/lit/ - Literature

>>18229760
>Be me
>Learn that Foucault actually died of AIDS
>Return to faith in God and the Truth
>Thank you AIDS.

>>18229760
>Liberalism has become oppressive.
>Foucault predicted it then.
Based retard didn't understand a word of the debate

>>18229760
I've never watched this debate and never will, since I refuse to let the words of a kike and a sodomite poison my mind, but I must say that moderator is /fa/ as fuck. I dig his style very much.

>>18229760
>Liberalism has become oppressive.
>Foucault predicted it then.

>>18229846
why are you actually afraid that someone might "poison" your mind? are that insecure that about your views? are afraid that they're so fragile that a talk on youtube could shatter them?
>froggposterr.jpeg

>>18229882
Why are you afraid that cyanide will "poison" your body? Are you that insecure about your health? Just drink some liquid cyanide bro don't be such a pussy.

>>18229760
I remember watching this debate and wondering why Foucault was even there. He seemed to have nothing to say whatsoever and was just conjuring up bullshit on the spot to talk about. You really got the feeling the meeting was planned by someone totally unfamiliar with either figure who thought their fame was grounds enough to bring them in public discourse together. There is no real subject over the course of the entire thing.

>>18229882
Every man of discernment from Plato to to Pope Benedict advocates for censorship and the avoidance of the repulsive/wrong. You don't have to be gullible to adversely affected in some way by propaganda, just giving it any mental real estate at all is a form of concession. That anon is based for disregarding what should be disregarded.

>>18229882
COPE sodomite

>>18229760
he didn't just win
he made that other guy look sick, Hal.

>>18229760
Chomsky is an automaton and Foucault was insane.
We're one for two, let's see Chomsky kick the bucket soon.

>>18229760
Shame Chomsky didnt die of AIDS too

>>18229760

This whole thing was so fake. The child rapist Foucault and CIA buttboy Chomsky both totally entrap the listener in pure Jewish thought.

>>18229892
that's a false analogy. why can't you listen to your opponents' arguments without your views breaking down? this implies your world of view is not well thought out.
>>18229919
>"if "Plato and Pope Benidict" advocated x, then x is valid" - argumentum ad auctoritate
the definition of gullibility is being unable to listen to your oppositions arguments without yours breaking down. that's the aim of philosophy, to think for yourself and be able to argue your stand efficiently against others, and how can you do that if you don't know the oppositions arguments? that's the ideal of Plato's Socrates.

Was Foucault actually a pedo or is it a smear?

>>18229760
watching this would be worse than suicide

please summarize Foucault for me in 3 sentences or less

>>18229803
>Foucault actually died of AIDS

that means he took dicks in the ass or fucked orcs. Those are the only ways you get AIDS

This thread would get a lot more responses and a lot faster on /pol/

I watched it years ago but cant remember it that well, I do remember thinking Foucault was a lot more interesting than jordan Peterson makes out, and chomsky was more interesting than he has been since.. chomsky comes across as arrogant, and I suspect Petersons foundations are rocked in some manner by Foucault, at the same time supposedly foucault was a pedo or something?

>>18229899
chomsky's generative grammar, which postulates a "natural and universal grammar" in the brain, vs foucault's grammar-as-episteme

they have things to talk about

>>18229994
>both totally entrap the listener in pure Jewish thought
Foucault is a based Heideggerian

>>18229846
based

>>18229953
is this a movie reference?

>>18230517
what the hell does Peterson hav to do withthis

>>18229760
Chomsky's innate theory re: linguistics is solid tho

>>18231548
yeah, your copy is in the mail ;)

>>18229899
filtered

>>18231578
right on pal :D

>>18229994
Lol'd

>>18229998
Ask me how I know you've never actually read the Republic.

>>18229846
Based

>>18229760
I like the bit where foucault says the proletariat is incapable of evil.

—t. Proletarian.

I think foucault was confused and didn't understand the conversation, also I disagree with his argument even if it was relevant
Chomsky was right

>>18232822
what exactly Foucault didnt understand? For me it felt like Chomsky didnt understand Foucault and just fell back to repeating his own position. Foucualt at least engaged with Cmoshky's thought

>>18232822
Chomsky failed hermeneutic gap in the first half and said “I’d like things to mean things,” to which Foucault says,”That sounds nice, do you have any proof?” —“No ;(“ own goal.

Going into the second half Foucault is up one point. Then in the second half the question emerges should the proletariat be moral. Foucault shoots that fucker home. Chomsky is a bourgeois moralist. Foucault’s academic work and personal life may be abhorrent, but he knows we need to shoot the rich into ditches.

>>18232813
>foucault says the proletariat is incapable of evil.
Did he really say that?
I guess you could expect that from a gay marxist.

>>18229760
> watching faggot vs jew
Good goy!

>>18229998
What if I have no confidence in the effectiveness of ‘argument’ at all? I really don’t see any guarantee that it will allow the best idea to be propagated.

>>18229882
>bro why are you scared of poison, just drink it bro it doesn't matter
gnat

Foucault was a self-centered prick who's arguments are on the same level as twitter socialists who pretend to always know exactly what a person at the other end of the internet is thinking. If he was alive today he'd be BFFs with Michael Moore.
It's nothing but projection and strawmen and that one course in college about his "discussion analytics" has eaten more of my braincells than all my bingers combined.

>>18229832
Liberalism by definition is not oppressive. All the liberal institutions have merely become filled with progressive authoritarians who believe anything is justified as long as "the good guys" are doing it and they identify each other purely by language rather than actually expressed morals. Look at the braindead bootlickers in media and entertainment like Cuomo or Lemon who literally don't know where in the constitution it says that protests have to be peaceful or who rant on about "sexism" and "racism" and then turn around to honk their coworker's tits or rant on about Terry Crews being a coon. They don't believe an iota of what they preach.

>>18232894
Evil isn’t a relevant category and the proletariat’s historical self manifestation is materially immanent. So yeah. Shoot the rich.

>>18232985
Who is rich anyway, to me somebody upper middle class might be ''rich''. Also, why shoot them if I might want to be ''rich'' one day.
Clearly, you only should shoot some of the ''rich''.

>>18232989
So the word “proletariat” refers to observable lived experience of wage labour and capital. This provides the guide to production of solidarity and whom to shoot. Also shooting the rich is generally counter productive but not wrong.

>>18233004
>wage labour
What is that exactly? I seen wagies have better lives than my father who owns a small business repairing cars, electronics, because town shrunk and there are less customers and his health is not getting any better either.

>>18229846
>I've never watched this debate and never will, since I refuse to let the words of a kike and a sodomite poison my mind
Unfathomably based

>>18229846
based.

>>18232813
Watch this again anon. Foucalt wasn't defending Marxism, he was pointing out an inconsistency in his opponent's framework.

>>18232921
Then why should you believe that you already have the best ideas? You are constantly bombared with message from the social and commerical arenas every day of your life.

>>18229846
BASED
>>18229882
This kike already seething uncontrollably that people don't consume propaganda

>>18233014
Its about the relationship, not the standard of living (utilities are incommensurable, as proven by bourgeois science remember).

>>18233052
LOOK AT THE BIG BRAINS ON BRAD.
Yes, Foucault wasn't advancing a positive defence of Marxism. He was developing a critique of Chomsky's liberalism on a theoretical basis which was essentially Marxist. Not tankie: Marxist.

>>18233063
I don’t believe I have the best ideas and I’m not sure I ever will. Its a bit of a paradox it seems, but I’m not sure that means it’s wrong to think that way.

>>18233090
It's not. That guy is a sophist. If your worldview is that communists are poisonous, why would you continually go against your principles just to get mind poisoned? If you're a Christian, you don't have to listen to Satanic cults, and if you're straight you don't have to try gay sex. You should do what's best for you, not meaningless arbitrary activities to "challenge your worldview".

>>18233116
Sounds like you're against freedom of speech in the first place, why are you even on 4chan? You should go to some Christian website where all the heretics get banned then.

>>18233116
Eehhh, I’m not so sure. I feel partially I should be capable of digesting all information presented to me but it should all be received critically. You know what I mean? Though, I also feel that even this should be challenged. Really, my greatest fear is that I’ll be incapable of doing what’s right while maintaining this view. Then again I’ll likely not commit too many atrocities this way.

>>18233163
>I feel partially I should be capable of digesting all information presented to me
You're just falling for sophistry. Being capable of digesting it, doesn't mean you should seek it. And almost no brain is above being influenced by propaganda; we're all humans, and repetition and affirmation can change your thinking. No human is purely rational. Once you thought about an argument, you don't have to spend the rest of the time still listening to detractors. I personally read a book from Foucault, and I found it disgusting. If I'll read another book of his, it will be in another year or more because I'd rather spend my time reading greater minds.

>>18229855
Why is no one responding to this? I feel like someone just dropped a bag of gold into my hands.

>>18233163
People are reading, Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes by Jacques Ellul

>>18229760
>Innate is a bad an idea as instinct.
the idea that everything is constructed is the same as bad and have the same problem of power. (why a construction is better than another?) and specially can perfectly end in something oppresive too. (this construction is true, i prove it with my own premises)

>>18233230
Interesting, I think I’ve had him recommended to me before, I was turned off by him being an anarchist though.

>>18233254
People with views you disagree with have written things that are true. Make sure you take a look at whatever you are recommended and decide for yourself, independently of the author's personal views, whether or not it would be interesting to you.

>>18233260
This is kind of unrelated but I think I have an irrational fear of reading books like these. Aside from the possibility for propaganda, I’m afraid that I’ll somehow stop thinking for my self on these matters and simply refer to the esteemed literature. I know there are obvious benefits to being able to see what other people (likely smarter than myself and more experienced) have thought but I’m still concerned. I’ve seen so many people who seem to absorb a book and let it take over their identity altogether though, that’s more of an issue with the former concern.

>>18233335
Just read the bible afterwards

>>18233339
Maybe it’ll be too late.

>>18233335
This anon and his kind is why Plato said art should be banned. Some people are too easily influenced and next thing you know they join a charismatic fascist leader or a schizo marxist revolutionary.

>>18233350
You mean uneducated people who hardly read anything in their life and treat every next idea they encounter as an epiphany. Sounds like an educational system's fault to me.

>>18233350
I’d like to think Im not really like that. I mostly don’t read because I’m lazy and what I posted is essentially cope, but I know what you mean. I wonder if there is any solution for this, people seem to enjoy being propagandize quite a bit.

>>18233335
1. Have you ever actually thought for yourself? Give it a try, and you'll eventually figure out how impossible it is. Every single person operates within a framework of assumptions and ideas that are inherited from previous generations. The most important of these were outlined in a few treatises several centuries ago.
2. The only way for you to escape is to realize that objectivity is not real. There is always a framework of values and interpretation from which one views the world and which colors every single thing one does, says, reads, and writes. The only way out is to consciously think through one's own assumptions and the assumptions of the work one reads, read broadly enough in time and across the ideological spectrum to know what the frameworks and their genealogies are, and to consciously choose for oneself what framework to adopt.
>>18233350
>>18233386
Everyone is shaped by propaganda. There are no exceptions.

>>18233398
Hmmm interesting points anon, my only fear is that someone might do as you say and have any kind of confidence in their free-thinking.

>>18233420
You seem to have a lot of strange hang-ups. I suggest that you ignore them and just keep moving forward.

>>18233386
Doesn't have anything to do with education. Some people are just naturally more suggestible.

>>18233432
How much more? Are some entirely
un-suggestible?

>>18233439
Yes. They have Down Syndrome.

>>18229846
unfathomably based
>>18229882
ooohhhh you're seething

>>18233448
The master race...

Why do people always lose to Chomsky in debates?

Here's the premier Conservative Intellectual Buckley debating Chomsky on Vietnam and getting BTFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk

>>18233456
Chudsky probably had his CIA handler dose his opponent before his debate desu.

chudsky and fagcult

>>18233456
I don't know if considering Foucault an unperson is an attempt at trivial abuse on your part or a compliment of the highest calibre given the failure of the humanist project as bourgeois morality.

Calibre was deliberate there.

>>18233439
>Are some entirely un-suggestible?
Yes, fanatics like Trotsky and Codreanu would not stray from their path no matter what.

>>18233487
One could argue that they’ve already been swayed to one side and therefore compromised. My concern isn’t that people will be wishy-washy, I’m afraid of thoughtless conviction.

>>18233500
You probably need a degree of mental/emotional instability to join the ranks of thoughtless conviction. Most people get fired up for a few days at most and then return to their usual needs and worries.

>>18233508
Yes but that forgets any possibility of subconscious effects or conditioning, though maybe I’m too much of a determinist.

>>18229846
Based. Fagcault is a fraud.

>>18233515
How much of a normie are you? The more oxytocin you have in your blood, the more likely you are to believe stuff.

>>18233515
I didn't understand your reply sorry

>>18229846

>>18233555
checked

>>18233398
>Everyone is shaped by propaganda. There are no exceptions.
So pedantic as to completely miss the point. The fact that no one is immune to propaganda does not entail that everyone is equally susceptible to it.

>>18233550
I’m sorry, I think I misunderstood your reply to begin with. I think I meant to say that simply being exposed to information can’t help but cause some kind of butterfly effect, though I believe you weren’t saying otherwise.

>>18229760
jews puke psychotic garbage out of their mouths...they are a nasty pest
you should avoid jews, not delight in conversing with them
just treat them like the social lepers they are
avoid people who spend time with jews

>>18233559
Of course anon, but I think the point that is typically made when someone says that is to remind the reader that they themselves are not immune to propaganda. Though you may be different.

>>18229760
Chomsky is correct about recursive language. Non-recursive languages are extraordinarily primitive, and the cultural divide between humans who speak them and everyone else is unimaginable. however, there is nothing particularly beautiful or satisfying about recursive language, and the human beings who do not speak it happen to have abilities to use their voices to sing and hum and chirp that is considerably more pleasant than the mechanical construction of Russian doll sentences. Look at the Piraha people for an example. It is hard to argue with a simplicity of living that puts every modern human being to shame.

Jesus is going to come back soon and he will save those who believed in him... all the sodomites jews leftists atheists satanist elites heretics, they're all gonna burn.. GOD WILL PUNISH THEM FOR ALL ETERNITY YES BURN

>>18229846
Oh yeah

>>18233398
>Everyone is shaped by propaganda. There are no exceptions.
what is propaganda for you?. there is a point where people like you mix indistinctly propaganda with communication.

>>18232896
>this is what /lit/ has turned into

>>18233731
Communication can be propaganda. The question is one of whether or not the communication has the effect of influencing the consumer's basic attitudes or patterns of behavior in some way, whether by means of reinforcement or by means of instillation of something new.

>>18233806
what i mean is that you are shaped by communication, not by propaganda. i listen to many people inflate propaganda to the point that is indistinguishable from any "honest" communication.

>>18233798
You're going to hell you leftist communist. All those who reject Christ will burn

>>18233887
This is stupid. Your mom telling you to go to the store is not propaganda. Your teacher telling you that war is wrong is propaganda. Art, movies, books, lectures, music, murals, pictures - anything can be propaganda. Direct communication is only one form of propaganda.

>>18233798
>>this is what /lit/ has turned into
A source for plain-spoken truth?

>>18233335
Certainly not an irrational or unfounded fear. Most people should avoid sophisticated propaganda material whenever possible. Clever, carefully thought out long form propaganda can be very impactful as you noticed, people who read only one book may find themselves in very deep trouble. If you are only going to read one book best play it safe and read none at all, or pick one that will be hopelessly lost on you for the experience. On the other hand you won't lose out by becoming a bit well read.

Easy rule to follow for dilettantes: Start with the Greeks and stick to the classics.

>>18229846
triggered like sjws that get triggered at everything that is a bit more right, f r a g i l e

>>18233924
> triggered
No, it's simple hygiene, you dork.

You wouldn't eat suspicious sausage from a dumpster, would you?

Foucault and Chomsky and other degenerates arguing in bad faith are as disgusting and as bad for your mental health.

>>18233935
Mental health is not real. The only thing your mind needs is Jesus, everything else is just a trick of the jew

>>18233900
>Direct communication is only one form of propaganda.
thanks for confirming my point. also, from your own point of view my mom telling me to go to the store is one form of propaganda.
what you mean when you say "everyone is shaped by propaganda".

>>18233965
No it's not. Go read the damn book instead of deliberately misinterpreting my words.

>>18233935
lmao, stop coping so fucking hard. Its not hygiene, its trying to cover up your intellectual weakness by dismissing the thing that threatens your ego.

>>18233971
well, its like you dont understand. i put it more simple.
if your mother tell you that war is wrong/right then its propaganda?.

>>18233995
I've already explained myself and given you a recommendation. Go read the book.

>>18234008
>given you a recommendation
not to me.
seems like you are
a) too busy
b) too stupid
c) thinks everything is in a book of other (like a good propagandist consumer sholuld do)

>>18233989
Nah, he's correct.

>>18234073
no, both of you are wrong

>>18234083
What fascists books have you read?

>>18234098
why do you assume my views are the opposite of fascism? You little twink weakling cant even think outside your little binary box

>>18234223
You didn't answer the question

>>18234271
because its a shit question, sorel and gentile. Foucualt's theory isnt even political, it makes no normative claims.

>>18229846
Based

>>18232747
I did read the Republic ya cunt. Now read the Laws, tranny

>>18234314
So you only read "fascists" inspired by Marxism?

>>18233798
He's completely right though.

>>18234339
Is calling everyone a tranny the new basedjack? Why are crypto-kikes always so slimy?

>>18233587
>It is hard to argue with a simplicity of living that puts every modern human being to shame.
These sentiments are all desperate projection. You have a terrible modern life. I am happy. You should learn to distinguish between "I am a failure..." and "Society has failed me!" The latter almost never happens, especially for the hyper-privileged manchildren that inhabit 4chan.

>>18234492
>You have a terrible modern life. I am happy.
>You should learn to distinguish between "I am a failure..." and "Society has failed me!" The latter almost never happens, especially for the hyper-privileged manchildren that inhabit 4chan.
Imagine posting this on a Mongolian basket weaving forum for pedophiles

>>18229760
Sophist Frenchman Vs philosopher yank

>>18234363
what are some fascists that were not inspired by marxism?

>>18229846
based

focault played stupid games (sodomy) and "won" a stupid prize (AIDS)

>>18231540
>>18232763
>>18233034
>>18233039
>>18233067
>>18233452
>>18233522
>>18233555
>>18234319
>>18235548
>129 posts
>52 IDs
samefag

>>18235278
Codreanu

>>18229892
>>18229998
This is a good discussion but there is a moralization in the background that isn't being acknowledged. You say:
>this implies your world of view is not well thought out
But who said we were required to think out our world view? Who says that there is any benefit in doing so, and even if there was a benefit who and how would it benefit?
>>18233398
> Have you ever actually thought for yourself?
What does this even mean? I'm genuinely curious, because you've yet to explicate what selfhood consists of
>Every single person operates within a framework of assumptions and ideas that are inherited from previous generations
But yet this is still a framework you are imposing, and even then can you PROVE this framework? How do you know this is the case? From reading previous generations? But even then how do you know that it isn't you who are doing the imposing, not some virtualized "past"?
> The only way for you to escape is to realize that objectivity is not real.
Part of the reason why this site pisses me off so much is that you assume what these words mean is at all agreed on or settled prior to your usage of them. Especially "objectivity" and "real", what do you mean by these? AND above all, you presume not only that there is "escape" but there is an implied moralization that "escape" is desirable.
> There is always a framework of values and interpretation from which one views the world and which colors every single thing one does, says, reads, and writes
Yet this interpretation is supposed to be the transcendental one, right? This is supposed to have the high ground over every other interpretation.
> The only way out is to consciously think through one's own assumptions and the assumptions of the work one reads, read broadly enough in time and across the ideological spectrum to know what the frameworks and their genealogies are, and to consciously choose for oneself what framework to adopt.
Like I said previously, why is a "way out" desirable? Especially when you say "consciously think", what does "conscious thought" consist of? I reference Nietzsche when he says this: "Only now does the truth dawn on us that by far the greatest part of our spirits activity remains unconscious and unfelt"
> Everyone is shaped by propaganda. There are no exceptions.
Prove it. Have you observed every person, and confirmed this? And even if you "could", how would you know your observations were adequate and you did not "miss" anyone? Is this kind of statement "provable" in the first place?

>>18233900
To a certain degree the first example is propaganda. Why? Because it implies that the store is the place to go for getting things. It also implies a power imbalance between parent and child.
My take on it - do what you will with it - is that whether or not the content "is" propaganda, it does not matter. What matters is the significance of the content, and the physiological reactions to said content, along with the demands of the content. It would be a mistake to use some quasi-metaphysical category of "propaganda" to evaluate media. It would be better to evaluate it via something more primordial, like resonance with yourself

>>18232974
Very well put. It's seems this "we can do it because we're the good guys" is almost impossible to argue against but becoming more widespread. It's like an even more insulated/narrow-minded version of ends justify the means.

>>18236161
>>18236237
We are reaching levels of sophistry that should not be possible.
I will say only this: Induction is a form of proof. To demand that induction meet the standards of deduction is to demand the impossible.

>>18230145
>Was Foucault actually a pedo
Possibly, but there's no real evidence.

>>18229882
These anons must be real frail of mind to think their beliefs would crumble faced with different ideas as their body would from poison.

>>18229760
>It's very sad that Foucault is dead
lol

>Fuckalt
French charlatans refuted by Maestro (pbuh)
https://jesus-g-maestro.blogspot.com/2014/10/nietzsche-y-la-retorica-muerte-de-dios.html?m=1

>>18229760
Foucault was a faggot how you could ever thing Chomsky is worse is beyond me. Foucault denied innateness like an utter retard.

>>18233989
Your obsession with intellectualism is what makes you a subhuman. Truly intelligent people just are.

>>18229882
it's poison because it exists to invoke uncertainty and deny truth.

>>18232974
>Liberalism by definition is not oppressive.
Cringe bugman opinion.
>bootlickers
Back to discord, tranny.

>>18229882
I hate frog posters, poltards, and brainwashed imbeciles like you. Foucault was a fucking faggot.

>>18237359
>incapable of refuting argument
>resorts to name calling
Yeah you're an idiot and probably a wagie or incel neet who is too stupid to read anything of value.

>>18229846
Dangerously - and I do mean DANGEROUSLY - based.

>>18229994
Lol

>>18230517
>Peterson
A Jewish apologist and oriental faggot puller

>>18233073
>Not tankie: Marxist.
The average poster on /lit/ can't see a difference.

>>18229760
i really do appreciate foucault
>>18229803
please try to read him anon, hes actually very introspective and not as insipd as you might think. he is very aware of the reduction to absurdity a lot of hard stances take.

>>18237986
I’m not here for the average, son. The average /lit/ poster believes that the author exists.

>>18238042
That's fair. Though, the author continues to exist as a function of discourse.

>>18238042
Then who wrote the book, smart guy?

>>18239335
First of all, I'm not a "guy". Second of all, I refuse to partake in discourse with the average /lit/ poster.

>>18238063
And god continues real as a character.

>>18229892
This but unironically. High intelligence makes you immune to propaganda.

>>18239457
Not true at all

>>18229846
NOOOOOOOOOOO TRANNYBROS HOW DO WE BTFO THIS GOY?

>>18237321
10 iq retard cope