

When will social retards like you learn that we will never "look good" in the eyes of these indocrinated cultists.

>>14308168
I dont think Foucault should be thrown in with the rest, it is always fairly clear what he's talking about

>>14308168
Chomsky is based. Prepare for a lot of Anti-Analytic ad hominem seething to come your way

>>14308168
Huh. I've been kind of overlooking him but this has intrigued me; what can I read from his?

>>14308184
Understanding Power is the one you should start with. Other than that read anything from him that interests you. Manufacturing Consent, Government in the Future, and all the clips you can find on Youtube.

>>14308184
Manufacturing Consent is his big political one and then a lot of other smaller dialogue books that are quite repetitive but still interesting. I'm not sure about his linguistic work to my shame. If you're looking for more anti-postmodern/continental philosophy from him though you'll be disappointed, the two quotes that anon posted are, as far as I'm aware, the extent of his discussion on the subject.

>>14305027
Just a reminder that Nietsche was Polish

>>14308194
>>14308184
Here are some clips of him talking about post modernism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQA0e0UYzI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIwmx9crelg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVe_ComujRg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=772WncdxCSw

>>14308193
>>14308194
>>14308207
Thanks, Anon(s?) <3

>>14304778
No they don’t you illiterate

>employees of the bourgeois state at elite universities babble a staggering tower of bullshit that everyone with an actual brain detects as tripe
>even the CIA loves it because it's pretty much anti-Marxist or at least anti-Soviet
>countless leftists glom onto these puffed up celebrity "intellectuals" and start spewing out derivative drivel themselves, proving themselves to be impressionable, posing midwits
wow you sure showed the right wing!

>>14308128
>>14308168
I don't think it's the right move to dismiss them since what they write is following after who they've been influenced by. At best, this is where to start. You're likely to be lost without being knowledgeable of the influences. I agree they should have attempted to be more clear, but this stuff is advanced and there has to be some give and take in humility.

right-left wing paradigm is retarded

>>14308250
I would say that this problem isn't limited to the left wing, it's just more prominent because most academics interested in this stuff are more or less left wing. Trying to rehabilitate or reconcile Heidegger, Schmitt, Nietzsche, etc., is a cottage industry. Finally, I dislike cultures of celebrity as much as you but I don't consider someone like Derrida to be a charlatan, either

>>14308301
even foucault famously accused derrida of "terrorism of obscurantism"
i'm just saying it's laughable some here consider theory an accomplishment rather than an embarrassment for leftism

>>14308331
So do you have a problem with theory in general? Or just obscurantism? I mean even the Republic is in a sense political "theory," but it's neither obscure nor irrelevant

>>14304753
>Read the theory

This is just that the leftist premises will not make sense without the necessary foundational brainwashing. It's the same reason why the left can't meme with short sentences like the right can. 'Read theory' just means 'our bullshit can never be justified through practical application but only through academic orthodoxy and intellectual dishonesty.' Kindly fuck off with that. Political leanings are dictated by personality traits, reason is only ever used as a post-hoc justification. The use of 'read theory' to dismiss a discussion is cynical and arrogant and cowardly and betrays a distinctly adolescent approach to intellectual discourse, an inibility transmit complex ideas beyond cliche. Go fuck yourselves commie faggot failures and other assorted trash.

>>14308397

I'm thinking you're based

>>14308368
no i don't mean political theory in general i mean the principally french genre of "Theory" which is multidisciplinary and branches literary criticism, philosophy, sociology.

>>14308425
Got it, have to admit I find a lot of it worthwhile although I agree it doesn't have much use-value, and certainly isn't relevant to how I or nearly anyone formulate political views

>>14308397
>Political leanings are dictated by personality traits
>reason is only ever used as a post-hoc justification.
It seems to me that if you totally believe this, you should think discussion among people who disagree with your political views is pointless beyond representing an opportunity for all parties to articulate their views. And such an articulation would be, in your view, ad hoc casuistry. So aren't you being somewhat hypocritical?

>>14308397
It follows that the right wing is supposedly purer or more natural than 'theory' which would then prompt the questions from whence does leftism come? Right wingers can't answer this simple problem of evil.

>>14304753
Yeah, but it's even worse than with leftists because RWT is heavily suppressed. You can find mountains of stuff on youtube and hosted on google but google at this point has deleted many more labors of love audio recordings and pdf uploads by the right than the Nazis ever thought about burning.

>>14304753
We have to settle on post-modern Nazism, basically. James mason meets Foucault.

>>14307746
>>14307817
>>14307920
>>14308128
>>14308154
>>14308168
>>14308175
>>14308182
>>14308184
>>14308193
>>14308194
>>14308207
>>14308212
>>14308331
>>14308425

^Based true leftists. Let's make sure the obscurantist bullshitters don't take us off course.

>>14308518
>mountains of stuff on youtube
hmmm

Can people on this board for once read a book? Holy shit this thread is garbage.

>>14308544
my question is (1) what leftist thinkers do you consider obscurantists and (2) how did you arrive at this judgement?

>>14304753
I'm sorry can you define what it means to be a liberal?

>>14308551
A lot of it is essentially long lectures and book reviews of left theory or robot voice recordings of left theory but anything critical of Liberalism and capitalism to the right is strangely well-guarded. You can find any intellectual property of a fantasy or romance or young adult or anything like that. However, rightist stuff or anything critical outside of "more Liberalism" is deleted right away.

>>14308561
>(1) what leftist thinkers do you consider obscurantists
I don't consider any truly leftist thinker to be an obscurantist.

>(2) how did you arrive at this judgement?
Political economy is not that deep a subject. It is not algebraic geometry or the like. It comes down to whether working people should control the means of production as opposed to the passive capital class.

>>14308272
>I don't think it's the right move to dismiss them since what they write is following after who they've been influenced by. At best, this is where to start. You're likely to be lost without being knowledgeable of the influences. I agree they should have attempted to be more clear, but this stuff is advanced and there has to be some give and take in humility.
If there was anything of substance why can none them explain it to Chomsky?

>>14304778
based retard

>>14305027
>national SOCIALISTS didn't care about the economy
were they retards or did they just use words without understanding them

>>14307504
do you know Freud? his work on wolves through the wolf-man?

>>14308587
don't necessarily disbelieve you, but could you go into more detail? is this stuff being generated by anonymous figures, fringe intellectuals/academics, or what?

>>14307639
>>14307648
>>14307680
they were never planning on reading or engaging with you anon but ty for the effort post

>>14308606
so do you consider derrida for example to be an interloper? bear in mind his most of his work is not really political

>>14308128
>Chumpsky on theory
this is possibly the most cringe statement Chomsky has ever said, including his Trump rants and pro-Cambodia shit

>>14308728
Read him for yourself instead of asking retards that don't read.

>>14308168
Zizek btfo'd him with a direct response

>What is that about, again, the academy and Chomsky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chomsky, my first point is that Chomsky, who always emphasizes how one has to be empirical, accurate, not just some crazy Lacanian speculations and so on... well I don't think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions in his whatever! Let's look... I remember when he defended this demonstration of Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a couple of texts claiming: No, this is Western propaganda. Khmer Rouge are not as horrible as that." And when later he was compelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the Universe and so on, his defense was quite shocking for me. It was that "No, with the data that we had at that point, I was right. At that point we didn't yet know enough, so... you know." But I totally reject this line of reasoning.

>>14308728
Yes, I consider Derrida to be an obscurantist who adds nothing to the cause of abolishing Capital, hence not even remotely a leftist.

>>14308734
>most cringe statement Chomsky
Fuck off back to /b/, /pol/, /tv/, rebdit, or wherever the fuck you came from, mouthbreather.

>>14308736
but I have read derrida
>>14308748
you consider derrida to be an obscurantist. what have you read by him, and why conclusions did you draw, that made you arrive at this view?

>>14308770
*what conclusions did you draw

>>14308699
Socialism has multiple different meanings you retard.
Socialism could refer to Marxist socialism, Kita's national socialism, Prussian socialism in the sense of Spengler, the concept of socialism as the Nazi party defined it, etc.
You don't have a monopoly on the word just because you never read anything outside your bubble

>>14308743
>Žižek stooping to regurgitate globalist rightwing talking points as a defense

Let it go, fanboy.

>>14308743
>muh khmer rouge
kek zizek is such a slimey hack

>>14308778
socialism is an explicitly economic term

>>14308793
Wrong and this is just admitting you're unaware of the other usages of the world in Germany and Prussia around the turn if the 20th century.
Which is fine and even common but it's still a pointless thing on which to base an argument.

>>14308784
>>14308790
I'm sorry, are you actually defending Chomsky on his Cambodia debacle?

>>14308743
>>14308784
>>14308790
don't you retards understand that none of this is actually to the point? Chomsky saying "Lacan is a charlatan" shouldn't be enough to convince you that he is one. Zizek calling Chomsky "empirically wrong" shouldn't be enough to convince you of anything either. why are you treating abstract categories like a team sport? it's disgusting

>>14308796
Spengler was a spergler and he completely misunderstood the term, but if that is the hill you want to die on be my guest

>>14308803
D-do you honestly deny the Khemer Rouge attrocities? Not even Chomsky does that

>>14308809
He didn't misunderstand the term, he explicitly states he's using the term with a specific definition that is not the same as Marxism

>>14308817
yeah, and the Democratic Republic is Korea is totally democratic, they are just using another specific definition that doesn't mean the same thing.

>>14308813
you are so pathetically desperate to argue about something that you're not even checking who's replying to you and what they're saying

>>14308798
yes he's a real leftist with principles unlike zizek or any of the french frauds and their acolytes

>>14308798
I'm sorry, shouldn't you be on /pol/, arguing how non-billionaires like yourself should be tortured to death?

>>14308803
>...enough to convince you...like a team sport
Nobody on the left is arguing for that. Do you own research and make your own conclusions.

>>14308838
>Nobody on the left is arguing for that. Do you own research and make your own conclusions.
then why are you using the social capital of intellectual celebrities to make your arguments for you?

>>14308826
Does North Korea have an official definition of socialism?

>>14308844
I'm not. What makes you think otherwise?

>>14308639
That's a whole lot of history of philosophy I'm sure he doesn't have time to engage with nor does someone have the time to break down to unless they have the interest (go back to Heidegger, oh what about Husserl, throw in some Saussure, how about read Nietzsche, read Kierkegaard, hey read Hegel), not his fault, but I don't think he's aware of it so he just labels what he doesn't want to engage with as postmodernism even if the thinkers themselves he associates with it were against it. But realize that they still resonated with the European public, there's something understandable there but whether someone acknowledges that or not and just casts it off as foreign is up to them.

>>14308859
the exchange I was originally quoting was solely about what Chomsky and Zizek have said, presumably off the cuff, in interviews. None of which was actually important or substantive

>>14308833
Zizek saying Chomsky's empericaly wrong is backed by the mountains of evidence confirming he was empericaly wrong. You literally need to deny the Cambodian genocide to disagree with Zizek here, or play Chomsky's counterfactual game ("I was right at the time, regardless of what was actually happening in Cambodia")

>>14308868
read what I wrote and tell me what was in it that you construed as a defense of chomsky's statements

>>14308826
Saying all socialism must be Marxism is a brainlet move. When other people have actually developed their own reasons for using the word in a different way, there's no reason but hero worship to demand that only Marx gets to define how the word socialism can be used.

>>14308868
Wow. Read a book, FoxNews fanatic.

>>14308826
Except in this case they've spelled out what they mean by their use of the word so it doesn't make sense to criticise them based on another definition when you already know that's not what they mean.

>>14308868
cheap shot and it's all his critics really have
meanwhile the french pseuds all tried to abolish the age of consent

>>14308877
>Zizek calling Chomsky "empirically wrong" shouldn't be enough to convince you of anything either
>implying I wasn't convinced by the mass graves or Chomsky himself admitting there was a genocide

>>14308884
>>14308838
I'm defending a literal communist

>but muh Cambodia !!

This thread is quite illuminating in how it exposes the (crypto-)rightwingers LARPing here as "intellectuals".

>>14308891
pointing out factual points of error is a "cheap shot", meanwhile handwaving an entire theory because you won't even consider it as a theory is big brain

>>14308916
see
>>14308904
Chomsky is a glorified liberal who bas backed himself into defending the neoliberal order to dunk on Trump, any sane leftist would give up on defending him

>>14308916
It's kind of fascinating to me how it has become "cool" to LARP as a right-winger on the Internet. In my lifetime alone it has been cool to emulate black people, then gay people, and now Nazis. I seriously wonder what's next. It's not even that far-fetched to me that sometime in the future it will be cool to emulate literal retarded people.

It is a race to the bottom.

>>14308927
whoops, see >>14308912 instead

>>14308928
It's the progs own fault for being such colossal faggots. Anybody mocking them is going to get points

>>14308904
in the context of the thread in general and the chain in particular, it should be clear that I was referring to chomsky's credibility regarding his statements about continental philosophy. but even regarding cambodia, no, zizek saying "wrong" shouldn't (in itself) convince you of anything

>>14308923
he elucidates perfectly why he rejects it
everyone actually intelligent smells a rat from a mile away and sees that pomo enthusiasts are nothing but pilpul and hot air

>>14308941
>he elucidates perfectly why he rejects it
where?

>>14308916
Wait aren't the theory faggots the one attacking chomsky? They are trying to prove Zizek right or something

>>14308949
In the quotes that were posted in the thread

>>14308927
>Chomsky is a glorified liberal
Oh really?

>who backed himself into defending the neoliberal order
Wow, has he?

>to dunk on Trump
Here we go...

>any sane leftist would give up on defending him
Uh huh.

>>14308934
It's common fucking knowledge that Cambodia DID go through a genocide, why would you assume the only point of reference for this is what Zizek said? When someone brings up Hiroshima, do you bring up how they haven't actually proved the bomb hit the city or do you just accepted the historically facticity of the statement?

>>14308964
Yeah, see his take on the Kurds and him literally advocating US intervention in Syria. I am literally a communist.

getting redpilled with infographics

>>14308941
yeah, he does, he says it doesn't make sense to him. this is called an argument from personal incredulity, it is considered a logical fallacy anon

>>14308951
>Wait aren't the theory faggots the one attacking chomsky?
Apparently, yes.

>They are trying to prove Zizek right or something
Zizek and Chomsky are on roughly the same page politically, it's just that Chomsky does not endorse spewing out obscurantist gibberish as a strategy.

>>14308961
it seems that he's saying that any assertion presented in "theory" should be isolated to be verified empirically, which I think is a sort of willfully naive belief, considering all the "theory" I've read. but, regardless, if you agree with Chomsky in this respect, don't you have to abandon Marx?

>>14308975
you simply want to argue about cambodia, when IDGAF about it. that was never the point

Yeah, "Start a family".

>>14308981
>I am literally a communist.
Are you? So you hate the very idea of libertarian socialism (anarchism). Say what you will about Chomsky's affection for the Kurds, it has zero to do with Trump.

>>14308989
incredulity is personal disbelief, not the same as straightforwardly pointing out deliberately convoluted non-sense for what it is.

>>14304753
Yes. It's called flimsy ideology.

>>14309010
Why say Zizek point was as unfounded as Chomsky's then? You do understand why Zizek's point is much more grounded than Chomsky's, correct? It is based on factual evidence whereas Chomskys is literally citing his feeling of incredulity

>>14309031
you should at least to be able to point at a passage or something. saying in general terms that something is "nonsense," with the implicit claim that it should be obvious what one means, is a copout

>>14308743
Lmao Zizek is such a disingenuous slob

>>14309023
He just happened to start advocating intervention the same time Trump was advocating pulling out, it was all a coincidence? Him literally doing interviews on the topic with specific reference to Trumps policy as the reason for staying in Syria, did he just misspeak?

>>14309037
but I never said it was unfounded, which I can't really know. you would have to look elsewhere to determine the validity of his statement. my point (AGAIN) was that attacking/boosting the credibility of some figure on some issue does and should not do any argumentative work for anyone ITT

>>14309060
kek, I did find it funny to hear Chomsky advocate for maintaining US presence in Syria, but in the interviews I heard (and he's constantly doing interviews), he was explicitly asked about his opinion on it--it's not as if he was flagrantly shilling US intervention in Syria

>>14304768
stop making threads just to respond to them with bait and pretend to be retarded

>>14305027
>nietzsche
>conservative
bruh moment

>>14309060
>He just happened to start advocating intervention the same time Trump was advocating pulling out, it was all a coincidence?
Oh for fuck's sake, he doesn't give a shit about Trump vs Clinton regarding foreign policy. Look up East Timor.

>>14308148
>he two powers of difference and repetition"? No wall of text, just a tl;dr
a wall of text is a tl;dr

go read difference and repetition

>>14309121
He literally said the opposite though I'm jist taking him at his word

>>14309005
What I get from it is basically
>I try to understand theory but it seems like all bullshit to me
>So I asked some friends to explain it to me like I'm retarded
>Even so no one can really give me a kind of outline of what theory really is
>So I assume it's just that thesw motherfuckers jacked off into the page and others pretend they understand so they seem smart

Unless there was another quote I missed

>>14307483
That passage has the rare virtue of being both hilarious and intellectually stimulating, and I also do not find the style at all intrusive. What's your point?

>>14304755
fpbp

>>14308587
>>14308710
This is completely false, the best robot for leftist literature is also the premier robot for the right

https://www.youtube.com/user/Skatefordays1/


2:12:47
Thomas Ligotti - The Conspiracy against the Human Race P. 01
26,781 views2 years ago

2:17:54
Julius Evola - Revolt Against the Modern World Ch. 00-05
20,493 views2 years ago

37:24
Ray Brassier - Mad Black Deleuzianism: On Nick Land (Accelerationism)
15,346 views2 years ago

2:23:07
Mark Fisher - Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
14,749 views1 year ago

2:33:10
Thilo Sarrazin - Deutschland Schafft Sich Ab K. 00-03 Einleitung, Staat und Gesellschaft, usw.
12,963 views2 years ago

2:16:58
Yukio Mishima - Sun and Steel: Art, Action and Ritual Death (太陽と鉄)
11,612 views2 years ago

5:01:48
Mencius Moldbug - A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations (1/2)
11,265 views3 years ago

2:11:25
Oswald Spengler - The Decline of the West Ch. 00-01 Preface, Introduction (V. I)
10,527 views2 years ago

2:23:29
Julius Evola - Ride The Tiger P. 01-02 Orientations, In the World Where God Is Dead
10,378 views2 years ago

2:34:57
Ernst Jünger - Storm of Steel Ch. 01-06
9,831 views2 years ago

4:14:47
Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Democracy: The God That Failed Ch. 01-06
9,651 views2 years ago

2:02:50
Gilles Deluze & Felix Guattari - Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia P. 01
7,636 views2 years ago

2:14:00
Mencius Moldbug - An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives Ch. 01-03
7,436 views2 years ago

1:16:41
René Guénon - The Crisis of the Modern World Ch. 00-03
6,419 views2 years ago

2:24:33
Michel Foucault - Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison P. 01 Torture
6,014 views1 year ago

0:35
The Leopard (Il gattopardo) - Sorrow (Shedding a Tear) [HD]
5,941 views4 years ago

2:30:07
Joseph Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy P. 01 The Marxian Doctrine
5,193 views2 years ago

36:52
Nick Land - Time Spiral: On Templexity, Looper, Architecture and Shangai/China (with Q&A)
5,120 views1 year ago

3:49:55
Thomas Carlyle - On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History L. 01-03
4,657 views2 years ago

1:12:26
Ernst Jünger - On Pain
4,233 views2 years ago

3:46:29
Mencius Moldbug - How Dawkins Got Pwned
4,092 views2 years ago

1:46:49
Thomas Ligotti - The Conspiracy against the Human Race P. 02
4,084 views2 years ago
Load more

etc

>>14309129
I agree that that's what he's saying, but why take it seriously?

>>14304757
>reading philosophy and history
You mean watching Youtube videos.

>>14308553
>Can people on this board for once read a book


>>14309150
At least put on an audiobook in the background instead of watching youtube celebrities.

>>14309150
what are you trying to convey with this post?

>>14309122
Nigger I'm literally interested and you tell me to read a long fucking book instead of explaining something (that I assume you understand) concisely

Anyone can give small tl;drs on their favourite philosophy books instead of you theory faggots

I am asking a tl;dr of difference of repetition because I literally don't know what it is and I'm not willing to read your six hundred page book unless I'm tangentially related to the problem the book is trying to solve

>>14309154
Because I have a similar feeling to what this theory thing is, and no one really ever bother to tell me what it is about and what problems does the "theory" philosophy deal with

>>14307575
>>14307989
What is this pic?

>>14309150
>the best robot for leftist literature is also the premier robot for the right
Kill yourself, moron. Your youtube site isn't fooling anyone.

>>14309154
Also why do you say that what he's saying refutes marxism?

>>14304757
watching jordan peterson podcasts dont count

>>14309177
All the far left pop stars. Grimes is crossed out because she used to be a communist but then started dating Elon Musk

>>14309203
Imagine having such low self esteem that you date Grimes

>>14309172
>why do you believe him when his position is based on incredulity rather than argumentation?
>because I am incredulous
jesus h /lit/

>>14309223
Well do you have an answer to what problems does "theory" deal with?

I mean I can deal with reading difficult books but it's not like I am just going to throw away my time just because one guy spammed "read theory" on /lit/ desu senpai

>>14309231
theory isn't about answers it's about formulating proper questions.

>>14309172
well, I can't defend everything every continental philosopher has ever said or written. I think this requires some degree of intellectual engagement on your part. I'm not an expert but I have read a little Derrida and Foucault simply because I think it's interesting. if you want to talk about it then we can. if you don't know anything about it then that's on you.
>>14309197
I think that some of Marx's claims aren't, strictly speaking, replicable or verifiable in the way that Chomsky seems to want

>>14309243
Bottom line is, working people should enjoy the fruits of their labor. Any organized attempt to deprive them of that is obviously financed by ruling elites.

>>14309231
it will go some ways to curing you of your dreadful western phallogocentrism for starters

>>14309257
you lost me on this one. you think theory is an organized attempt by ruling elites to deprive the working class of the fruits of their labour?

>>14309243
>>14309257
Ah, now that's something. Which books deal with this "asking the proper" questions thing?

>>14309268
unironically Zizek

>>14309246
>some of Marx's claims aren't, strictly speaking, replicable or verifiable in the way that Chomsky seems to want

Chomsky is not a Marxist, dumbshit. He recognizes Marx's intellectual contribution, but strongly rejects his views on political economy.

>>14309203
>>14309211
other names and evidence like pic related?

I'm an economic realist.

>>14309264
>you lost me on this one
Sorry, another poster here. No idea what "theory" is supposed to mean beyond the scientific sense.

>>14309273
but does he consider Capital to be theory?

>>14309270
Well, let's see if his written work isn't as repulsive as the way he talks lmao

Thanks for the rec anon

>>14309286
Capital the concept, or "Kapital" the book?

>>14309295
Das Kapital comrade

>>14309291
>Slavoj Žižek: I’m not saying -- I’m not a philosophical megalomaniac -- that philosophy can provide answers, but it can do something which maybe is even more important, you know? As important as providing answers and a condition for it, maybe even the condition, is to ask the right question.

>>14309303
Well, what provides the answers to those questions if philosophy does not?

>>14309297
He regards "Das Kapital" as a worthwhile analysis of capitalism, but not in any way flawless. He takes the other path at the First International.

>>14309314
depends on the problem

>>14309273
OK, I agree that Chomsky isn't a Marxist, and I don't know what I could have said to make you think otherwise. whoever I was originally replying to, though, I admit I (perhaps unfairly) I assumed was a leftist with some ideological affiliation with Marx. and even though I am sympathetic, being basically a leftist myself, I think that the bogus criteria Chomsky lays out in that particular quote aren't favorable to Marx, and I was wondering how that poster would answer to that

>>14309318
:thinking emoji:
What is an example of a problem for which philosophy can give a question but not an answer for?

>>14309319
I was the poster you responded to originally and I don't particularly care about Marx desu (though his song on the Kirby game I quite like)

>>14304753
Haven't read through this piece of shit of a thread, but besides those left-wing dabblers in critical theory who can (and have) been deployed in service of right-wing ends like Baudrillard, Gramsci, Foucault and Debord you've got the obvious in Burke, De Maistre, Chesterton, Carlyle, Junger, Belloc, Spengler, Benoist, Sam Francis, Burnham, Lukacs and on and on. Also have always found it interesting how the left-monopoly on Freudian interpretation is always emphasized at the expense of lesser-known right-wing Freudians like Rieff and Lasch. There is no shortage of right-wing theory, you just have to actually read it.

>>14309335
my question then would be: if you don't care about marx, then where do your ideological foundations lie?

>>14309359
I disagree in the sense that I don't thing Lasch is really right wing

>>14309365
What do you mean?

>>14309371
basically: why do you believe what you believe?

>>14309378
Well, because I consider it to be true.

Isn't that the reason everyone believes what they believe?

>>14309369
He is more right-wing than your average left-liberal. I find that at some point political categories are not particularly useful in encapsulating the substance of certain beliefs. He was a populist, a cultural conservative attuned to the corrosive nature of capitalism.

>>14309383
well, yes, but that isn't really what I was looking for? here, again: on what basis do you presume your political beliefs to be true?

>>14309414
In the basis that they sound like they kinda make sense based on what I know of the present condition of my country

>>14309359
>left-monopoly on Freudian interpretation
AKA a monopoly on rubbing one's nose in feces in the name of pseudoscience. Get your face out of the nearest ass, cockknocker.

>>14309397
I agree, but I wonder if we are really bedfellows here. Because I consider Lasch to be at bottom to be basically a staunch leftist, with an American flavor, whose ideological proclivities are connected to the progressive movement in America in the early 20th Century. I'm wondering whether you even disagree, or if we're just talking at cross purposes

>>14309279
I know Ariana supports leftist movements. I think the Charlis are just memes.

>>14309442
Commie Raevolution Jepson is an internet meme for some reason

>>14309425
>Because I consider Lasch to be at bottom to be basically a staunch leftist, with an American flavor, whose ideological proclivities are connected to the progressive movement in America in the early 20th Century

This is the point of departure, I would think. I see him as very clearly coming down on the side of populism when it comes to the populist-progressive split. His critique of progressive values in favor of petite bourgeoisie morality pretty clearly puts him on the side of the right-wing, while the progressive movement detached itself from populist concerns and became the professional managerial class that powered the unholy alliance of economic and social permissiveness. I think Hofstadter got it quite right when he said the right-wing became the provenance of progressive-turned-populistic concerns like teetotalism and anti-trust when those issues fell out of fashion for the professiona urbanites who merely had to adjust to a new economy, while those who were left behind and who Lasch clearly sympathizes most with could and did not.

>>14309319
>>14309335
>>14309365
>>14309371
>>14309378
>>14309383
>>14309414
>>14309421
Lol... great artificial "dialogue" going on there. My best regards to the ruling class.

>>14309477
I'll admit I haven't finished the True and Only Heaven, which I believe you're drawing from in this comment. Only fully read the Culture of Narcissism. honestly, I don't think I have a good read on what Lasch's positive political proposals actually are, beyond populism, because I do agree with you that Lasch is unequivocally a populist. I also agree that he values family, particularly the notion of extended family extant in American culture until some time in the latter half of the 20th Century,.

>>14309500
Reminder: deep 'cultural conservatism' is fully compatible with deep 'leftism'.

>>14309500
A good thing to do when reading Lasch is to also supplement that with his mentor, Richard Hofstadter, since a lot of what he writes is either consciously or unconsciously a response to Hofstadter's unabashed championing of the role that intellectuals and expertise have played in the course of American history and in the elevation of a certain type of rationalistic politics to power. Both coming at the same problems from opposing angles. Very interesting to compare their two interpretations of the populist movement and it does a lot to put Lasch's disdain for intellectuals as a class into context.

>>14309479
friend, when commonsensical questions are posed to you, on 4chan of all places, chances are they aren't generated by foreign agencies, domestic think tanks, or politically unaffiliated shills. at worst the people you're talking to are useful idiots. in my opinion, the current global order is fucked, no matter what happens. and I am an ordinary American citizen just as I imagine you are. and I am, like you, (again I assume) a leftist. my advice: don't fully succumb to paranoia and be open to alternative points of view. you've quoted four of my posts and I have been nothing but sincere.

>>14309327
lets use Zizek's example:
can philosophy provide the answer for how to stop racism? no. but what philosophy can do is show the inadequacies of framing "the answer to racism" as a matter of tolerance (i.e. if the way that question is being asked is framed incorrectly there is no hope of a valid answer being drawn from it)

>>14309359
>Baudrillard, Gramsci, Foucault and Debord [...] Burnham, Lukacs
these are not right wing thinkers and the fact people itt are trying to appropriate them says more about the lack of right wing theorists than you might imagine

>>14309572
I qualified those first four as left-wing thinkers whose systems provide insights that are of some use to a certain segment of the right-wing. Burnham wrote this two masterworks (Managerial Revolution and The Machiavellians) after renouncing trotskyism but before converting to cold war liberalism. He is best described as continental realist with an American face. And I'm talking about John Lukacs not György

>>14309593
>John Lukacs
does he even write theory?

>>14309603
Yes. And I forgot to mention Oakeshott too

>>14309612
cite me some theory he's written; this is news to me

>>14309618
There is no systematic work of theory that he wrote, but he interperses historical reporting with analysis and constructs a worldview from it across the entirety of his books. Maybe you don't consider that "theory", but it is hardly any less deserving of the name than what someone like Debord wrote. I found The Duel to be an insightful discussion of the distinction between the reactionary-conservative and revolutionary-fascist axes.

>>14309630
I don't consider that theory in the strict sense of the word, at least not in the way it is used on 4chan, but it looks like he published a book in 2017 that might cross that line. also, turns out he died. Debord is pretty shit though I will agree with you there

Right wingers take pride in their illiteracy.

>>14309603
>does he even write theory
>cite me some theory
QED: Exactly what everyone understands.