/lit/ - Literature

>>17597336
Read Derrida

>>17597350
>read midwit jew

>>17597355
>Derrida
>midwit
Lol

>>17597336
Bigger question is why philosophy is still leaching off tenure circle jerking to psudoproblems while the west is crumbling around them.

>>17597336
Source?
Also fuck you for not having posted it immediatly

>>17597388
philosophy was 'solved' when aristotle explicated the laws of logic, academic philosophers have been leeches every since the enlightenment paradigm.

>>17597407
Philosophy is many more things than just logic. People seem to forget this

>>17597355 (Checked)

>>17597403
>needs source for foundational philosophy text
>gets angry at Others for his ignorance
ngmi

>>17597423
Are you retarded? There are like 464548 foundational texts in philosophy, you should always assume that your interlocutor might have not read it. This should be true even if you were discussing these things in an university setting, and it is even more true if you are discussing it on fucking /lit/
Now post the source, you goddamn retard

>>17597448
You don't even have to have read this particular text. You should know who's the author purely based on style and subjectt.

>>17597458
You're not going to post the source? Do you have to be such a cunt about it? Are you worried that once we will know the source we will also dismiss that passage?

>>17597474
>worried about ad hom
I'm sure an anon more magnanimous than I am and better read than you are will help you eventually. Maybe if you bothered to reply to the argument first and then asked for source as an afterthought you'd have received help anon.

>>17597484
You stupid fucking retard I just want to read the rest of the fucking text POST THE SOURCE YOU FUCKING MONGOLOID

>>17597487
It's Beyond Good and Evil sperg

>>17597489
You're an absolute piece of shit. First of all it could have been Schopenhauer or any of his clones. Secondly, even if I identified it as a Nietzsche's text (and not one of his 4645373 clones), how was I supposed to know which one of his texts this one was, over the 10+ he wrote? Do you expect everyone on this board to be so familiar with all his books to the point where one can at a first glance identify any extract you might decide to post?
Again, you're a pretentious cunt

>>17597499
What does it matter now that you know which text is from?

>>17597503
Philosophical extracts without contexts are meaningless. This is especially true for authors like Nietzsche. Also other people, me included, might have wanted to continue reading it.
These are all obvious reasons, unless one is as much of a pretentious cunt as you are.

>>17597512
If anyone wants a source that badly they can simply google a fragment. You're sperging out like a redditor cause you demanded a source and you weren't spoonfed.

>>17597533
You're truly a pretentious cunt who will never admit of being wrong. Posting the source to an extract is fucking DECENCY.

>>17597548
>fucking DECENCY.
Reddit

all philosophers are careerists
-either going with the ruling to live off of them
-or going against the ruling to realize their messiah complex

>>17597548
welcome to 4chan. Nobody owes you decency. It is understandable to ask for source if it's an image or the text cannot be found by Google. But instead of trying to genuinely help yourself by googling the fragment in the image, you wasted several minutes being trolled in a reply chain. Bravo, faggot. You should read the rules to understand the site's social conventions and lurk moar so you cease committing more faggotous acts.