/lit/ - Literature

>>22839812
lol sure it does little buddy

philsophers are grifters and leftists are grifters

>>22839821
According to your philosophy you are a grifter, so why should I take seriously what you say?

>>22839812
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2r-HjICFJM

>>22839826
I cringe everytime whenever some retard thinks that this is a Gotcha

>>22839826
I am God

>>22839841
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>22839812
Shut the fuck up.

>>22839812
is bottom right negri

>>22839826
that wasn't a philosophy. philosophy is about rational argumentation. that anon didn't make an argument, just assertions. cringe redditor

>>22839812
Foucault's mentor was Dumezil who was a right winger (not French new right though). Deleuze cites that guy a couple times. Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss etc. were all right wing intellectuals. I guess the reason they don't have the flashiness of the left is because US colleges' politics departments are dominated by mainstream liberals and conservatives, or weirdos like Irving Krystol and that yellow guy Fukuyamo or whatever he's called. The left are the opposition so they can portray themselves as edgy and radical whereas mainstream conservatives are just boring. Another reason is that right wing intellectuals like Leo Strauss were weary of politics and celebrity status and avoided it like the plague.

>>22839893
Yeah he died yesterday.

>>22839812
Gramsci is a psyop for weed addicts who are running VERY low

>>22839901
Whatever you say, chief.

>>22839812
Right wingers are retarded as a rule. They also tend to hate reading.

>>22839812
All these people suck

>>22839812
all but two are dead

>>22839817

Is Gramsci worth reading?

>>22839918
Define “right wingers”

>>22839918
Historically, left wing were disaffected intellectuals leading the bottom rung of society and using them as a weapon against the average person. The average "right winger" is a fairly normal person

Because the side with more paedophiles tends to be more intellectual, I think.

>>22839812
These guys were all either paranoid libertine freaks or brain-ticked insane. In either case, all of them were depraved weirdos without honor.

>>22840289
He’s 50% made-up bullshit that’s not based in reality and 50% actually interesting. That is to say he sucks but he’s worth reading at least a little because understanding his ideas allows you to understand what his intellectual followers are doing.

>>22839812
Who are the authors on the right of Adorno and on the right of Deleuze?

>>22840519
I'm mostly interested in guys like Alain de Benoist

>>22839812
Because you're not allowed to learn about Right-Wing thought outside of Modern American Republicanism.

>>22839812
Marxism in particular was a reaction to the prevailing trends of hegelianism and the weaknesses of European philosophy at the time. Marxism is really an anti-philosophy as Marx wrote once "Philosophers upto this point have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it." His tract "the poverty of philosophy" was very popular and extremely critical of philosophies purely passive character as well as philosophy as a whole. Leftists have followed in this trend for a long time, rather critiquing ideology and philosophy as a tool of rationalizing class relations and neutralizing change.

>>22840751
I mean just to add to what I said, materialism to its core rejects philosophy and political ideology as distortions of reality that is determined by class relations.

>>22840289
https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1921/01/ape-people.htm

Absolutely

>>22840508
Deleuze was actually pretty normal

>>22840772
Deleuze was doing with psychology in a similar since the adventure Marx took with economics, a limitless critique of psychology and psychiatry and a rejection and inversion of psychoanalysis. Deleuze can said to be a author that was extremely ahead of his time and liberal attitudes about gender and sexuality is likely rooted in post modernism which the world has come to accept and in a way absorb.

>>22840550
Sartre and Badiou

>>22840747
>Hitler
>Philosopher

Are you retarded? And where are Schopenhauer and Evola? And wtf is Derrida doing there?

>>22840344
>the average person

Where?

Mostly this is right wing cope.

>>22840937
Everywhere.

>>22840937
>Right-Wing, Vertical Hierarchy
>Left-Wing, Horizontal Hierarchy

>>22839812
Guenon single-handedly BTFO’s every single philosopher’s worldview on the left.

>>22841094
this guy was literally a leftist

>>22839812
kek

>>22840940
>>22841010
Wow, great posts anons! You’re really special boys and I hope your mol tells you that everyday.

Anyways,

>>22841096
he demolishes the ideological underpinnings of leftism

>>22839812
They're all btof'd by Hoppe

>>22840865
I was thinking exactly this. Realistically Evola is a perfect 1-1 swap with Gramsci.

>>22840747
Orwell was a socialist

>>22839812
Leftist philosopher:
>this is offensive I need an adult
>I need a safe space
>help me, someone disagreed with me and I am literally shaking

>>22839812
reactionaries are incapable of original thought so they just steal water from leftists and redirect blame towards whatever scapegoat minority group is convenient at the time

>>22841279

>>22841094
he BTFOd no one, he is just a /lit/ meme

because the rights have real jobs

>>22841951
Being a NEET isn't a real job

better question is "why do pedophiles have such better philosophy than non-pedophiles?"

>>22842191
every pro-neet philosopher is a leftist

>>22842203
There is no man that hasn't got pedophilic tendencies in the sense that men are attracted to childlike features.

>>22839812
Adorno was just mad because he got the least pussy. Even the human pepe look alike Satre got more pussy than Adorno. Negri was the most handsome out of all of these and Zizek would look fine if he'd just take a shower and quit acting like he's Stallman for Lacanoids.

>>22839812
Gramsci and Zizek are the only two who were actually good, the rest are about as deep as a kiddie pool and you’re about as smart as one if you think otherwise.

>>22839812
Because the psychometric personality profile of creative people leans more towards the progressive side of things.

>>22839812
Leftists love nonsensical navel gazing. Take a book like transgender marxism, the prime example of leftist intellectualism. It's all bullshit. It's meaningless blathering. There are no concrete arguments, no real thoughts. Leftists love to go on for hundreds of pages about how transgender marxism
>has to be lived not only theorized, it is the sensual encounter with a stranger on a summer night, the joy of a trans woman from wearing dresses in public etc
>it represents a dialectic between the outrageous and the everyday
>capitalism ensured the steady reproduction of families for centuries until transgender marxism came along
>how transgender marxism proves that dysphoria is merely a requirement forced upon trans women to get hormones by the hegemonic forces of capitalism and not an essential component of trans womanhood etc
Leftists care intensely to be seen as intellectuals, which is why the produce thousands upon thousands of works like transgender marxism. The emperor has no clothes.

>>22842303
>Take a book like transgender marxism, the prime example of leftist intellectualism
Literally no one has heard of this book, delusional retard

>>22839812
Because left is pretty much defined as anything "new". As soon as someone comes up with a new idea, all the old thinkers become right wing and conservative by comparison. Enlightenment thinkers were radically left wing in their time, but are now seen as racist slave owner Uber arch-conservatives in the modern day whose statues should be defaced and torn down.
Even extremely recent examples like Richard Dawkins, he had his left wing moment in the sun but was then quickly eschewed by the left within a few years since he wasn't in lockstep with the leftism of 2014. Now, almost 10 years later he would be seen as a turbo racist conservative.
The "left" simply means new and different, this is not a positive or a negative thing. Reminder that the left in the 60s-70s supporting free love had famous pedophile philosophers in France who waxed and waned about little girls and dreamed of freeing them from the traditional sexual restriction by society.

>>22841179
Based argumentation ethics enjoyer

>>22842339
Reminds me of something Solzhenitsyn said in gulag archipelago, yesterdays martyrs are already in the wrong

>>22842360
Pretty much yeah. Leftists consistently eat their own and I can't imagine where all this is going in the next couple years. I could not have predicted trannies and racial issues would be as dogmatic as they are this year back in 2016. Even leftist streamers like destiny and Hasan are being seen as more and more right wing by the current day left because their old takes, even though they bent over backwards for minorities, were still not bending over backwards enough and were thus racist, conservative, and non-inclusive.
Another example, most leftist comedians had jokes or tweets about gays and races 10 years ago and are profusely apologizing now but to no avail.

>>22842303
>>capitalism ensured the steady reproduction of families for centuries
wtf I love capitalism now??

>>22842373
>Even leftist streamers like destiny

>>22842382
It never really supported the family and it's the main agent unraveling it now in the west. It's more profitable to break everyone into individual consumer units living in apartments by themselves than to allow family to have a moral influence on each other that prevents them from consuming the newest hedonist product.

>>22842296
not OP but all of them are deep

>>22842399
I say that as someone who knows very little about destiny, but he seemed to be a poignant example from what I've heard about him over the years.
For example when he debated Jon Tron he was using points that would now be seen as racist ironically to defend minorities (well they won't be minorities for much longer but you get the point)

The left has no philosophers at all. What it has are scientists and social scientists. In other words, it has academics.

>>22842445
Historically most scientists that made breakthroughs were Christian and often times monks making them right wing.

>>22841279
It’s more like
> le group is oppressed
> better retool civilization via politics
or
> being radically open is good
> so let’s be open by closing off (to nasty racists)

That is left wing thought in a nut shell.

>>22840289
Not really. If you’re going to read any lefty philosopher, it should be Foucault. Foucault is also the most cited academic in English-speaking universities across the humanities and social sciences, so it’s a little crazy that nobody other than lefty academics ever read his books to see what they’re all about.

>>22841184
One can be a Socialist and Right-Wing, one simply can not be Marxist. Socialism is not muh gubmint, class warfare and equality.

The Military is operated on a
Non-Marxist socialist setup, nobody would ever think of having a libertarian organisation responsable for war, even in a private enterprise it is organized the same.

Non-Marxist Social = forge a unified and unique whole and administer the common weal, maintaining heirarchy and distinctions.

Marxist Socialism = Remove all heirarchy and divisions, forge a single homogenous unity and administer all resources.

The Left/Right distinction is entirely useless now and only really exists in Liberalism. And for a handful of meta-values like quantity vs quality.

>>22841403
There needs to be a revolution on the modern 'Right' to embrace the energy and values of the far/alt/extreme right and push out the backwards and reactionary element.

>>22839821
Imagine unironically saying something this braindead and insecure.

>>22839812
>why do people who discourage critical thinking not produce more critical thinkers?

>>22842303
It's always so funny how damn butthurt and insecure conservatives are. Literally need to make up shit to be upset about because they got cucked so hard in a debate or something, so now their entire personalities revolve around imaginary slights and issues. The epitome of "sour grapes" mentality. Like you can tell this loser spent way too long spinning a great "counter-argument" in his head after he go btfo'd in public, that he ended up going up so far up his ass into a complete fairy-land scenario to justify is failures and stupidity.

>>22842296
Pretending academic level philosophy is kiddie pool stuff even if relative to other philosophy it's not that complex is some deeply insecure shit.

>>22839812
its generally viewed education and intellectualism as positive wehreas right-wingers generally view education and intellect with disdain.

>>22842547
When compared to actual philosophy such as Guenon, Evola and Devi, it is simplistic shit.

>>22842589
>When compared to actual philosophy such as Guenon, Evola and Devi

>>22842584
braindead take

>>22839918
Nta but sure bud, it was real in your head and then everybody clapped.

>>22842540
He’s right though. The last left wing philosopher who could be said was decisively not a navel gazing academic was Marx. Since Marx, all of them have been mere academics and nonsense navel gazing is indeed the academic forté. I mean, Deleuze, for example, means absolutely nothing to anybody outside of the philosophy and maybe related departments. His writings are not only useless to them, but practically incomprehensible. Now, if you want to argue that these intellectuals influence practical reality and so that makes them practical, it just doesn’t follow because that can be merely incidental. If you think the masses of leftists are mobilized because of something X academic said, you’re fooling yourself.

>>22842603
I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.
;_;

>>22842540
Kek projection from the basedleftist redditor.

>>Why does the left have better philosophers than the right?
>please respond to my obvious bait thread while i go dilate.
You will never be a real woman

>>22842319
Lying leftist subhuman tranny. You will kill yourself fucking freak.

>>22839812
>Jung
>zizek
>gramsci
>focoult
>deleuze
>rorty(?)
>Sartre(?)
who are the others and those i put in question marks?

>>22840747
>orwell
>nietzshce
>fucking aristotle (left and right literally didnt exist then)
>right wing

this is what leftist intellectualism is all about. this is what the fuck these leftypol trannies come to /lit/ and expect people to be impressed by.

>>22842501
This is made up garbage, and it’s reading shit like this that makes me remember how retarded right wingers are.

>>22839903
>Foucault's mentor was Dumezil who was a right winger (not French new right though). Deleuze cites that guy a couple times. Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss etc. were all right wing intellectuals.
People haven't read about the postmodernism scandals where some prominent ones had turned out to be fascists when they were young. I don't really think being a great writer or intellectual necessarily entails a progressive political position. I'd say there's a difference between various reactionary thinkers in history and the crystal-power witch coven quacks who'd have more fun playing Dungeons & Dragons.

>>22840762
>I mean just to add to what I said, materialism to its core rejects philosophy and political ideology as distortions of reality that is determined by class relations.
Marxism tried to create a unity between science and philosophy. So, on the one hand, philosophers spend too much time on metaphysics and figuring out the "spirit" and abstract morality while also making excuses for that class system designed by oppressors, while human beings are creatures living in the physical world. So, the spread of Greek philosophy would have to count on Roman science to spread rather than the Greek philosophers who sat around blabbing endlessly. But then there's also mechanical materialism, as if our society functions and develops like the beautiful rotation of planets in the classic Newtonian universe, or a precise Swiss watch that everybody and every institution are just mindless robots or machines doing what the law/philosopher king programs us to do (although I think Stalin's version of Marxism veered too much into this kind of mechanical materialism). Anyways, Marxism ideally tries to realize the pros and cons in both subjects and sublate and synthesize the two into a higher dimension, and this never ends as every new discovery or theory in science and philosophy is adding to it, which means Marxism can even be active in the critique of popular culture (Frankfurt School) and even interacting with psychoanalysis. It doesn't run perfectly but nothing does.

>>22842951
Either anon was baiting, or anon was grasping.

>>22842501
Orwell fought for Marxists in Spain.

>>22842939
>Jung
Bruh

>>22842951
nietzsche was right wing lets be real here

>>22843501
Nietzsche was clearly apolitical and said so himself. He is the poet/artist philosopher

>>22839812
right-wingers are generally pretty retarded. there are a few clever ones -- burke, heidegger, nozick, dosty -- but on the whole they're retards. it's well-known that the right has the power and the money while the left has the intellectuals. this is why it's useless to debate right-wing ideologues; their ideologies aren't actually based on logic, sense, reason, evidence of any kind. sure they'll prance about and squawk things that sound like they're reasonable, things that have the appearance of arguments, but if you press into them just the slightest bit, they crumple. I want the right to be worthy opponents to the left so badly but it's like picrel over and over and over again. anyone with two brain cells to rub together is on the left. some are further left than others, some are essentially just liberals (rawls, nussbaum), but none of them are right of center. even the cleverest right-wing thinkers (like the ones given above) have been subject to devastating critique that they've never been able to adequately refute. for example -- rawls btfo'd nozick in A Theory of Justice, Justice as Fairness, Political Liberalism, and nozick never so much as responded, likely because he knew he was beat. the right hasn't produced anything resembling a "major thinker" in decades, and that's including nozick which is questionable to say the least, and even nozick himself had to admit certain leftist principles (wealth redistribution namely) to make his political philosophy semi-coherent. right wingers are just retards. at core, the right is simply just greed and displaced sexual anxiety and fear. that's all it is. just nothing there
>>22840289
absolutely

>>22843538
>the right hasn't produced anything resembling a "major thinker" in decades
what about scruton or de benoist or macintyre?

>>22843508
>Nietzsche was clearly apolitical
he wanted an aristocratic arrangement
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/#NietLackPoliPhil

>>22843569
>scruton
he's got some snappy quotes but nothing much of actual substance
>de benoist
he just copies whatever fascists said and then throws it into high-flown academic language. sheehan basically ended him imo.
>macintyre
he's the only one on here worth a damn, but I'd only put him on the right with hesitation. doesn't super fit neatly into either category. he aligns with the right on his ideas about institutional preservation, on tradition, on the value of catholicism/god/christianity, but he's also produced a fascinating work that blends christianity with marxism, and he seems to retain many of his leftist sympathies from his youth. the right can claim him if they wish but only if they're willing to look the other direction half the time. just as with nozick you can produce valid leftish readings of his work

>>22843578
so you just didn't read the article at all, huh
>Two positions have dominated the literature: one attributes to Nietzsche a commitment to aristocratic forms of social ordering (call this the “Aristocratic Politics View” [e.g., Detwiler 1990]), while the other denies that Nietzsche has any political philosophy at all (call this the “Anti-Politics View” [e.g., Hunt 1985, Leiter 2002/2015]).
nietzsche can be read as supporting an aristocratic system or he can be read as taking a hammer to political philosophy generally

>>22839812
Which one of these has produced a working philosophy that actually improved people's lives?

>>22843597
i read it. goes against your claim that he was "clearly" apolitical

>>22843592
nozick isn't really a right-winger, he's a libertarian which is more center of the political spectrum. if you count him then you'd need to count quite a few people who are still around like jason brennan or walter block
there's also hans hermann hoppe i guess

>>22840803
Thank you very much.

>>22843597
>>22843603
the idea that he was apolitical is laughable considering the amount of hostility he showed for socialism

>>22843600
Deleuze's work is very important to a lot of background theory in modern science and Foucault's work is crucial to the modern anti-trans movement.

>>22843603
I'm not who you originally responded to, I just think that this
>he wanted an aristocratic arrangement
is retarded. you can validly claim he's apolitical just as you can claim he's an aristocrat. as with most things in nietzsche, both claims have evidence behind them
>>22843609
nozick's libertarianism is just right-wing shit in a new wrapping. same with brennan, same with block, same with hoppe, who all lift the best parts of their work from other thinkers and then slap shoddy ideas on top. there's a reason they're not well-known

>>22843662
>they're not well-known
i wish this were true but it isn't. nozick is obviously well-known, and brennan in particular is pretty well-known for his age. and then there's jan naverson and that fuckface david gauthier

>>22843706
>and that fuckface david gauthier
oh nice he just died

>>22843508
>Nietzsche was clearly apolitical and said so himself.

>>22842951
That’s Cleobus not Aristotle

>>22840865
>wtf is Derrida doing there?

He isn’t. wtf r u talking about?

>>22842968
What’s the source of this text?

>>22843978
I’m guessing the eponymous Transgender Marxism. It just reads as fanfiction, a manifesto saying our little thing (TM) 'is' this, 'claims' this, without doing fuck all, other than carving a hip little term like Xenofeminism or Dark Deleuze.

>>22842451
>> being radically open is good
>> so let’s be open by closing off (to nasty racists)
That's what annoys me most is the hypocrisy of this kind of excessive tolerance.
Every single human being has certain things they find gross, certain things that they view as off limits or out of bounds. It may not be fully rational but it is an inexorable part of being human.

>>22843662
directionbrain thinks that nussbaum and milton friedman are totally different animals despite being one inch away from each other on the political spectrum, and both obviously liberals

>>22843538
Most leftist rejoice in the supposed purity of their shit. All leftism can be reduced as the want to destroy all boundaries. That's the ultimate leftist dream, that is why they always have droopy faces and hate life and become resentful cucks like Sartre. Essentially they love to revel in the purity of their shit,unbothered by the bystanders look of disgust. The leftist wants to break away from this naturally ordered world that humans create or at the very least turning it into primordial soup; the right winger sees beauty and wants to preserve it, by cristallizing it. This enrages the grotesque leftist. That explains all his resentment.

>>22842951
>>22843971
It is Lycurgus of Sparta, famous for the Greay Rhetra.

>>22844071
>resentful cucks like Sartre
Cope, he was a womanising chad

>>22840747
>Hitler
kek

>>22845089
I'll tell you a secret: nobody that says mein kampf is "badly written" has ever read it

>>22845068
He was a degenerate swamp creature

>>22844071
>they always have droopy faces
That's true.

>become resentful cucks
Not sure about that.