/lit/ - Literature

>>20015839
Agamben
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aEtkSLf9hY

he's a good stand up comic

>>20015850
I havent really heard of him, and he appears to wordy and boring to be hitting anything real. If your philosophy sounds boring to the average person, you are not even close to being a philosopher.

>>20015872
Comics are philosophers in their own right. We laugh at things that are "fucked up" because it makes us see when something is obviously not right, which elicits a laugh from the unconcious mind that knows its true.
Being a comedian like George Carlin or Louis CK is equivalent to being a philosopher when you really listen to the jokes and think about the reason we laugh at jokes.

>>20015883
Hot take, now back to r*ddit

>>20015897
Ive never been on reddit. Its just horseshoe theory that makes me sound like one. The difference between me and a redditor is that I understand every single word I say, while a redditor just repeats phrases they hear.

i consider nick land the best philosopher

>>20015927
Carlin and Louis CK are reddit-tier comedians.
>society ... BAD!
>people ... STUPID!
>politicians ... CORRUPT!
>me .... OMNISCIENT AND FUNNY
woah...

>>20015875
There's so much idiocy in this post that I don't know which part to focus on, but I'll settle for this: if you think the average person's interest is what makes or breaks good philosophy, you are a moron of the highest order.

>>20015942
Carlin was wrong on a lot, and also was a very bitter person, which is where his sense of humor comes from.
It takes a shitty person to notice shitty things, which is why good comedians are very antisocial people in general.
What I like about Louis CK is that he sees things as they are, and just lays down facts.
George Carlin is based on hating American consumer culture, and he was redpilled on Jews if you listen to how he talks about the "people in power".
Reddit is too stupid to understand why these people are funny. They just laugh at the joke like an NPC without stopping and thinking about what they just heard.

>>20015968
Youre right that the average person is a total retard, but you need to be able to philosophize on why they are retarded. I can perfectly explain the phenomena of NPCs, and Aspirational Middle Class midwits all day long, because my philosophy can see every type of person and explain them.

>>20015977
don't bother. demoralized NPC "intellectuals" just care about big words and mental masturbation

>>20015983
Which is why they will never get anywhere real, and why the true philosophers will get somewhere they can never hope to.

>>20015839
>completing the system

>>20015839
Zizek ain't looking too good these days XD

>>20015839
Nick Land, undoubtedly. That academia has ostracized him is enough proof of him being of substance.
I also like the work of Nagels and Chalmers.

>>20015875
>>20015977
>>20016044

>if a brainlet can't understand you, you're not right
ah yes, because knowledge consists solely of what retards can understand.

Also if language is sufficient to explain a phenomena, perhaps the phenomena itself isn't that interesting. A theory isn't good if it fails to challenge expression, and fails to challenge expectation, it's probably boring.

>>20016121
Not understand you, but a brainlet must be able to feel your philosophy. Your philosophy should be a simple to follow as it can be.

>>20015875
this has to be a pasta

>>20015839
Christopher Langan... although "completing the system" is a phrase one hesitates to take seriously because it has its origins in a meme rather than any serious written work, and because it has been left undefined by the person who is the subject of that meme, if we may define it in this way—"It means that one can take an undeniably true axiomatic statement, set out a complete system of Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics and circle all the way back to that starting axiom. It is a completion of the circle. It is a non-vicious circle if you will. This completed system in this way becomes undeniable. It becomes tautological." (https://archive.is/XopEQ))—then Langan's system easily fulfills that requirement and therefore "completes the system". You can safely ignore the argument following the quoted material in that article, because none of his axioms constitute "an undeniably true axiomatic statement", nor are they tautological. Langan's system, on the other hand, is formulated as a "supertautology"; meaning that it takes truly tautological statements as it's axioms, self-distributes these axioms over the entirety of the system, and has the system account for all of reality while relying on nothing outside of itself. If you are truly taking metaphysics and idealism seriously, read on:
https://archive.is/ySAJz
https://archive.is/0XByU

>>20016374
>Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher and autodidact who has been reported to score very highly on IQ tests.[1] Langan's IQ was estimated on ABC's 20/20 to be between 195 and 210,[2] and in 1999 he was described by some journalists as "the smartest man in America" or "in the world"
kek

>>20015875
>>20015977
>>20015999
>>20016180
If you're not trolling, you're probably the dumbest person on this board.

>>20016374
Where does pic related come from?

>>20016484
Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences: A Critical Guide

>20015839
Unironically me

>>20016536
Thanks! Still not buying Langan and his CTMU though

>>20015850
This and Sloterdijk

>>20015927
Horseshoe theory isn't real

>>20015972
What about Bill Hicks?

>>20015839
Agamben, Dugin, Zizek, Habermas and the german normie-con guy that Zizek talks about constantly. Maybe Badiou too.

I also like a thomist Oxbridge guy named John Finnis, but he is not a big name.

>>20015839
>modern
That includes everyone from Descartes onwards.

>>20016605
Was also bitter and antisocial.

>>20017267
Sloterdijk you mean?

>>20015839
My picks would be Sloterdijk, Agamben, McIntyre, Harmann (because of how controversial he is), Plantinga, Searle (because of the Chinese Room Experiment) and Charles Taylor (though I still
need to get his stuff)

>Who is the best modern philosopher out there?
What proper time period do you mean by this? Like post45?

Sloterdijk, Paul Gottfried, Alan de Benoist, Ernst Nolte

>>20016060
This and Hans-Hermann Hoppe

*inhales*
Spheres....

>>20015972
>George Carlin is based on hating American consumer culture, and he was redpilled on Jews if you listen to how he talks about the "people in power".
I know what you are referring to ("The owners of this country" bit), but he does not specify who the owners are, and the audience can safely assume he's referring to some kind of a non better specified group of white males. In essence his comedy is very well written and superbly delivered (I particularly like the bits on environmentalists and boomers), but it's harmless. Edgy enough to capture his protoreddit audience, but safe enough for HBO specials. MDE sketches on the other hand, while suffering from quality control, are the comedic equivalent of a Mongol horde raping and pillaging through a village. I'm not even sure how World Peace even got aired. Maybe the fact that Sam is one of the tribe has something to do with it.

>>20015883
>We laugh at things that are "fucked up" because it makes us see when something is obviously not right
There's a deeper psychological reason you laugh at these things that has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. It's closer to indignation and powerlessness (releasing this feeling) than anything else.
>>20016121
If language is not sufficient to explain something, then there is no point in reading about it. If the only way you can explain something is by running in circles and coming up with strange usages, it is indicative of a problem with the writer, and not language.

>>20016605
>What about Bill Hicks?
High energy comedian, but he never developed beyond his edgy teenage phase. Also, too many drugs.

>>20015839

>>20015839
> I honestly believe that Slavoj Zizek is the closest a philosopher has ever come to completing the system.
He’s good but you’re giving him too much credit. What he really excels at is importing Lacanian psychoanalytic theory and Hegelian gymnastics into everyday scenarios and pop culture references. That said, he’s a little one-note. Once you’ve worked out the formula for his points/jokes, it’s not hard to see that all he does is say the exact same thing in different guises.

>here is a thing I noticed
>here is its negation
>now here is how that negation is a constitutive part of the thing itself, isn’t that funny?

It’s definitely a good conceptual tool to think about things in novel ways, but arguably all it does is help you to think like Zizek.

>>20017462
>Scrotum

>>20017465
>here is a thing I noticed
>here is its negation
>now here is how that negation is a constitutive part of the thing itself, isn’t that funny?

I HATE THE ANTICHRIST (Hegel)

>>20017472
Hegel is that kid in the playground with an everything-proof shield. Even if you manage to prove him wrong, you’re actually just proving him right.

>>20015839

>>20016594
Good, I'd hate for you to buy something which is entirely free. What I would like for you to do is pay attention to novel and original work which may possess ideological and synthetical value in a rotting society which is desperately grasping it's hands in search of a (more) scientific/rational explanation/qualification of mental phenomena. I'm afraid Hegel's system simply isn't enough to reconcile the subjective and objective parts of reality within the minds of those who need it most. It may have once been enough, but newer, more scrutinizing and less picture-thinking ways of processing and conceptualizing reality demand, of course, newer and more explicatory models to accommodate them.

>>20017481
Wrong, you're thinking about Nietzsche. Hegel is just straight up correct and your failure to accept that means you didn't understand. If you wish to actually undrstand, read "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel" by Kojeve

>>20015839
Zizek's opinion of Thunberg made me lose all respect for him.

>>20018411
IIRC he has a pretty mild take no?

>>20018387
> Hegel is just straight up correct and your failure to accept that means you didn't understand
Dude I literally agree with you lmao, you’ve misunderstood me. Im saying that Hegel’s system accounts for future refutations of his own system. He’s right even when he’s wrong. You fail to fully comprehend the true function of negation in his system, and it’s incorporation into the self-realisation of Geist as the object of its own concept. Please stop posturing by recommending me introductions when you clearly don’t understand him half as well as you think you do. I’m sorry if my light-hearted approach triggered your autism

>>20018432
>'When Philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philisophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The Owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk. '

>>20018425
>dude I'm not speaking ideologically but she's like antigone and is so heckin awesome and is a model for people today and is totally not being used by adults and is totally intelligent enough to mastermind her entire enterprise also I am speaking ideologically and think her message is very serious and those who don't pay attention to it are evil teehee

>>20015839
the world's greatest living philosopher

https://newmanleary.wordpress.com/

>>20015839
the world's greatest living philosopher

Thomas777

Sam Hyde, Zizek, and Sv3rige are the greatest philosophers currently.

>>20018964
>Sam Hyde
Washed up degenerate has-been pedalling MGTOW-tier snake oil to his (three) gullible fans.

>sees the other people on his list
Oh damn, looks like I got baited. Well played anon

>>20018997
Sam Hyde is great tho.

>>20018480
Based.

>>20019195
Used to be. Ideas man will remain a classic, as will a few of the world peace sketches (the China/Facebook sketch and the maus prison sketch are brilliant). But even he wouldn’t deny just how desperate he is for some form of relevancy again, and it really shows. I liked both idubbbz documentaries too, but again, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ian was hesitant to release his version because he knew how eager Hyde was to piggyback off an established YouTube celebrity to broaden his audience. Hyde has become a cheap parody of himself and I don’t think there’s anything to redeem him now.

>>20015839
byung-chul han has a very aphoristic style of writing. if you pick up one of his books you can basically start from anywhere and catch what the point being made is pretty quickly. i'd say being able to put his ideas into very concise and comprehensible language without much of the fluff that philosophy gets a reputation for certainly puts him into the running.

>>20019597
Psychopolitics is a good book but does everyone really need to fall back on that old Deleuzian trope of ”just be a fucking retard bro, capitalism can’t control you if you’re dumb as a bag of rocks”? Why would a system designed to re-direct every channel of escape back into itself let the idiot wander free?

>>20019240
>the maus prison sketch is brilliant
The title of this sketch is "The Man Who Would Never Be What They Made Him To Be". It was written by Charls Carroll. Charls was actually the most creative of the bunch, his brain works in some really unique ways. Sam Hyde relies more on the shock value and sheer physical presence.

>>20019597
The Burnout Society might have been one of the worst books I've ever read. He was able to provide some occasional insight, but that couldn't make up for the broad generalizations, unsubstantiated claims, and hacky literary analysis. Reading it is one of the things that helped me realize a that "theory" isn't a serious intellectual endeavor.