/lit/ - Literature

Sartre is the only one out of those that gets a bad rep here. And probably rightly.

>>2512906
>And probably rightly.

Nope.

A "thread" can't be "wrong":

>>2512908
Shhh! OP is in a big boy college class. Don't you know he knows everything now? His knowledge is absolute, because his professor told him, and professors, as we all know, agree on everything and never have different takes on anything.

>>2512901

>>realize all the Nietzsche/Foucault/Sartre

>implying Nietzsche can be categorized with Foucault and Sartre at all

call me when you've read Baudrillard's seminal works op.

>>2512918
>Baudrillard

just read Baudelaire instead

>>2512912
They're "continental", what do you know!

Bergson, Foucault and Deleuze are the only relevant French philosophers of the 20th century. Foucault is especially brilliant and pertinent.

OPS face when he discovers that contenintal is all bullshit and pseudo-logic and analytic philosophy is far superior.

>>2512993
>No Guattari
No Deleuze without him.

>>2512906

Sartre is not bad at all and really don't see why he is so hated. Sure his metaphysical works are a bit hazy and a bit contradictory, but the way he blended theatre, existentialism and psychology to me is quite brilliant.

>>2512993
French here and I want to tell you you've missed lot of great french philosophers from the 20th Century, such as Quignard.

>>2512994
>OP's face when even the continentals are rejecting continental philosophy in favour of glorious analytic philosophy

>>2512996
'scuse me, but Deleuze is at his best when working WITHOUT him. Sorry

>>2513004

Analytic philosophy is by far the most fringe scholl of philosophy in academia right now. Especially the continental one.

>>2513002
He's a writer.

>philosophy
>superior
ahahahahahahahah

>>2513004
There are a few continentals with interests in analytic and vice versa, is this so hard to understand?

>>2513006
No accounting for taste I guess.

>>2513012

>Education
>Get one

>>2512993
>Deleuze
>relevant

>In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor unstable, but rather 'metastable', endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between series are distributed... In the second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast.

People taking impostors like Deleuze seriously is why continental philosophy is a joke.

>>2512993
I'd hardly say they're the only relevant, but possibly they're the most relevant

>>2513018
His greatest philosophical works are Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense

>>2512999
Which would be literary merit not philosophical.

>>2513010
He wrote about philosophy.

>>2513002
seriously, baudrillard is probably the most relevant philosopher of our time.

>>2513035
You're right, there is also Baudrillard. But there are many others.

>>2512912
No, Nietzsche wasn't continental, he was from space.

>>2513042
I just embarrased myself, I meant to link to the person you replied to. Sorry about that.

>>2512999
He is despised mainly because of the feud between him and Camus. Sartre wrongfully banned Camus from the French intellectual life because his former friend criticised Staline and communism.
The Sartre-Beauvoir couple has also been very resentful towards other opponents of the communist regime, such as Arthur Koestler.
pic related

continental philosophy is really kind of a dumb category in my opinion, being so broad and encompassing so many different things. even the category of post-structuralism is way too broad to be useful. by comparison, what we call analytic philosophy has a pretty consistent method and tradition

>>2513057
In the Sartre/Camus opposition, Camus was clearly right. Sartre denied the existence of the gulags and the tortures under the maoist regime when they were both well known facts. The funny thing is that he wrote in a collaborationist magazine until 1944. Anyway, Sartre was a hack who wanted to be a famous intellectual. That's it.

>>2513012
>tricking yourself into thinking you think just because you know how to read

pull your head out ya ass son
>education
ahahahahahahah

>>2513026
his philosophy is a clusterfuck of vague ideas and puts too much emphasis on freedom, but i still like him

I hate Sartre with a passion, mostly because I blame him for the bastardization of Heidegger's thought and the ugly modern obsession with the individual and her authenticity. For the staunch Sartrean, any act of foolish or misanthropic rebellion is one of the highest heroism; it is a comforting way to think, perhaps almost a narcissistic way to think, but all the more pathetic for it.

I hate it the way politics of authenticity play out these days, how it encourages and confirms arrogance. Sartre was a hypocrite, and confirmed himself in his hypocrisy with the whole 'bad faith' thing, something that freed him from any culpability for his inertia at acting against the Nazis, and he was also a terrible novelist.

I have much more time for Foucault, Derrida, Merleau-Ponty and Baudrillard (grown to appreciate him since earlier threads); I'm not sure about Deleuze currently because he embroils himself in issues that are better left to analytical philosophers

>>2513119
>>2513119

you're speaking with the conviction of a spiteful adolescent girl. you obviously have no idea what the fuck you are saying...i thought you were pretty cool before this cararafcasfacakakallaala.

>the ugly modern obsession with the individual and her authenticity. For the staunch Sartrean, any act of foolish or misanthropic rebellion is one of the highest heroism; it is a comforting way to think, perhaps almost a narcissistic way to think, but all the more pathetic for it.

you would deny even the self,the needs and will of your own ego? in favor of what? some kind of hidebound reductivism?
you call it narcissistic, when in reality it is a most human and reasonable (considering the unreasonable universe) reaction.


>I hate it the way politics of authenticity play out these days, how it encourages and confirms arrogance. Sartre was a hypocrite, and confirmed himself in his hypocrisy with the whole 'bad faith' thing, something that freed him from any culpability for his inertia at acting against the Nazis, and he was also a terrible novelist.

We are all hypocrites. Everyone acts in bad faith. Him being honest about his hypocrisy does in no way detract from what he taught. And it does not free him from culpability either. it actually has the opposite effect, an effect which all instances of bad faith produce.
And lastly, he was a brilliant novelist. He was a much better novelist than he was a philosopher, and he was a great philosopher.
He did win the Nobel Prize.
nausea and the road to freedom books are the greatest pieces of 20th century european literature (after Kafka's The Trial)

Who's the wall-eyed fuck?

Dat strabismus.

>>2513158
>you would deny even the self,the needs and will of your own ego? in favor of what?
Hegelian authenticity

>
We are all hypocrites. Everyone acts in bad faith. Him being honest about his hypocrisy does in no way detract from what he taught. And it does not free him from culpability either. it actually has the opposite effect, an effect which all instances of bad faith produce.

It feels a bit rich that he has to invent a whole doctrine to excuse his culpability, when Heidegger, on the other hand, realizes the weakness and pandering that this entails (although he equally recognizes the mistakes he made with the Nazis as his renegement of his affiliation with them, early on, proves).

>>2513119
> caracalla
> telling it like it is

Carry on.

>>2513158
> And lastly, he was a brilliant novelist. He was a much better novelist than he was a philosopher, and he was a great philosopher.

lolololololololol

satan really is a retard. wow, what a knee slapper.

Deleuze
Zizek
Camus
Sartre
Cioran
Freud
Jung

All I know. Some of those names are just after-flashes of the 19C. Remind me what/who is happening in 20-21st Century thought. I would really appreciate a bibliography, or just a name, or two, of some (allegedly) living original thinker, obscure or famous.

>>2513158
> sartre
> brilliant novelist
> great philosopher

Holy shit what the fuck am I reading?

>>2513171
I forgot:
Lacan
Foucault
Derrida
Merleau-Ponty
Baudrillard
Bergson
Who am I missing?

I might be doing philosophy or literature after I finish school.

Are there any tier lists of the philosophers? I'd like to do some study in advance to see if I like it. No introductions please ladies I can handle this shit.

Anyone who considers Foucault a ''philosopher'' is a moron. sage, hidden, reported, called the police, locked the door, pulled the blankets over my head.

>>2513188
>No introductions please ladies I can handle this shit.

You idiot.

>>2513166

as i said, it doesn't "excuse" his culpability. it brings it to light.
and fuck heidegger. at this point im going to stop arguing and straight up point to swagger; sartre has the most swag of all existential philosophers, he was the best writer, one of the best writers of all time actually, and he generally didnt give a fuck. he used an entire youth movement and in the end ditched them because he got old and lazy and embraced the bourgeoisie(after all his hate of it), bringing the final duality to light. people see that and say, ha, fucking hypocrite. But you should just see an honest human. He got old, and he didnt give a fuck about "freedom" anymore, he just wanted the security which all old farts want...i cant blame him for that.
he was a boss.
also, simone beauvoir was hot as four niggers in a hot tub on the fourth of july,and he went in on that slut on the regular.

>>2513199
fool

>>2513204
'Fool' Would've been the better word, yes.

>>2513170

slap your knee all you want faggot
Nobel Prize
get ball gamed

>>2513189
Why not? Diogenes of Sinope is considered a philosopher and all he did is sleep in a barrel and snub Alexander the Great.

You are making 'philosopher' into a title and an honorific. It is a word to describe an occupation like 'plumber' or 'hairdresser.'

Since when did it get cool for /lit/ to hate on Sartre?

another mindless bandwaggon?
...i guess this one should die down in a month or two.

what a bunch of fucking ugly sandniggers

>>2513215
except that foucault was a historian and a theorist, he does not actually do ''philosophy'' and in the context of op's faggotry, i take issue with his grouping of foucault with philosophers.

>>2513225

fuck-alt

>>2513021

As I stated in another thread, Adorno already covered most of the topics & themes in Difference & Repetition long before Deleuze, and he did it with infinitely more panache IMHO. That Deleuze never cited his dissertation on Kierkegaard is absolutely scandalous and makes him eminently ignorable.

>>2513225
It is sometimes difficult to see the difference between someone who is very bad at what he is trying to do doing, and one that isn't dong it at all. This applies to philosophers as well as plumbers. I have no knowledge of F specifically, but I imagine that he is terribly like all the other continental philosophers or pseudo-philosophers.

Although Nietzsche is perhaps not as bad as the German idealists, he is pretty bad.

Freud and Jung are obviously not philosophers, nor are they interesting. Their ideas in psychology are generally regarded as debunked now. The real pioneers of psychology are the psychometricians, so Binet, Galton, Pearson etc.

>>2513225
But what about my point about Diogenes?

If you are going to accept a historical definition of philosophy, then I don't see why you would refuse Foucault the name of philosopher. If you aren't willing to accept a historical definition, why not?

All of the historical sub-branches of philosophy, from the scholiast to the academician (formerly grouped under the name sophist), the stagirites to the platonists, whether interested in mathematics, philology, grammar, cosmology, astronomy, were all still philosophoi.

Philosophy is just the earliest name we have in Europe/West for the importation of Chaldean/Magian/Egyptian learning in all its various facets and disciplines and the generation of our own learning. The word means love of wisdom. But you should know this.

The refusal to bestow 'philosophy' on someone who is a 'theorist and critic' makes no sense, is awkward, suggests that you are ignorant of what philosophy is, or have accepted an entirely grandiose romantic/german ahistorical conception of philosophy, equating it with metaphusikos.

>>2513269
>I have no knowledge of F specifically
Then you really cannot discuss his work and you should gtfo.

Also, psychometrics? Don't make me lol...you are a weak troll, son. If you knew a little bit more about what you were talking about you might actually rustle someone.

>>2513269

DA FUQ?

Galton merely alluded to the need for psychometry. He didn't actually come up with any measures. Plus, these measures are all inadequate.

>>2513275
>The word means love of wisdom. But you should know this.

It doesn't anymore. It meant that in ancient Greek. To conclude from its previous to its current meaning is to commit the etymological fallacy. Pretty common fallacy with people that focus on history of philosophy, which is incidentally typically continental philosophers.

>>2513275
You are speaking too broadly about philosophy, anyway but I don't deny what you say. the german concept of philosophy is just very relevant in the context of this thread which is why I am persisting in it. I am making the point that Foucault cannot functionally be grouped with the ''continental philosophers''.

>>2513284
>>2513285

Yes, the psychometricians. Psychometrics is the best thing that have come out of psychology so far. I don't just mean IQ/g testing. I mean all kinds of measuring of the mental properties, including five factor models.

Re. Galton. Galton was a polymath and did the first studies on the heritability of intelligence, for instance. He also invented a lot of the math used in social science today. Generally, the pioneers of psychometrics invented/made popular most or much of the math used in social science today (standard deviations, correlations, factor analysis and the like).

>Galton merely alluded to the need for psychometry. He didn't actually come up with any measures. Plus, these measures are all inadequate.

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics#Origins_and_background

You are wrong on all three accounts. The first two you can read about above. The last you would need to study some psychometrics.

>>2513297
Are you saying that he was not a terrible thinker? Failing to meet that standard would almost certainly exclude one from being a continental philosopher. ;)

>>2513292
Naturally what determines the meaning of words is itself a matter for philosophers to debate. Why do you think it does not mean 'love of wisdom' anymore? I grant that primary meanings change, but I don't think that changes the secondary, teritary and wider historical understanding of the term.

If 'he philosophia' and 'philosophy', and also 'ho philosophos' and philosopher, to use just the English equivalent, no longer mean the same thing, perhaps another word should be found to describe whatever it is that precisely covers the 'philosophy' to which you refer.

>>2513304
He was not a terrible thinker, or rather much of the interest in his work does not even rest on his ability to think anyway. He is a fabulous worker at the task of research. What he does is very unlike what Deleuze or Sartre did. You should read ''Discipline and Punish''.

>>2513309
I think that we should just continue to use the current terms while recognizing that they have changed their meaning over time.

>>2513321
Wiki lists him as: School Continental philosophy, post-structuralism, discourse analysis.

No thanks.

>>2513324
>I think that we should just continue to use the current terms while recognizing that they have changed their meaning over time.
No. We should recognise the meaning is eternal, but the context isn't.

>finishing up a class on continental philosophy
>finishing up a class
>a class
>realize all the Nietzsche/Foucault/Sartre etc. threads are all wrong
>a class

Keep trying with the continentals, kiddos.
>63 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
welcome to /lit/

DURRRRRRRRRRR

NOBEL PRIZE

DURRRRR

why does /lit/ have such shit tripfags

>>2513297
I do not think I am speaking too broadly by giving philosophy its historical context. How philosophy transmutes itself in each historical period is interesting to remember. From the middle ages, to the renaissance, the baroque period, the nineteenth century, the twentieth, and now the digital age, it has constantly shifted its focus but never erased its former self and produced an entirely new 'philosophy.' Philosophy like religion collects and amasses vestiges of itself with only mild moments of iconoclasm, e.g. the Vienna Circle. Philosophy has had revolutions, but these were revolutions in the strictest sense, 360 degrees, in which it returned to the same state of affairs as before, although feeling very different and perhaps excited by the motion.

The meaning of philosophy may shift with the focus of philosophers today, but the focus today is not so dramatically different than before, and in fact the focus today is increasingly on what philosophising was going on before. More than ever our philosophy is about how our philosophy used to be, what is called, the historicisation of philosophy - which is the reverse of historicism.

>>2513220
I've been here since the beginning, so trust me when I say there've always been people who hate on Sartre

Bump.

Sartre is hated because there are too much people quoting him not knowing what the fuck they're talking about. It makes him look stupid.
Yes he was arrogant and a bit show off.
It doesn't make his writings useless; he wasn't a "hack".
Huis-Clos + La nausée = pretty good reads.