/lit/ - Literature

who's the guy in that image?

lrn2 stable hermeneutic circles

>>2714847
The most badass jew that ever lived: Derrida.

It's like those dumbshit postmodern relativist who say there is no truth, nothing that's "true for everyone," just my truth and your truth. So, you ask them if it's true for everyone that there's no truth for everyone.

"There is no objective truth, all right, man? That's just, like, what society wants you to believe man."
"Is it objectively true that there is no objective truth?"
"I mean, like... I mean, that's just like your opinion, man, okay?"

I increasingly can't fucking stand postmoderns. Every fucking college kid I meet nowadays thinks "there is no truth." Some of these idiots honestly think logic was invented by society. Seriously they think "A=B, B=C, A therefore C" is just an opinion. It's EITHER an opinion OR it's not. They dont understand the inescapability of either/or western logic.

Apparently I've ranted, sorry.

Derrida is a pretentious douche who isn't respected in philosophy departments. It's only English professors, who honestly usually lack critical thinking skills, who admire him. Most English professors I've met have very poor analytical skills.

>>2714857
>rant
>miss the central point yet still establish your supposed superiority
okay.jpg

>>2714860
What kind of philosophers are respected then?
What about Nietzsche?

>>2714867
>What kind of philosophers are respected then?
Analytic ones.

>>2714896

>>2714896
>>>/sci/

>>2714896
>tfw analytic philosophers are so insecure that they only teach their students a single facet of contemporary philosophy

;_;

>>2714906
>>2714908
Butthurt continental kiddies detected.

>>2714912
I don't think Bill Gates is a philosopher, or even cares much at all about philosophy

>>2714910
>Assert things that sound interesting
>Provide no evidence or logic to justify them
WE PHILOSOPHY NOW

>>2714912

>sokal

Still taking that faggot seriously?

>>2714916

>evidence

you'redoingitwrong.jpg

Don't worry guys, I have tons of evidence for Agrippa's Trilemma

>>2714917
>>2714919
>Butthurt continental kiddies claim science falls under the purview of philosophy.
>Butthurt continental kiddies claim evidence has no application in philosophy.

>>2714921

>it does
>only to a limited extent

>>2714916
>implying logic and evidence aren't inevitably fallible
>implying all philosophy isn't just myth no matter how many claims to rigor and objectivity you can make

>>2714921
Who said anything about science?

>>2714924
>Who said anything about science?
Have you missed every science versus philosophy thread on /lit/ ever or something?

>>2714926
No, but this isn't necessarily one of those. You just want to make it one.

>>2714927
No, I don't. Take it up with the retards who couldn't understand why anyone would bring up evidence in the discussion of philosophy, thus causing me to explain why I brought it up.

>>2714925
>Math has axioms
>Therefore every assertion ever is equally valid

>>2714931
Indeed. It only matter who agrees with you and how many. I'm glad we're getting somewhere

>>2714935
And, going back to the picture in the OP, your assertion that all assertions are equally valid is self-defeating bunk. Care to try again?

>>2714938
>pinker
>not pseudo-science

Would you expect anything less from a dying continent? Anglo Celt philosopher has always been superior. Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche for all their minor additions to Hume's work, just added nonsense to the majority of it.

>>2714942
>/lit/ takes Freud and Jung seriously
>considers Pinker to be pseudo-science

>>2714938
Insisting people don't understand your work is not the same as telling them it's objective so there is no contradiction.
Everyone has their myths of coping with existence, attempting to understand it or whatever. There is no objective one. Even if there was we'd never figure out how it was objective. There is only subjective attempts with a complex mix of conflict and agreement between them.

>>2714946
>evo psych
>testable predictions

pick one

You're not fooling me, OP.
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE

>>2714857
>logic in the singular

>>2714857
>you ask them if it's true for everyone that there's no truth for everyone.

the answer would be no. but it's an interpretation held by many and they are trying to convince and conflict with other interpretations just like any other interpretation that claims objectivity.

Evo Psych actually makes a ton of sense since it attempts to step out of our limited viewpoint and see us for what we really are, animals that developed with certain traits that were useful.

>>2714948
>Insisting people don't understand your work is not the same as telling them it's objective so there is no contradiction.
Yes, it is. If you're not claiming what your work objectively is, you're at the very least claiming what it objectively isn't, and this is an assertion of objectivity about your work. Derp.

beware my mighty lojjiks

>>2714959
yeah, it makes a lot of sense, until you actually think about it

>>2714959
Do you even science?

this is what commoners actually believe
enjoy your bullshit pop-psych

>>2714963
>Decry logic
>While using a computer

>implying derrida was a philosopher and not just a well-read sophist

Sokal seems like an autistic prick but I still enjoyed how he schooled all those pretentious postmodernist fags.

>>2714970
the sophists were great philosophers you nub, they only have a bad reputation because of history's fellating socrates

>>2714952
>Any social science
>Testable predictions

>>2714974
Who said anything about social sciences?

>>2714980
Psychology is a social science, Sherlock.

>>2714982
Not really, but OK.

evo biology > evo psych

>HURR DURR IT MAKES SENSE1!111!!!
>evopsychlogic

>>2714984
>Social science is the field of study concerned with society and human behaviors. "Social science" is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences. These include: anthropology, archaeology, criminology, economics, history, linguistics, political science and international relations, sociology, geography, law, and psychology.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

In before the typical LOL WIKIPEDIA LOL anus ache.

>>2714982
well then what's the harm? neither freud nor pinker are scientific. science is just unwarranted criteria for measurement in the social sciences

>Your daily reminder that continental philosophy is intellectual snake oil.
Says the person who's probably never read any of it.

Most of it's ideas have been widely distributed through culture, as well as being on wikipedia and seop

>>2714991
LMAO WIKIPEDIA LMAO

>oh god my sides

Well, dunno.

I've read plenty of those guise.
> Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, J.L. Nancy, Blanchot, Deótte, et. al.

I've look upon Miller and DeMann (maybe misspelled, sorry), but they're in the gray area. I'd say they're continental anyway.

And i think that all of them are bullshit. Fuck. Anyway, people should read about the Zocal (or Zocale, don't remember) thing, pretty funneh.

> tfw qualia exists, and this thread is full of LOGIC

>>2714944
>Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche for all their minor additions to Hume's work, just added nonsense to the majority of it.

You went too far. Particularly on Kant.

>>2716858

>qualia
>exists

Goodness was I ever trolled. It's like when someone says, "I'm an alumni of x."

The scientist stood in his lab. He was very busy removing the pesky gamma branch from his benzene ring when an English major wanted to play.
"Do you believe life has any meaning" demanded the English student, he is desperate to be in the lab and philosophy is his only tool.

"Go away, I'm busy. Look kid, there probably isn't any meaning to anything" Replied the busy Scientist.

"ahha, you're a nihilist, you can't survive without philosophy, I caught you out" shrieked the English student, rubbing his hands together and drooling from the side of his mouth.

"I'm not doing philosophy" yawned the scientist. "I just analyze and interpret the evidence. Stop trying to label everything with redundant buzzwords"

"But you took a philosophical stance, I'm important too"

"No, I just lean towards whatever the data suggests. I don't actually subscribe to any theories, I just gather data to support or reject them. Look I really am busy, can you either identify whether those are aminos by their carboxyl group, or just leave"

The door hit the English student on his way out.

I left lit last december because these circlejerk threads that go nowhere. Seems things haven't changed. (and I know you don't care)

>>2719028
and it's with that attitude that science is at i's least reflective as it becomes an ideology.

>>2719057

>>2719042
>implying

Following Heidegger, continentals concerned themselves primarily with the relation of culture and language to the way we interpret the world. Their "discovery" that out interpretations are contingent on our historicity and that even our systems of evaluative logics could have been different is of equal importance in the social sciences as Newton's "discovery" of universal law is to mechanics. Both are philosophical discoveries.

>>2719028

Some times science types piss me off to no end.

>>2719093
I can't tell if
>implying
was about my post or you somehow knew that i left /lit/ for /mu/

>>2719112
Oh for fuck's sake, stop with the bullshit. You're not fooling anyone.

>>2719112
Could you explain "historicity" to me, because it's always a concept I've had difficulty wrapping my head around.

>>2719110
Just tell them Atheism (capital A) is a religion and laugh when they can only say "Is bald a hair color?"

>>2719131

I don't mean it in a technical sense. I just mean one's place in history; his firsthand relation to the past, present and future cultures, geography, technologies, ideologies, etc.

>>2714845
>Critical Theory fuckwit
>complaining about false claims to objectivity

>>2719178
Foucault, for all his faults, said it best.
Derrida was an obscurantist terrorist.

Who needs philosophy when we can just interpret the evidence?