/lit/ - Literature

Seconded.

I second this.

>>2697199
>>2697207
>>2697209
Those things fall under the banner of literature. If you don't want to participate in a thread, don't! Easy, right? Although I wouldn't mind if the psychoanalysis crow fucked off.

>>2697215
Literature-Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".

Look out I'm pulling out the definitions.

>>2697215
>Those things fall under the banner of literature.
Those things fall under the banner of literature in the same fashion that essays on astrophysics fall under literature.

ITT: people butthurt that philosophy is irrelevant outside of philosophy. while science is relevant to everything.

>>2697237

inb4 serious responses

>>2697237
Define relevance.

>>2697237
Oh look the stupidity just doesn't stop flowing!
These people are exactly the reason these kinds of threads exist!

>>2697231
Are you new or trolling? We've always talked about those things here, it's not going to change, and the mod is certainly not going to delete continental philosophy threads. Does he exist? Some say he's just a humble janitor. Some say he has no hands and can only jab desperately at the mouse, occasionally deleting a random thread. Who can know?

>>2697231
Exactly.

I second this motion

>>2697252
>We've always talked about those things here, it's not going to change, and the mod is certainly not going to delete continental philosophy threads.
Exactly. You're a plague that's been infesting the discussion of literature for far too long. Just because nobody else wants you around isn't a reason to for you to make your home here.

>>2697258
Fine, get rid of us. You've had your motion seconded repeatedly, what are you going to do?

>>2697258
This. Philosophy is ok when discussing a particular author or book. but when discussing the ramblings inside the books in multiple threads that don't pretend to be about /lit/ its quite annoying. why don't you take it to /b/?

This is fucking stupid. I'd much rather see Continental Philosophy and psychoanalysis than Hunger Games and fantasy.

>>2697273

/lit/ has always been the unofficial philosophy board. Sadly, it's becoming the unofficial /sci/fag circle-jerk

>>2697276
>This is fucking stupid. I'd much rather see Continental Philosophy and psychoanalysis than Hunger Games and fantasy.
Then go to /b/ and start your own thread if you want to see those moronic subjects discussed on 4chan so much.

>>2697276
THAT'S NOT THE ALTERNATIVE YOU GOD DAMN IDIOT. THERE ARE OTHER FUCKING BOOKS.

lacan king of lit 4eva haters to the left

>>2697288
My point is you're being precious

>>2697280
>Sadly, it's becoming the unofficial /sci/fag circle-jerk
The scifags are required to neutralize the pseudo-intellectual philosophy undergrads.

why don't you take it to /x/ then?

Where do we go? And don't say /b/, you know that's not an alternative. /lit/ is the /phil/ board, and until sigourney creates a board for it, we're staying here. I mean, this is where the people who know the most about philosophy on 4chan frequent.

>>2697287
I've seen a few philosophy threads on /b/ and they were absolutely pathetic. This is the only board where your average poster has a intellectual background beyond that of a teenage girl.

In an ideal world, Moot would finally make a fucking philosophy board, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon. So this is our only refuge for the time being.

Also, the philosophy threads aren't actually all that common. I'd say it's about 1:5 philosophy to other stuff (unfortunately, the "other stuff" tends to be absolute shit.)

I have no problem with the beef against continental theory, but I wish its opponents would be a little more willing to give it a shot instead of outright dismissing it and/or citing Sokal's hoax.

Post specific quotes by philosophers that are actually discussed here and debate with the actual material.

>>2697298
>Where do we go? And don't say /b/, you know that's not an alternative. /lit/ is the /phil/ board, and until sigourney creates a board for it, we're staying here. I mean, this is where the people who know the most about philosophy on 4chan frequent.
I'll be fucked if that's our problem.

>>2697297
They don't "neutralize" anything, they just spout out ad-hominem attacks and quote out-of-context passages from notably obscure critical theorists.

I started a thread on /sci/ asking for a defense of the scientific method, and their philosophical illiteracy was abundantly clear. The most sophisticated argument in the thread was "because it's useful," and the other posters made it obvious that it wasn't even something that they had questioned before.

I'm not going to seriously respond to your /x/ request.

>>2697320
The thing about the scientific method is that it doesn't need to be defended from the likes of you - its success is already perfectly clear to anyone with a functioning brain-stem, which I suppose excludes the adherents of most Continental philosophers.

>>2697327

thanks for reminding me i should post on /sci/ more babe :-*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmkoQXyj_NY

>>2697327
>success
You are clinically retarded.

>>2697340

Seconded.

If Continental philosophy had improved even one person's life or produced even one valuable insight, you would be able to point to that instead of throwing insults around. But you can't, so here we are.

>>2697320
You have about as much right to ask scientists to defend the scientific method via philosophy as scientists have to ask you to defend philosophy via empiricism. It's kind of funny how philosophy students more or less expect the entire rest of humanity to defend themselves on philosophy's terms but never feel the obligation to reciprocate.

>>2697345
Would you retards stop seconding things? What impact does it fucking have? It doesn't prove anything. And I'm the guy who said >>2697340.

>>2697346
That is a utilitarianistic attitude. You are using philosophy to defend science. How does it feel to be so autism?

>>2697346
You can't really describe how anything "improves" a person's life, because there is no reason for living. You can only improve aspects of life.

>>2697347
The difference is that philosophy is reflexive and constantly questions its own purpose. Science is just carried out in the name of truth/utility without any deeper analysis.

>>2697347

asking scientists (or scientist-wannabes) to think critically about the scientific method is like asking a priest to think critically about God.

>>2697363
That's because science actually has a purpose whereas Continental philosophy is just wanking. Anyone have that existential crisis chart?

>>2697363
Science is not the fucking search for truth. Science is a collection of predictive models, or the method of discovering those models. Nothing more. Stop being so emotive.

>>2697320
What you don't seem to grasp is that your opponents are not "/sci/ fags" - they are folks who have actually STUDIED PHILOSOPHY.

You angsty, teenaged concept of "philosophy" would be completely alien to any respectable department of philosophy in the world. Most of the alleged "philosophers" you cite wouldn't even be recognizable to a real philosopher.

Whatever the correct term is for what you are blathering on about - "critical theory", "postmodernism", whatever - it is not philosophy, and it certainly doesn't belong in a discussion of LITERATURE.

>>2697366
Purpose. Define that. You have to use philosophy you tard.

>>2697366
>Anyone have that existential crisis chart?

To the point where you call upon funny pictures as a way of backing your claims, it's pretty clear that you have no actual idea what you're talking about.

ITT: no actual argument against continental theory involving quotes of authors that people here read.

Hard mode: No Sokal. Let's see if any continental opponents have actually read any of the material.

inb4 you're all actually serious, /lit/ isn't this stupid.

>>2697373
>all thought is philosophy by definition
How many straws do you think will be enough? If you grasp at one thousand, do you think you'll be able to produce on genuine insight from Continental philosophy, one nugget of value? One million?

>>2697381
What's value?

>>2697365
LOOK AT ALL THAT SNARK, WE GOT AN INTELLECTUAL BADASS OVER HERE!

>>2697368
>emotive
what

>>2697371
That's bullshit, and proves that you don't have any actual familiarity with academic philosophy. The analytic-continental divide is greatly overstated, and analytic philosophy has recently rekindled questions of metaphysics that were once thought to be meaningless.

>>2697308
>>2697379
>NO SOKAL NO SOKAL NO SOKAL

>>2697380
Its not just this thread buddy, Science vs Philosophy is happening simultaneously in multiple threads. I'm just kicking back with the popcorn.

rooting for science obviously. its the only one holding any data.

>>2697394

I'm in the same boat, rooting for the other camp. Tonight's a fun night on /lit/

>>2697388
Sorry, but NO ONE in philosophy cites your "continental theorists" about anything. Derrida and company all miserably fall short of elementary standards of clarity and rigor. Such vacuous gobbledygook is not acceptable and never will be.

>>2697394
It's not "Science vs Philosophy".

It's Science AND Philosophy versus obscurantist "Continental" gibberish.

>>2697391
Precisely. I want to know if any of you have actually read the work or are just basing your opinions off of another person's analysis of out-of-context quotes (the intellectual imposters book) or the hoax where an article was published by a group that nobody even cares about.

>>2697405
Derrida is pretty scorned. But it's not uncommon to see analytic philosophers exploring the works of Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc.

>>2697407
I love how analytics always feel the need to dominate the definition of 'philosophy.'

Historically, "philosophy" has always studied questions more along the lines of those posed by continentals. It's one thing to argue that this "philosophy" is useless, but trying to change the definition of the word to something it has never meant in the past is absurd.

Yes, I realize that "philosophy" was once a catch-all term for all science.

>>2697407
What is so obscurantist about continental philosophy? Post some quotes or concepts you didn't understand.

>>2697427
>Post some quotes or concepts you didn't understand.
Get a load of this guy.

>>2697427
I've asked this several times in the past, and never gotten a response. I think the analytics are deeply afraid of the possibility that continental philosophy is not as meaningless as they claim, and that they might have to actually reconsider their worldview.

inb4 somebody posts something from the postmodernism generator

>>2697415

1) they aren't "out-of-context quotes" - they are deliberately LONG unabridged excerpts (specifically so as to avoid that charge).

2) there is a character limit on this board. It's not the appropriate venue to be posting multi-page "in context" quotations and dissecting them exhaustively. Just read "Fashionable Nonsense" by Sokal and Bricmont if you're interested in that kind of rebuttal. It's not going to happen on this board, obviously. Ever.

The point is that you continental philosophy fucks should be on >>>/x/ not shitting up /lit/.

it would maybe be cool if we could make a collective effort toward posting a little more about the stuff we like and a little less about stuff we hate

angry posts about how things are shit or useless or worthless aren't generally any fun to read -- just maybe try taking half a second before mashing submit to think about whether your post, if someone else posted it and you were the one reading it, would be interesting or helpful or funny in any way

i know deep down that most of you are capable of making good posts, and it would make /lit/ a better place to visit

captcha: fetyCB Dialectic

>>2697444
>It's not going to happen on this board, obviously. Ever.

Then stop pretending your argument holds any water.

>>2697446
What you going to do? Force us out?

>>2697447
Fuck you pal, no one likes a peacekeeper.

>>2697444
"Context" doesn't just refer to the surrounding pages. It refers to the situation of concepts within a broader framework, which extends beyond the limits of any one book or even any one philosopher.

I'm not saying that I understand Derrida, or that I know for a fact that he is making meaningful arguments. But I won't dismiss him as a valid thinker simply because I don't understand his writings.

>>2697447
If we all got along, held hands and agreed on everything we wouldn't achieve anything. and some of us like to argue, we cant all be flower-picking, giggle-faggots like you.

>>2697454
Agreed, this thread is now about how much >>2697447
sucks.

>>2697460
Derrida himself asserts that there is no such thing as "understanding" a text. It certainly applies in his case.

>>2697467

see this is what i'm talking about though friend

try reading over your post as if somebody else had posted it and you were just the reader -- would anybody ever enjoy reading that? or gain any insight from it? or are you just trying to make somebody else on the internet feel bad for holding a different opinion from yours?

by all means have arguments, but try to be engaging in some sense -- there's better outlets for anger, have you considered taking up boxing?

>OP creates a thread about how continental philosophy fags aren't wanted on /lit/.
>Thread turns into yet another LOL CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY IS TOTALLY LEGIT UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE LOL clusterfuck.

>>2697487
Suck a dick. The burden of proof is on those who make the argument. If continental theory is so awful, it shouldn't be hard to explain why (with citations and quotes of the philosophers discussed here, of course).

>>2697493
>The burden of proof is on those who make the argument.
Exactly. The burden of proof is on you that continental philosophy has literary merit greater than that of a magazine ad.

>>2697482
>try reading over your post as if somebody else had posted it.
But I did. Three times. and every time i laughed at
>flower-picking, giggle-faggot
How many more times was i supposed to read it?

>there's better outlets for anger, have you considered taking up boxing
Please read my post again, that was not an angry post. and as it happens I take Brazilian JJ twice a week. Perhaps you should take up a physical sport and stop being such a delicate little princess.

>>2697500
>op creates thread about how continental fags aren't wanted

That's the argument. Burden of proof is on you, shit for brains.

>>2697500

So you're going to demand that everyone who posts on /lit/ "prove" somehow that their topic has literary merit?

Fuck off.

There are clearly enough users here who find continental philosophers interesting for it to be a valid topic for discussion.

Also, does anyone else find it funny that scifags misrepresent philosophy every fucking time, and clearly don't understand what philosophy is, while those defending philosophy actually do understand what science is?

>>2697507
So prove you are not wanted on this board?
what do you propose, a vote?

Random quote from Derrida I got off of Wikiquote:

>At the end of Being and Nothingness...[,] Being in-itself and Being for-itself were of Being; and this totality of beings, in which they were effected, itself was linked up to itself, relating and appearing to itself, by means of the essential project of human-reality. What was named in this way, in an allegedly neutral and undetermined way, was nothing other than the metaphysical unity of man and God, the relation of man to God, the project of becoming God as the project constituting human-reality. Atheism changes nothing in this fundamental structure.

>continental
>not obscurantist

>>2697493
But the burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive claim, and in this case that would be the claim that I should give a shit about continental philosophy, or that it has any validity or relevance.

>>2697511

I find it hilarious as well.

>>2697507
>That's the argument. Burden of proof is on you, shit for brains.
No, you shit stains are the ones who post on a board devoted to literature as if it were your home away from home. Your mere presence is argument for continental philosophy's literary value. Now back that shit up, or get the fuck out.

>>2697514

It's validity and relevance is in its attempt to define those very terms.

>>2697522
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS
SEMANTICS SEMANTICS SEMANTICS

>>2697511
If football fags came and flooded the place with football threads loosely based on fever pitch and other novels, we would want to do something about it too. It doesn't matter what the topic is, you don't have a board, and have chose to nest in our chimneys.

>>2697493
No the point is, it does not belong on a board devoted to LITERATURE.

Look, my background is in philosophy ("analytic" philosophy, as you put it). But I'd be fine with a /lit/ board that only discussed literature - and not "philosophy" of any kind.

In a way, it's like politics or religion. Sure, you could post threads about Obama or Jesus under some literary pretext - but why clutter the board with heated partisan shitfests that go nowhere when we could be talking about fucking novels?

>>2697525

Kneejerk response. No argument. Shocking.

>>2697529
I think most people on this board would prefer a /phil/ board, but the point is that we don't have it. This is the closest place we can get to one.

To say 'I have science therefore I don't need philosophy' or vice versa, is like saying 'I can eat, therefore I don't need to breathe.'

>>2697531
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK
SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK

Yeah, fuck Heidegger and Adorno. How will I have discussions the works of Suzanne Collins and George R.R. Martin when pseudo-intellectual Continental phobosophy is shitting up the place?

>>2697534
You could have easily said 'I can shit, therefore I don't need to piss.' Would have been far funnier.

This thread is a good example of Nietzsche's Will to Power idea.

>>2697534
>To say 'I have science therefore I don't need philosophy' or vice versa, is like saying 'I can eat, therefore I don't need to breathe.'
Some organisms can survive purely by photosynthesis

>>2697513
He's basically just talking about attempts to rationally classify existence as part of the search for a higher reality. This stems from Heidegger's condemnation of neutrality and objectivity as desirable and attainable methodologies.

lit·er·a·ture (ltr--chr, -chr)
n.
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.

>>2697548

>>2697513

>implying that's obscurantism and not just over your head

>>2697551
>1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
See >>2697231

>>2697548

*facepalm*

DID NOT GET THE ANALOGY

>>2697544
wat

>>2697533
The closest thing to a /phil/ board is /sci/.

And don't tell me /sci/ is a "science board" - they're not doing lab experiments over there. They talk ABOUT science - often the larger foundational issues.

In any case, I don't come here for that.

>>2697559

>>2697559
Well it *is* obscurantist, but Derrida would defend that as intentional.

Red Crocodile - autists
Crowd - /lit/

>>2697561
>mfw when I check /sci/ and the same exact thread exists over there
>>>/sci/4750898

What is the process for the formation of boards? how about a sub-board if someone was willing to do the html?

they only need a page or two for all five of them to use.

>>2697555

If someone made a post about an essay about astrophysics I wouldn't be against it.

You're just making a blanket argument for intolerance.

>>2697559
Something can be both, and it likely is. Obscurantism is making an idea more complicated and more incomprehensible than it needs to be, which in many cases leads a simply idea to fly over my head, merely because it is expressed incredibly poorly.

Maybe they are retarded, but every time I hear someone explain Derrida, they are explaining *minbogglingly simple* ideas, truisms like "different people get different things out of a book", that do *not* need the fluffy overcomplicated language that Derrida uses.

In my experience, this kind of over-specific, over-complicated language makes people caught up so much in very simple ideas that it makes it very difficult to express something more complex or interesting. When you take 4 pages to explain something incredibly straightforward, it is unlikely that you are going to get very far in your analysis to a genuinely original or interesting idea.

I really have tried to read Derrida, but every time I just encounter a bunch of sentences that take forever for me to comprehend, and end up being practically meaningless, or incredibly simple ideas expressed horribly.

>>2697566
I am not sure what is worse, scientists pretending to know about philosophy, or philosophers pretending to know about science.

>>2697572
I maybe wrong but was he saying that human perception and our shared subjective reality is God and that deciding you don't believe in him doesn't change that?

Sorry, I haven't read much philosophy.

I passed by this Mexican guy today and he said something I didn't understand. He must be an obscurantist, pseudo-intellectual piece of Marxist scum. After all, I am smart, and so anything that lies beyond my comprehension must be utterly incomprehensible.

Absolutely, pants-on-head retarded. It's like he was speaking in a different language or something.

>>2697548
>First person "I" referring to the subject
>Assigning subjectivity to plants and other non-human organisms
>2012

iggy shiggy diggy

>Religion
Assert something is true.
>Philosophy
Establish a premise, argue it and expand upon it. Never test it in the real world; ideally make sure it cannot be tested such that you can never be proven wrong.
>Science
Establish a hypothesis, test it, elaborate upon it and test it further, ad infinitum.

These are all things humans do so yes, I suppose they are all "cultural" but to say they're somehow equal because of that is totally absurd.

>>2697586
>Assert something is true.

Except that's what you just did, fuckwad.

>>2697589
yeah but that's what you did too, cuntface

THE CYCLE IS COMPLETE

>>2697572
My thoughts exactly.

Here's one way of looking at it.

Inflationism = Continental "philosophy" = taking trivial and obvious ideas and dressing them up in bombastic, indecipherable and jargon-laden language

Deflationism = Analytical philosophy = taking deep, highly abstract and perplexing concepts and elucidating them as far as is possible in straightforward, unpretentious language.

With "continental theory", there are the superficial trappings of erudition and complexity, without any of the conceptual "meat" to back it up.

It's like a Madoff scheme targeting pseudo-intellectuals.

>>2697585
>Assigning subjectivity to plants and other non-human organisms
>not assigning sentience to non-human organisms that are not plants.

I shigidy hurrr derp

>>2697591

lrn2post-structuralism

>>2697594
>Assigning sentience only to living things you choose not to eat for moral convenience.
HERP A DERP A GIGGITY GOO

This is so magnificently terrible that it's actually one of the best threads in recent memory.

>>2697599
whats that supposed to mean? I assign sentience to every animal capable of subjective experience whether I eat it or not.

>>2697599
>equating subjectivity with sentience

DERPRPEPDPEPRPDPR PPRP GOGOAG F

Stop "assigning sentience" and start reading books, asswagons.

>>2697593
Philosophical system = provocative one sentence quip

>>2697599
>Believing in morals.

>>2697606
Define "subjective experience".

>>2697613
>Believing
>using words
>dffda adfg lo9988&&&

>>2697614
Anything that is real.

Somebody make one of these for philosophy threads.

>>2697612
You can define most things in the world in a single sentence. Philosophy is nothing special.

>>2697617
Define "real".

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS THREAD WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT YOU MORONS! FUCK OFF!

>>2697622
How does a thread go about complaining?

Are we going to argue about whether or not threads are sentient now?

>>2697618
There already is one.

>>2697621
Anything the computer in your skull can conceptualise with its synaptic system.

>>2697614
subjective experience = any possible perception of anything

>>2697634

Define 'any'

Define 'possible'

Define 'perception'

Define 'of'

Define 'anything'

>>2697633
>Anything the computer in your skull can conceptualise with its synaptic system.
Cool. So it's just bullshit that is constrained by the only subjective experience we understand and says that subjectivity is impossible otherwise?

>>2697622
There are worse outcomes than containing the cancer to one thread.

>>2697620
General relativity = gravity bends time
String theory = everything is made up of little strings at the fundamental level.
Newtonian physics = objects attract eachother

etc

Sure, so long as you accept INCREDIBLY low standards for how much you can oversimplify it. For some things, a one sentence summary is next to meaningless, philosophical systems included, and the general purpose of posts like yours is just to get people mad who subscribe to the systems you are oversimplifying.

>>2697636
Define 'define'

checkmate game set match

>>2697640
>>2697636
Continental philosophy in a nutshell.

>>2697642
Reductionism in a nutshell.

>>2697621
To quote Philip K Dick (and thus to bring the discussion back to actual LITERATURE):

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Amen.

>>2697644
ur mom in my nutshell

>>2697645
I stopped believing in religion a long time ago, but it has yet to go away.

>>2697648
If you don't believe religion exists then you're a fucking retard.

>>2697648
Asserting that "it has yet to go away" = believing in its existence

>>2697645
What the fuck does he know, he wasn't a philosopher.

From a Michael Rosen comment (part 1):

Ephraim Kishon has a story called “Jewish Poker”. Jewish poker is played without cards so all you can do is bluff – and you have to bluff high. I think that this is the secret of Derridean post-modernism as currently practised in U.S. humanities departments: in the end, it’s all competitive hyperbole – who can be more radical?

Someone starts off with a huge unsupported generalization. For example, they write a book saying that the whole of Western thought is under the hegemony (good word) of (say) “logocentrism”, that its genealogy has to be exposed and deconstructed to reveal the Other that it “covers over and disavows”.

That’s a high bid, but you can top that. Why not write a review saying that this is to give “the Other” a “hegemonic status”, that this too needs to be deconstructed and given a genealogy? Say that the re-valuation of values hasn’t been radical enough, that “the Nietzschean trans-valuation is far from being complete: in its second stage, at the threshold of which we find ourselves today, it will necessitate a de-hierarchization of the already inverted values, so that alterity, too, would lose its newly acquired transcendental status, just as sameness and identity did in twentieth-century thought.”

Of course, tone and style matter. Although you’ve left banalities like “sameness and identity” (and hence, presumably, essence, cause and logical inference) far behind, don’t hesitate to use terms like “necessitate” for the ideas you are advocating, or (although you don’t believe in such fetishes as truth in interpretation) to describe others’ interpretations as “deeply flawed”. To think that once you've toppled the idols of objectivity you can't write as if they were still standing is a sign of hopeless logocentrism.

From a Michael Rosen comment (part 2):

It’s good too to write as if your native language isn’t English, or that, at least, your English has been saturated by what you’ve absorbed in your many years on the *rive gauche*. A nice Derridean-Althusserian touch here (see Judith Butler, *passim*) is the spurious use of the term “precisely” when you make an especially vague assertion (“The promise of deconstruction lies, precisely, in its ability to inspire this post-metaphysical thrust ‘beyond the same and the other.’”) Introducing your sentences with pompous phrases like “Let us note that …” may not add anything of substance to them but it does convey the impression that you are addressing your audience from a position of authority (a podium at the École Normale?). Above all, the secret is to convince people that you are further up the mountain than everyone else and looking down on them. Writing in this condescending way won’t make you popular, no doubt, but what the hell – oderint dum metuant!

Where will it all end? Presumably, this too can be out-bid – perhaps someone else will come along and offer a genealogy of deconstruction or a deconstruction of genealogy. There doesn’t seem to be any limit to how many iterations the transvaluation of valuations can go through. Yet there must – surely – come a point where the whole thing vanishes up its own …

From a Michael Rosen comment (part 3):

But what to do until that happy day? Certainly, it is heart-breaking for those of us who would like Continental philosophy to be taken more seriously, but how do you argue with people for whom “reason” and “argument” (like “sameness” and “identity”) are simply terms in a “hegemonic discourse” they have left behind? And, if they can shrug off the Sokal hoax and take Alain Badiou seriously, they are obviously past being laughed back into sanity by a sense of the absurd. So I think that all the rest of us can do is to keep out of their way and leave them to patronize one another to their hearts’ content.

---
SOURCE: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/11/it-is-no-secret-that-contemporary-philosophy-is-under-
the-spell-of-the-other.html

>>2697658
I beg to differ.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

--ＡＭ E R I C A N S -- C L A P -- A Ｔ -- T H E -- T V--

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

>>2697665
Excellent use of 4chan as a medium for artistic expression, 10/10 for challenging the postmodern hegemonic order.

>>2697662
>>2697660
>>2697659

Thanks buddy.

Why not just create a philosophy text board under /lit/? That's an easy solution that gives the worthless continental turds a place to go and stay.

>>2697662
I cant get that link to go anywhere.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/11/it-is-no-secret-that-contemporary-philosophy-is-under-
the-spell-of-the-other.html

>>2697199

>>2697692
Have you tried copying and pasting it into the address bar?

>>2697691
As long as it is called "continental theory" or "deconstructionism" or anything other than "Philosophy".

Once you begin to talk about science outside of the results of scientific studies, you're already talking philosophy. Science is a tool used to objectively study data. Taking a materialist or logical-positivist position is not scientific, it is philosophical.

There is not a single rational or objective reason why analytic philosophy is superior to continental philosophy, and in fact they aren't as separate as you Wikipedia scholars assume them to be. Sokal is a ridiculous fool who is guilty of the same errors those philosophers he critiqued were guilty of (only in a different field of inquiry): ignorance.

>>2697738
My issue with "continental philosophy" is not that I disagree with it.

It's that, as nonsense, it is impossible either to agree or disagree with it.

>>2697610
>reading books instead of papers on modal logic and inferential semantics

>implying philosophy and psychoanalysis are not frequently occuring themes in literature.

what.is.wrong.with.you?

>>2697799
Guns are prevalent in many works of literature. Does that justify threads on guns and guns alone?

>>2697780
Did you forget about collections of papers in book form?

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Papers-Volume-Oxford/dp/0195032047/
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Troubles-Collected-Papers-Volume/dp/0199730156/

>>2697805
Certainly! Yet psychoanalysis and philosophy affect the story on a meta-level of how the story was written and how the author tries to convey his/her ideas whereas guns are part of the explicit part of the story itself.

>>2697867
>Yet psychoanalysis and philosophy affect the story on a meta-level of how the story was written and how the author tries to convey his/her ideas whereas guns are part of the explicit part of the story itself.
Psychoanalysis and philosophy are the tools of critics moreso than authors, and critics can apply any frame of reference (be it religion, psychoanalysis, Marxism feminism, fascism, capitalism, utilitarianism, or existentialism) to any work ofliterature they please. Who the fuck are you to say that the author was motived for any other reason than to describe the mechanics of guns in writing a story?

>>2697867
>Certainly! Yet... [blah blah blah]

I have alerted my NRA buddies to the relevance of this board vis-a-vis spreading our invigorating message of freedom!

You see, it all starts with the Battle of Crécy, where...(take it from here, brothers!!!)

>/lit/ - continental philosophy and psychoanalysis
>The scifags are required to neutralize the pseudo-intellectual philosophy undergrads.
>It's not "Science vs Philosophy".
>It's Science AND Philosophy versus obscurantist "Continental" gibberish.

^ truth

>I have no problem with the beef against continental theory, but I wish its opponents would be a little more willing to give it a shot instead of outright dismissing it and/or citing Sokal's hoax.

>Post specific quotes by philosophers that are actually discussed here and debate with the actual material.

Does not understand the critique of gibberish. There is no material to discuss in it becus it is gibberish; becus it doesn't mean anything. There is no content. One cannot discuss nonexistent content.

>>2697877
>Psychoanalysis and philosophy are the tools of critics moreso than authors

Nope. Whether the authors are conscious or not and acknowledge it or not they're guided by something, driven to write by something. Some morals, some existential quesion(s), some social injustice--something. And it's up to the critical reader to figure this out.

FACT:
Space is coming. It's already here. It's obvious, right? You like probably already thought of it yourself

FACT:
inter-demensional travel is KIND OF FAKE. THAT IS TO SAY NOT COMPLETELY FAKE
(because of Wormholes and the like, we've seen them on our journeys in our robes, i'll explain later)

FACT:
The gilded seventh open seal is coming in the flesh as a knight with seven tails of snakes and skin of scales to FUCK YOU IN THE ASS LIKE ALL THE NAZIS DID AND DONT YOU GET IT YOU SHOULD ALL BE TAKING CODEINE AND FUck

>>2697885
>Whether the authors are conscious or not and acknowledge it or not they're guided by something, driven to write by something.
And the something that motivates authors would be pseudo-scientific drivel like psychoanalysis and pseudo-intellectual bourgeois shit like continental philosophy, naturally?

>168 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

You know, if you keep falling for it, they're just going to keep doing it.

>make a thread about something he doesn't want
>get a 170 post thread
lel

Continential philosophy iz shite breh.

What is continental philosophy?
What is psychoanalysis?

You're all cunts who can fuck right off.

>>2697928

Sameguy here.

Oh, what's that? You made a thread on the premise that these fields are bullshit without know ing what they actually are or propose?

Thought so.

>>2697975
That shouldn't surprise you, since this is /lit/.

>>2697199
>implying this is /sci/

what if someone wants to talk about literature related to continental philosophy and psychoanalysis, OP?

>>2697975
The notion that a text can somehow conceivably "propose" something, or somehow inspire someone to "know" what something "is" ... is a perfect illustration of the hegemonic, logo-centric, gender-fluidity-denying malfeasance that infects the likes of you. Get it together, jackwagon.

>>2698008

Answer the question.

>>2698001
Fuck yeah!

And what if someone wants to talk about literature related to the fact that OBAMA WASN'T BORN IN AMERICA?

-------- !!!! --------

(Kidding, of course. Take a deep breath.)

How about we talk about the novels, plays and poems that we've actually READ? How about we share our thoughts and feelings about such literary works, rather than strive to attain the "bullshit artist award" for putting lipstick on a pig faster than your fellow red-stater Cletus?

Just a thought.

>>2698009
Typical analyticfag response.

Hello?

The very notion of "question" and "answer" is in doubt (for example, in the form of the identity of the subject, who is present for all his operations, present beneath every accident or event, self-present in its "living speech", present in its enunciations, in the present objects and acts of its language, etc.). Let us note that the obvious sense of "self-incompletion" that you are feeling now is ultimately a euphemistic form of self-ownage.

>>2698027

tryharderanalyticfag

>>2698029
ICUR1OFUS

>>2698044

NO

>>2698049
MyApologies-DownSyndromeIsAHelluvaDiseaseIsntIt?

>>2698060

>implyingyoucanintohigherphilosophy shiggidydoodahdey

>>2697928
>What is continental philosophy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

>What is psychoanalysis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

its this thread again...do you stupid cunts ever have an original thought?

I won't defend psychoanalysis, because falsifiability issues do indeed cripple its goals.

as for continental philosophy...the only kinds of metaphysics and ethical theories which have been rendered obsolete are those grounded on charged metaphysics, ones stemming from religious faith mainly. Other continental philosophy is perfectly fine. Analytic philosophers have their period over Nietzsche's aphoristic writing due to a misapplication of their own writing standards. In hopes of avoiding misinterpretation, they need to have every premise laid out word for word. god forbid there be any hidden premises or unstated implications. Nietzsche left a lot to the reader. One had to figure out all the necessary premises and their logical relations from his aphorisms, and i guess that's too much fucking work for analytic philosophers. Insults and unnecessary tangential musings can obviously be left out...Nietzsche would have made his point without them. Forgive him for making his writing exciting and fun to read, while still offering unrivaled insight. Literary language is nowadays taken for obfuscation, something which points to nothing else but the laziness and envy of the reader.

its this thread again...do you stupid cunts ever have an original thought?

I won't defend psychoanalysis, because falsifiability issues do indeed cripple its goals.

as for continental philosophy...the kinds of theories which have been rendered obsolete are those grounded on charged metaphysics, ones stemming from religious faith mainly. Other continental philosophy is perfectly fine. Analytic philosophers have their period over Nietzsche's aphoristic writing due to a misapplication of their own writing standards. In hopes of avoiding misinterpretation, they need to have every premise laid out word for word. god forbid there be any hidden premises or unstated implications. Nietzsche left a lot to the reader. One had to figure out all the necessary premises and their logical relations from his aphorisms, and i guess that's too much fucking work for analytic philosophers. Insults and unnecessary tangential musings can obviously be left out...Nietzsche would have made his point without them. Forgive him for making his writing exciting and fun to read, while still offering unrivaled insight. Literary language is nowadays taken for obfuscation, something which points to nothing else but the laziness and envy of the reader.

>>2699078
>"its this thread again...do you stupid cunts ever have an original thought?"
>Proceeds to give a cliched, long-winded, 2DEEP4U defense of continental philosophy.

>>2699093

awesome objections bro!
go fuck your mother

What is falsifiability and what is the difference between analytic and continental philosophy?

>>2699078
nihilist scum

>>2699100
At least you dropped the facade of having anything substantive to say.
Go rape your children.

>>2699126

>Typical /lit/goer thinks Nietzsche advocated nihilism

>>2699256
>typical /lit/goer
That is not the average. /lit/ is not that stupid.

>>2699078
Agreed but for the last line.