/lit/ - Literature

mental inbreeding

I think he is quite good

>>3976730
let me clarify

I'm talking about academia in general, not Derrida specifically. I think he's just a popular figure of the kind of thing I'm getting at. It's largely a French phenomenon with roots in Germany, but it has spread everywhere.

>>3976730
he's the one asking

>>3976733
I don't think theory is the problem with the academia.
I think that the problem with the academia is overspecialization, low wages and the pressure to publish to keep your job and being dependent of public opinion for your funds.

The result is a system that prizes mediocrity and hacks because it is a system geared towards not intelligence but its reproduction.

It's because the subtlety, culture and dedication of people like Heidegger and Derrida was abandoned that the academia has gone bad in the humanities.

>>3976744
Yeah. It's a structural-economic problem, more or less across academia as such (obviously less in certain areas), not necessarily related to the bad will of anyone involved.

Plato's dualism derailed the shit, and the medieval scholastic just finished the job and took it completely off rails.

Contemporary academia is just todays symptom of the same illness that gave birth to our civilization, and will remain there until it is over. Some centuries are needed for that.

>>3976754
>Plato's dualism derailed the shit
Oh this is just lovely, you can always count on some anti-realist neckbeard virgin that has not only misunderstood Plato, but has no arguments for it.

Stick to your Dawkins, please.

>>3976754
>Plato's dualism derailed the shit
Oh this is just lovely, you can always count on some anti-manifold neckbeard virgin that has not only misunderstood Plato, but has no arguments for it.

Stick to your Parmenides, please.

>>3976829
>Dawkins

0/10 try again

>>3976725
it's parents didn't give it enough hugs, anon. let this be a lesson, should you ever have your own little ones.

>>3976865
Dawkins is the msot overated philosopher on our times. Just because he got some problems with USA creationist education he had a career.
He's smart as a journalist.

>>3976868
>Dawkins

>>3976829
Moreover, I think it's about time we made a list depicting the great thoughts of the average 14 year old on the internet who has had no prior experience with reading philosophy and who merely regurgitates the socially constructed knowledge of modern science; though not necessarily. Sometimes, he relies on his own genius, e.g., his arguments are usually in the form of:

i) Argument for the blatant dismissal of Plato:
>Premise 1: Either Plato's work is wholly outdated or modern science has proved Plato wrong.
>Premise 2: Plato's work is wholly outdated and modern science has proved Plato wrong.
>???
>Conclusion: Plato is wrong; there are no Forms.

ii) Argument for the non-existence of abstract entities: namely, numbers.
>Premise 1: If I can't see something, it is non-existent.
>Premise 2: I can't see numbers.
>Conclusion: Numbers are non-existent.

>>3976868
I've never thought about Dawkins as a philosopher, but I thought the point of him being considered interesting was his theories bout memes and adaptation. The atheism part sure made him famous (at least on the USA, at my uni people don't know that much about this shit), but isn't considered interesting from an academic point of view...

>>3976882
Though, with these arguments, I've been somewhat gentle: in reality, they are usually plain ad hominem attacks with no coherent reasoning behind them.

>>3976886
Have you read Dave Stove's (analytic philosopher) book shitting on Dawkins' selfish genes etc. abstract entities and comparing them with gods/fairytales/fables?

Cuz its just a money grab bruh

>how did academia get this bad?
why do you say that it's bad?

>>3976908
No. I don't know much about Dawkins' theories (never read his books directly). But his theory about memes adapting and reproducing in a similar way than dna is well known.

What was the main bone of the critic against him? (I find it interesting, but not enough to read a whole book about it).

>>3976725
Academia is not that bad. Derrida and the other academic elites are not representative of the entire industry. Derrida found a way to make money off of postmodernism (and being a sexy Frenchman). There is still scholarly work being done in academia. For example, all scientific research laboratories in most universities are filled with academics attempting to solve real world problems. Philosophy departments like CMU, UCLA and UIUC are just some of many that contribute highly technical work to the advancement of knowledge.

>>3976934
I never understood the sexy part

>>3976937
I kinda get it. Using big words, getting shitty off of wine, smoking a pipe and wearing worn suits could be hot if you have a daddy complex.

>>3976934
I think that what you are talking of is the worse thing that has happened.
There are no more intellectuals now, only engineers.
No wonder there is so little understanding of art and philosophy only among our cultured elites.

>>3976976
>There are no more intellectuals now, only engineers.
>No wonder there is so little understanding of art and philosophy only among our cultured elites.
oh please
>being nostalgic for a time that didn't exist

>>3976976
man do you seriously believe the shit you spew? just because you're lonely doesn't mean that your availability heuristic is right. there are intellectuals everywhere.

>>3976829
>being a Platonic realist
m-muh indispensability!

>>3976744
>I think that the problem with the academia is overspecialization, low wages and the pressure to publish to keep your job and being dependent of public opinion for your funds.

this

>>3976976
which would you have
a bunch of faggots talking nonsense and drawing shitty pictures
or have a bunch of smart people building things that progress technology and society
?

>>3976991
Daily reminder that science has proved that Victorians were at least 10 IQ points smarter than the average person today.

> hurr durr people were always this stoopid

>read a text book on quantum physics with no science or math background
>i-it doesn't make any sense!
>quantum physics is for charlatans!

>>3977008
You're just a sad kid impotent of any abstract thought, spewing your knee-jerk reactions to anything that doesn't fit into your narrow and ignorant world-view.

I'll tell you what, read upon some Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, do some work with Set Theory and come back to me if you still think that Platonism is "irrelevant", "outdated" and isn't a viable position when it comes to the ontology of abstract entities.

>>3977016
>a bunch of smart people building things that progress technology and society

Where is the progress in some shitty useless application added to a cell phone every year? Or Suri in a car? That is the pinnacle of 'progress' right now. At least those faggots are doing what they love and not slaving away making their superiors rich as fuck.

>>3977028
lol there's a giant difference between the difficulty in science and humanities. nice try english major

baby boomers

>>3977016
>Thinking that science and technology will bring progress to society

A bunch of virgins who can't into thinking by themselves, playing LOL or following any trend ain't gonna move this world for the better, son

>>3977016
How can you progress society when you don't know yet what it is to live?

>>3977028
Anyone of intelligence had the "it doesn't make sense" reaction when they learned about quantum mechanics. The difference is physicists are willing to admit that it is seemingly impossible and very confusing and so we can assume that they're not just making shit up for laughs

>>3977032
But Field has shown that scientific theory reliant upon mathematical abstracta can be reduced to pure logic. Believing in anything that is not concrete is simply unjustified. Prove me wrong without appealing to science.

>>3976994
And yet we live in a world where literature is seen as pedagogy or entertainment and no one sees what's wrong with that.

We live in a period where there is no theory of art.

And where the hottest trend in literary criticism is big data and digital humanities.

>>3977070
>But Field has shown
Lmao. Again, read upon "Philosophy of Mathematics" and "Philosophy of Logic".

All in all, I think you've missed the point of my post.

>>3977042
What does that have to do with anything? What I'm pointing out is that there is a clear hierarchy of understanding that people respect when it comes to the sciences, and that hierarchy exists in all fields of study yet everybody acts like they've spotted the emperor with no clothes when they skip ahead in philosophy and can't understand anything.

>>3977066
You don't know much about the history of thought, don't you?

>>3977085
Namedropping entire fields of study does not make you appear educated. You've yet to make any contention against why Field's nominalism is inadequate. I have studied logic and mathematical philosophy extensively. If you want discussion, please put forth some semblance of an argument.

>>3977071
>literature is seen as pedagogy or entertainment and no one sees what's wrong with that
What's wrong with that?

>>3977157
That literature is art.
It can be entertaining, it can teach you stuff, but it has an aesthetic component.
And it's worrisome that people have totally forgotten about that. And when they remember often they are openly hostile to it blaming any aesthetic endeavor as elitist.

>>3977117
I'm not here to argue in the sense that you thinking of; I'm just clarifying that Platonism is still a viable position of Ontology (not that it isn't false). It seems like some ignoramuses are not able to accept it (the position, not whether it is true or false).

I'm not interested in a realist/anti-realist debate. You can vibrate your penis elsewhere.

>>3977175
you are thinking of*

>>3977027
> Daily reminder that science has proved that Victorians were at least 10 IQ points smarter than the average person today.
How so?

>>3977170
Oh yeah, definitely. Now my question seems stupid.
But that's the problem with all arts now, it's impossible to have a decent conversation about music with most people I meet...

I'm a 26 year old computer scientist, MSc in Data Mining that has never bothered with philosophy or literature, apart from entertainment.

Teach me the error of my ways. Why am I being an incomplete academic, and how?

>>3977219
You are not. The problem is when lit Crits try to be data miners. Besides that I'd say you are an incomplete person not having experienced fully the highest achievement of the human mind in the arts. I have studied frege, godel, cantor and hilbert. You have no excuse for not studying Dante or Milton.

Too much reflection, too little decision.

The academians will talk what isn't a legitimate definition of art and what isn't legitimate power ad nauseum, but they are individually and as a collective too reflective to come to a decision on what is beautiful in art or what is just in government. This is why they get nowhere, they can't agree on the first principles.
The old men of learning took a position and defended it. The new men of learning have a "historical" or "genealogical" perspective that looks at all other perspectives, reaches an "aporia" and then quits.

>>3977219
I'm not going to give you what you're asking for, but I will give you some life advice: asking for people to convince you of the merits of something that you don't care about only makes you come off as lazy and arrogant. This isn't a game of "complete" academics, either. If you're interested in something, read about it. Otherwise, don't. What you end up doing doesn't actually matter to anybody.

Philosophy's central question changed slowly over time, from a Socratic "know yourself" and an Aristotelian "how am we to live well?" to a nihilistic and scientific desire to understand the workings of reality. The philosopher took himself out of the equation, seeing himself as a detached observer.

In spite of voices such as Nietzsche and Pierre Hadot, it is the underlying historical factors (the scientific revolution, rationalism, the professionalization of philosophy and academia and backlashes within academia against these things) which have led to this state of affairs.

that being said, Derrida is not that bad compared to others

>>3976868
>Dawkins
>Philosopher

>>3977345
what's up Dialectic of Enlightenment?

because modernism thrives on novelty

Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students [Paperback]
Allan Bloom (Author), Andrew Ferguson (Afterword), Saul Bellow (Foreword)

>>3977345
Also because we are in a much unified society today.
We have developed a praxis of living (got to school, go to college, get a job, obey the laws and exercise) which the majority does not feel compelled to abandon or question. Thus the research is completely addressed to sedate questions and to try to extend it to as many people as possible.

Clearly a situation like this is not exactly friendly for the humanities not dedicated to reassure us that all our believes are correct.

I mean look at the shit climate science gets despite being pretty up there in terms of solidity. Much more solid than any philosopher can hope to be.

>>3976886
>but I thought the point of him being considered interesting was his theories bout memes and adaptation

Which is less 'philosophy' and more 'sociology'.

>>3977345
>from a Socratic "know yourself"
This is not wholly accurate and exclusively so

>scientific desire to understand the workings of reality.
Except that science isn't really getting at what's really real.

>>3977359
as an expression of the repression of the ever-same conformity by which it subsists and expands

>>3977373
yeah the scientistic domination of nature was latent in Socrates himself; where knowledge becomes an end in itself over the mythic predecessors (Nietzsche in Birth of Tragedy is semi-right here)

>>3977375
that doesn't necessarily disprove me
it can only expand so much

>>3977383
i wasn't trying to disprove you

>>3977375
I need to get back on Adorno.
He gives me the words to speak of my pain for which I have none.

>>3977373
What is really real?

>>3977375

>>3977394
That, my friend, is the domain of Ontology, which, again, is wholly philosophical.

>>3977403
>beautiful
>not the sublimity of the non-identical

enjoy your Auschwitz, barbarian.

>>3977408
This thread reminds me of why I hate /lit/. You are so fucking far up your own ass.

The humanities suffer lack of intellectual diversity. If someone has a dissenting opinion they are immediately shunned and disbarred. You'll notice it by the amount of "closet republicans" amongst faculty staff on universities.

>>3977420
It's because of people like you with no sense of humor that I hate /lit/.

>>3977420
ha ha what the fuck. did i hit a nerve there, identitarian scum?

>>3977420
>Worrying about closet republicans.
>As if anyone gives a fuck outside of the US.
>As if american republicans have any sort of intellectual integrity or foundation.

>>3977420
>muh ad hominem
>muh emotions
>muh zero arguments

get the fuck out.

>>3977432
>>As if american republicans have any sort of intellectual integrity or foundation.

they've certainly got more than pseudo-Keynseian touchy-feely hyper-populist windbags called democrats

>>3977438
Nah I wouldn't say more. I would say the same.
Also Republicans become touchy-feely hyper-populists as soon as that makes them popular.

>>3977117

i wish there were more posts like this on /lit/

>>3977465
Except that his post isn't really saying anything.

>i wish there were more posts like this on /lit/
Let me translate this:

All you wish for is seeing how someone reacts against something that you (a) dislike, and (b), something you can't argue for yourself because you know too little of the subject.

sup

>>3977189
If he means Victorian Europe then the explanation is obvious: nearly no minorities to bring the average IQ down.

>>3977511
No. He's talking about a very dumb long time scale meta-analysis of reaction time studies that made some headlines recently, and has been thoroughly debunked since.

>>3976725
When people start tihnking doing a degree,masters and phd in
critical theory of east african origami film studies, and are surprised to be unemployed with a stack of college you know the system is screwing you big time


I majored in music but at least i have a steady job in it and future looks fairly bright, its like a trade skill

>>3977541
I think it's wrong that they make you pay for it and then they expect you to get a job.

How can you be critical (in the sense of discerning) when you have to comply with societal expectations of usefulness?

>>3977553
>How can you be critical (in the sense of discerning) when you have to comply with societal expectations of usefulness?

>>3977588
You mock me, but probably I'm the one with a well paying job between us two.

>>3977605
Not him, but - that of course totally devaluates his argument, hm?

>>3977345
>Philosophy's central question
>people believe that philosophy has a central question

>>3977611
Well his reply presumes that I have an interest in sustaining that position. i.e. that I argue against societal expectations of usefulness because I'm either unable or unwilling to fulfill them.
I answer that I'm neither and that if he wants to sustain his position on why the academia has gone badly he has to resort to better arguments than "they are not helping kids to find jobs".

>>3977117


dirty nominalist scum are holding back AI research.

theres not enough potential processing power in the universe for a truly positivist general intelligence.

>>3976744
>being dependent of public opinion for your funds

this results in >>3976728

>>3977027
>Daily reminder that science has proved that Victorians were at least 10 IQ points smarter than the average person today.

[citation needed]

and you better not be citing the moronic professor with his speculative bullshit lel

>>3977432
>hurdur intellectual diversity bad because i'm intellectually superior to all

lel

>>3977772
doesn't the flynn effect say the exact opposite?
i wouldn't be surprised if victorians had better concentration and some were more well read.

>>3977420

I, personally, know of four openly Republican academics studying political philosophy/political sciences at U Chicago under conservative professors. On top of that, the University of Central Florida's small Philosophy faculty, for example, is crazy diverse, with Queer theorists, conservative political thinkers, continentals and analytics. Your wild generalizations don't have any merit.

>>3977189
Keep in mind that drop in iq is relatively recent as smart women have much fewer children now compared to the past.

>>3978009
You're incredibly stupid.
The world is not how you think it might be based on reactionary logic.

>>3978042
>this world is not how you think
>it's actually according to how I think!

>>3977809
You are not asking for diversity on intellectual grounds, you are asking for diversity on political grounds.

That's stupid whoever does it, right or left.

>>3976733
Inflation.

>>3978009
>women have much fewer children now compared to the past.
so the study is only restricted to europe and the usa? because in case you didn't know, the world population is growing at a faster rate than ever. maybe the average iq is lower now because the increase in education institutions can't catch up to the rate of people begin born?