/lit/ - Literature

seethe incel
joe rogan is a manlet caveman khan idiot retard

>>18776486
>joe rogan is a manlet
why do you think this insult mean anything if you're already rich and married with children? Who gives a shit if he's short, he's already "made-it" in life. The only reason being short would possibly be negative is if it prevents you from making it in some way. Usually this is only in the form of online dating.

>Call Her Daddy

>>18776486
i dont get this kind of response, the data in the OP's pic is something you can find easily online, is not like its a lie.

>>18776494
>married with children
How fucking gay.

Rogane is goop for men.

Otto Weininger, Sex and Character
Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women
Julius Evola, Metaphysics of Sex
Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae
Esther Vilar, The Manipulated Man
Anthony Ludovici, Confessions of an Anti-Feminist
D.H. Lawrence, various
Vincent, Self-Made Man
Baumeister, Is There Anything Good About Men?
Farrell, The Myth of Male Power

>As a matter of fact, unless a woman is held, by man, safe within the bounds of belief, she becomes inevitably a destructive force. She can’t help herself. A woman is almost always vulnerable to pity. She can’t bear to see anything physically hurt. But let a woman loose from the bounds and restraints of man’s fierce belief, in his gods and in himself, and she becomes a gentle devil.
https://counter-currents.com/tag/hawthorne-lawrence/

>>18776517
Not him but what philosophy topics has Joe Rogan done? At least science or history would make more sense.

>>18776940
He's had Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson on among others.

>>18776481
Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

>>18776979
Neither are philosophers. At least explain a few philosophical subjects they covered with him.

>>18776522
>married with children
sounds like /lit/s dream

>>18776998
>only dead people can be philosophers
Fool. Watch the episodes if you want to know.

>>18776517
You're talking to a jew. He just wants to insult and demoralize you for the fun of it.

>>18776486
I really don't understand it when people attack Rogan's intelligence. No one who listens to Rogan thinks he's an intellectual, nor does he pretend to be. He's also not a idiot though. Impressively conversant in a wide range of topics.

>>18777025
idk man there are a lot of very normal jews on jre

joe is good for the culture and for men btw i agree completely

I thought women liked stuff like Tibees

>>18777012
Based ESL

>>18777032
Yes, I don't get it either, considering the amount of bs, he is definitely among the decent shit out there. I don't really listen to his podcasts, but I watched some cuts of it and he is ok.

>>18777040
KEK Tibees is great, don't talk shit of her. Based Rapunzel STEMtard.

>>18776998
Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris's ideas, while certainly fair game for criticism, are no less philosophical or serious than those of philosophers of centuries past. Philosophy is far less of a sacred cow than people imagine.

>>18777018
Are you okay? Just give me a couple of examples of what philosophical topics they covered. You said the data was easy to find.

>Call Her Daddy
>not pic related

>>18777052
>2021
>philosophy
>sacred cow
What are you talking about, anon? Do you think everyone who is into Philosophy is a Stoicuck or something?

>>18777052
Okay, so what are their philosophical contributions to the field? And what did they discuss on Joe Rogan's podcast. That is all I am asking.

>>18777050
>don't talk shit of her
I wasn't, I myself like Tibees. I just thought she'd be sort of what the moden female audience likes

>>18777064
>Guys We F****d
>By Corinne Fisher and Krystyna Hutchinson
>Hailed as changing the way society thinks about female sexuality, Guys We Fucked continues to pave the way toward a healthier outlook on sex.

>>18777052
>opinions of Jordan Peterson, a psychologist, are no less serious than those of philosophers of centuries past
Tell me how that is true.
>"muh no such thing as objectivity" is not allowed

>>18777062
I dont remember what they talked about I just know they were on at some point.

(1/2)

“Why do you creep about so timidly in the twilight, Zarathustra? And
what do you conceal so cautiously beneath your coat?
Is it a treasure that was given to you? Or a child that was born to
you? Or do you yourself now walk the paths of thieves, you friend of the
evil?” –
“Indeed, my brother!” spoke Zarathustra. “It is a treasure that was
given to me: it is a little truth, which I carry.
But it is unruly like a young child, and if I do not hold its mouth shut,
then it cries out too loudly.
As I went my way alone today, at the hour when the sun sets, I met a
little old woman and she spoke thus to my soul:
‘Much has Zarathustra spoken also to us women, and yet he has never
spoken to us about woman.’
And I replied to her: ‘About woman one should speak only to men.’
‘Speak to me too about woman,’ she said. ‘I am old enough to forget it
right away.’
And I humored the little old woman and spoke thus to her:
Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has
one solution: it is called pregnancy.
A man is for woman a means: the end is always the child. But what is
woman for a man?
Two things the real man wants: danger and play. That is why he wants
woman as the most dangerous plaything.
A man should be raised for war and woman for the recreation of the
warrior: everything else is folly.

First Part
Fruits that are all too sweet – these the warrior does not like. Therefore
he likes woman; even the sweetest woman is still bitter.
Better than a man, woman understands children, but a man is more
childish than a woman.
In the real man a child is concealed: it wants to play. Up now, you
women, go discover the child in the man!
Let woman be a plaything, pure and fine, like a gemstone radiated by
the virtues of a world that does not yet exist.
Let the ray of a star shine in your love! Let your hope be called: ‘May
I give birth to the overman!’
Let courage be in your love! With your love you should throw yourself
at him who makes you afraid!
Let your honor be in your love! Otherwise woman understands little
about honor. But let this be your honor: always to love more than you are
loved, and never to be second.
Let a man be afraid of a woman when she loves; then she makes any
sacrifice, and every other thing is without value to her.
Let a man be afraid of a woman when she hates; for at the bottom of
his soul a man is merely evil, but woman is bad there.
Whom does a woman hate most? – Thus spoke the iron to the magnet:
‘I hate you most because you attract, but are not strong enough to attract
me to you.’

>>18777104
(2/2)
The happiness of a man says: I will. The happiness of a woman says:
he wills.
‘Behold, just now the world became perfect!’ – Thus thinks every
woman when she obeys out of total love.
And a woman must obey and find a depth for her surface. Surface is
a woman’s disposition, a flexible, stormy skin over shallow water. But a
man’s disposition is deep, his stream roars in underground caves; woman
intuits his strength but does not comprehend it.” –
Then the little old woman replied to me: “Much that is sweet Zarathustra has said, and especially for those who are young enough for it.
Peculiar, though, that Zarathustra knows women only little, and yet he
is right about them! Does this happen because with women nothing is
impossible?
And now, by way of thanks, accept a little truth! Surely I am old enough
for it!
Bundle it up and hold its mouth shut, or else it will cry out too loudly,
this little truth.”
“Give me your little truth, woman!” I said. And thus spoke the little
old woman:
“You go to women? Do not forget the whip!” –
Thus spoke Zarathustra.

>>18777069
What I think is that when people hear the word "philosophy" they imagine some lofty, rigorous intellectual enterprise reserved for geniuses.

It's not true. Nietzsche's writings, while enjoyable, offer few insights that you couldn't find on a 4chan forum. Schopenhauer's "philosophy" is just verbose bitching. If you asked some imaginative high schoolers to describe their utopian society, they could probably come up with something as thoughtful as Plato's Republic.

The knee-jerk reaction that Peterson or Harris aren't "real" philosophers stems from an over-appraisal of what philosophy actually is. It's always just been dudes spouting off.

>>18777137
this

cum town is a valid modernist project

>>18777137
So are you saying: start with 4chan threads and contemporary pop culture? But isn't it what people do anyway? The point of Philosophy is to understand the thought of someone. It is that simple, it doesn't have to be right or wrong, ideally you don't even bother with judging it. Those who are 'revered' are somewhat classics. When people say that this person isn't really a philosopher, I think it probably means that it will be obsolete, instead of getting its place in History of Philosophy books.

>>18777156
>start with 4chan threads and contemporary pop culture
No, that is not what I said.

>>18777163
>It's not true. Nietzsche's writings, while enjoyable, offer few insights that you couldn't find on a 4chan forum. Schopenhauer's "philosophy" is just verbose bitching. If you asked some imaginative high schoolers to describe their utopian society, they could probably come up with something as thoughtful as Plato's Republic.
What is this supposed to mean then?

>>18777137
>they imagine some lofty, rigorous intellectual enterprise reserved for geniuses.
It is though. A former tutor for Einstein said how surprised he was that a teenager was reading and actually understanding Kant and applying his thoughts to mathematics.

>>18777163
And I'm not even saying that this is a bad thing. I started with pop culture, anon. I was not into Philosophy before I got in touch with philosophical stuff on youtube, movies, pop books or whatever.

>>18777171
I'm not arguing against reading "the classics." Obviously I've read quite a few. I'm just making the point that the ideas presented therein are often not as highbrow as people seem to think. Given this, pearl-clutching over the term "philosophy" being used to describe what Harris and Peterson do is unjustified.

>>18777137
>ietzsche's writings, while enjoyable, offer few insights that you couldn't find on a 4chan forum. Schopenhauer's "philosophy" is just verbose bitching. If you asked some imaginative high schoolers to describe their utopian society, they could probably come up with something as thoughtful as Plato's Republic.
The reason why people can describe those things so easily nowadays is because those authors put them to paper centuries ago.

>>18776486
Rogan is a cool person and his podcast is nice; you are an overreacting braincel.

>>18777212
Proof?

>>18777203
Peterson is a psychologist. I haven't read anything Harris, but Maps of Meaning seems more like a psychology book than a philosophy one. You could argue it is philosophy, but then you could also say that some philosophy books are psychology. I don't think psychologists would want that.

>>18777137
Okay, so can you please answer the original question? >>18777062
Apparently, the other anon can't even though "the data is easy to find." If you don't know about the podcast itself, give me something Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris has contributed to the field of Philosophy.

>>18777218
You know your Pythagoras. And Kant made into common sense.

>>18777218
The number zero
Nominalism
月が綺麗

virginie despentes, she's like a female houellebecq

>>18777225
Sam Harris talked about the absurdity of punishing psychopaths when theyre really just suffering from a disability.

>>18777225
>give me something Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris has contributed to the field of Philosophy

Fuck off. It's not lost on me that you're trying to frame the debate in a particular way - you want to characterize philosophy as Philosophy with a capital P, as if it is a formal institution progressing linearly with the contributions of professional PHILOSOPHERS. This isn't the case and it's never been the case. I don't accept your framing.

>>18777269
Okay, so Call Me Daddy would count as well since they have talked about the ethics of one-night stands. It seems most podcasts would have gone over philosophical topics to that degree.

>>18777273
How would you frame it? Give me an example of something you think they talked about that is considered philosophy
.

>>18777064
is this something like a trophy collection of all the chads they fucked? that's kinda hilarious if so

>>18776481
>Most Popular podcasts among men
>Ect.
looks legit

>>18777032
It's interesting that someone like him, who's been in fights and had his brain rattled around his skull, is still reasonably intelligent and able to fluidly converse with people smarter than him. You'd think all that fighting would have gave him serious brain damage.

>>18777391
"ecetetera"

>>18777395
a word that doesn't exist, impressive

>>18776481
JRE is the most vapid pseud bullshit i have ever heard in my life and if you enjoy that or furthermore him as a personality then i think you should go straight to hell thank you goodnight

>>18777372
You just wont give up will you? Accept that philosophy isnt only the philosophical "genres" youre familiar with and move on.

>>18777032
>No one who listens to Rogan thinks he's an intellectual
The only problem I even have with JRE is that his normie listeners DO treat him and his guests as intellectuals. They have no standard to compare them to and as such assume it is high quality mental stimulation.

>>18777421
I just asked for an example of what you would consider philosophy that they talked about, schizo

Lex Friedman is better than JRE. Undiluted autism permeates through out each of his podcasts. All his guests are mostly scientists or academics at the edge of their field

>>18777424
You summarize "his guests" as if there is some common thread between them yet pretend to have intellectual standards, curious.

Rogan doesn't actually talk very deeply about those topics. It's like overhearing a conversation between some random guys at a bar whose extent of knowledge about a certain topic doesn't go beyond whatever is in the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia page on said topic. He's Cliff Clavin from Cheers surrounded by other Cliff's. It's got an air of depth and sophistication that fools only those idiots who didn't make it past the first paragraph on Wiki, so they get the impression that Joe and his guests know a lot. It's inauthentic, because it pretends to be more than it is. It sucks dick.

Call Her Daddy, on the other hand, is a show about sucking dick and dating. That's it. There's no pretense. They talk about how to give good head, aka the "glug-glug". It's simplistic. It's camp. It's vulgar. It's about being "back at it again" with the one night stands. It doesn't pretend to be more than it is. In doing so, Alexandra Cooper and her guests can be taken seriously, whereas Joe's content cannot. It's authentic, precisely because it's simple. It also sucks dick.

>>18777137
This. I’ve had more insightful conversations getting drunk and bullshitting with my mates than from reading philosophers. It’s also more fun.

>>18777466
To the average normie, they cannot discern between quality - they assume joes gonna bring on solid people always worth listening to. You greatly overestimate peoples critical thinking skills

>>18776481
Anons are modern women. Not even joking.

>>18777558
So males have surface-level knowledge of subjects. Females have zero knowledge. Still better to be the male in this situation.

>>18776481
>philosophy on joe rogan
Lol just lol

>technology
Hardly discusses technology

>current events
Mainstream media tier current event discussion

>politics
As above

>MMA
Probably the only thing that he can discuss with confidence

>psychedelics
Level of discussion equal to that of high school kids back in 2012

>>18777032
>No one who listens to Rogan thinks he's an intellectual
Youd be surprised.

>>18777052
>are no less philosophical or serious than those of philosophers of centuries past
Yes they are.

>>18777137
One is a psychologist, the other is a social commentator.
Neither are philosophers by any stretch of the imagination.

>>18777421
Look mate, you wouldnt call the discussions of school kids who skipped class to get stoned 'philosophy'. Same applies to peterson and harris.