/lit/ - Literature

Cause they are right.

>>5798515

Real intellectuals go to /sci/, /lit/ is the dregs and washups of academia.

>>5798515
>Austrian Economist
>Half-rate analytic libertarian philosopher
None of these things are relevant or worth talking about

>>5798522
>Real intellectuals go to /sci/

>>5798521
No

>>5798525
Menger was important.
Nozick was important.

You'll see both of them extensively cited in the literature review of the 20th century. Where do you think the utility monster came from or the idea of marginal utility? Hell, Nozick wasn't even an Austrian.

REACTIONARIES DON'T PRIVILEGE THE ECONOMIC

>>5798515
Because they are neither important nor interesting.

ppl yap about Hayek all the damn time. Hayek not good enough for you?

>>5798539
Yes

>>5798542
>Where do you think the utility monster came from
Unimportant thought experiment designed to justify capitalism
>or the idea of marginal utility?
Irrelevant bourgeois economics
>Hell, Nozick wasn't even an Austrian.
No, he's the half-rate analytic libertarian philosopher. Menger is the Austrian economist.

>>5798515

because we're serious minded people. austrian economics and libertarian philosophy is not serious. only a fanatical niche audience (of which you seem to be a part) takes their work seriously.

>>5798560
>Unimportant thought experiment designed to justify capitalism
It was meant to be a critique on utilitarianism (which also extends into welfare economics I suppose). It wasn't meant to "justify capitalism."

>Irrelevant bourgeois economics
Nice fucking bait. 4/10, almost got me to go full autism.

>>5798542

you grossly overemphasize the importance of these people. the reality is that they are irrelevant because their ideas are wrong and minor.

>>5798559
No, anything left of the Democrats areally wrong.

>>5798570
Then why do you take Marxism seriously?

>>5798574
>Nice fucking bait. 4/10, almost got me to go full autism.
>Implicating that it is wrong
Stay bourgeois

>>5798570
Menger IS one of the leaders of the marginalist revolution, his work on the subjective theory of value is still accepted today. Nozick wrote a lot on utility that that proved useful for the realm of economics while also being somewhat popular in philosophy itself (though, to be honest, many 20th century philosophers came about a utility monster through their own works, while not explicitly calling it that).

Hell, I can switch this out with nearly any economist/philosopher. John Stuart Mill, Ricardo, Schumpeter, Wicksell, et cetera. Nobody will talk about these people, but plenty of people here talk about the total reductio ad absurdum that is Marxist philosophy/economics.

>>5798515
lolbertarianism is invalid, that's why

>>5798515
But that's wrong; Nozickthreads are some of the best threads on /lit/

>>5798577
In every microeconomics book, you'll see the Subjective Theory of Value and Marginalist school mentioned. I've seen a lot of graduate papers criticizing Coase and, what they say are his normative claims, with Nozick's utility monster. Menger being more important for economics than Nozick for philosophy, but still important nonetheless.

>>5798559
Marxism is mathematically impossible, fuck off retard.

>>5798597
>total reductio ad absurdum that is Marxist philosophy/economics.
Nice fucking bait. 4/10, almost got me to go full autism.

>>5798529

They do. In the 21st century, applicable knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, and math and the wisdom to know how and when to apply them to solve problems are the qualities of the modern intellectual. These minds (though rare because we're on a Cambodian animation website) will be found on /sci/, not /lit/,

Philosophers as intellectuals are floundering because there isn't much else to say on the subject which hasn't already been said; all that's left is empiric testing, which analytics handily won.

Consider: the analytic philosophies have more or less been vindicated and their proponents have since been curing diseases, designing the technologies of the future, and maximizing profits. The fruits of analytic philosophy have been rich and plentiful, and will continue to be into the future.

The continentals, while fun to talk about, don't have the same track record. Their crown gem, Marxism, was tried several times and failed each time, with massive bodycounts for the effort. While perhaps more interesting to discuss, as a whole they're pretty ineffective at causing real or meaningful change, and add little to the modern dialogue.

So, who still ascribes to the continentals then? Not the scientists, they're busy solving problems. Not the technologists, they're busy building the future. Not the elite, because they got where they are by analytic principles.

No. Only the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, and the academic are the remainder. Welcome to /lit/.

>>5798618
>So, who still ascribes to the continentals then? Not the scientists, they're busy solving problems. Not the technologists, they're busy building the future. Not the elite, because they got where they are by analytic principles.
LMAO
You honestly can't be serious

>>5798615
That's precisely what it is though. It's a reductio ad absurdum of Ricardian economics, it took Ricardian economics to its logical ends. Many schools of economics that defended free markets (or their idea of free markets) acknowledged this. Keynes explicitly mentions in his General Theory that his critique and upheaval of the classics is done not only to rebel against classical thinking, but also to stray away from Marxist economics, which relied heavily on a Ricardian system.

>>5798515
OP, the answer is that the Marxists have a theatrics about them which appeals to the imagination. It is like the uniforms of the Nazis. The uniforms alone inspire an inspiration of imagination, something to focus and dwell on, and it is this - not the philosophy or the ideals - which makes this or that subject fashionable and talked about.

>>5798624

I don't see anything wrong with that line.

>>5798628
Don't bother replying to him, he's just b8ing you, it's obvious by how you'll reply with a few sentences that are actually knowledgeable but he'll reply with 2 or 4 words.

>>5798515
Whenever someone says lit is the smartist board, remember that a significant portion subscribe to an utterly failed dehumanizing system

>>5798604
do you really expect a bunch of /lit/ fags to know that Marx is basically a historical footnote at any reputable economics program?

>>5798618
/lit/ BTFO

>>5798522
here is the frontpage of /sci/ at any given moment

>help me with my math homework thread #580,236,723
>what does /sci/ think about the inevitable singularity
>fractals, chaos theory
>"what you think about [contradiction] inherent in time travel?" thread # 8,243
>pi is a beautiful number
>i watched/read this sci-fi book/movie. does /sci/ think [implausible technology] is achievable in my lifetime?
>evo-psych, gender/race baiting
>antitheism thread veiled as atheism identity politics thread
>xkcd or smbc discussion thread
>drugs
>matlab/latex is confusing pls respond

/sci/ is as every bit a backwater as /lit/

Because every time you even mention anything remotely marxist or post structuralist every analytic schmuck on this board storms into the thread spouting bullshit on a topic they have no idea about. Everything they do not understand is obfuscate, arcane and _obviously_ wrong, since their community college prof said so. It also attracts poltards. Also, continentals are simply more interesting than a analytics.

>>5798682
Because economics classes are obviously situated firmly within the system. Modern economists are the biggest charlatans in the world btw, Lacan got shit on them.

>>5798690
sounds better than

>Zizek omg is he serious wow so dreamy
>Blood Meridian is le epic meme book
>Marx something
>Is The Judge the devil?
>Marx something
>pls rate this book I've never read
>Nabokov shitposting
>Marx something
>Blood Meridian so amazing wow my mind is blown to shred, such edge, such wit, such dread. wow how can i recover?

>>5798702
>Because economics classes are obviously situated firmly within the system.

tips fedora

>>5798702
>/pol/tards

I believe you mean casual students of 20th century history

>>5798710
then why do you keep coming here

>>5798725
nice argument fag

I wish lit had flags, all the Marxists are undoubtedly us undergrads

>>5798737
i wasn't making an argument. i asked you a question.

>>5798737
Lol you have to wake up every day and still be your pathetic, autistic self. You're the butt of your own joke and your life is its own insult.

Because this isn't a board where anyone cares about economics outside of a Marxist context, and even there they don't care about the economic aspect of his writings.
You should have been banned for posting about a real economist, that's not really on-topic, you cuckold.

>>5798773
>Economics have legitimacy as an academic discipline

>>5798791
Did I imply that?
I didn't mean to.

>>5798795
"real economist" does kinda imply that

Go to /pol/.

If socialists get flamed on /pol/, vermin like you ought to get flamed here. Sad, but you'll have to deal with it. :^)

>>5798803
You can be a "real" something without being an academic. Economics is a discipline, after all.
You're being a cuckold.

>>5798618
thanks for the pasta.

>>5798515
>Why must you circlejerk the Marxists?

Because our academic stipends depend on it.

>>5798810
Fuck off retard

>>5798826

Kill yourself inbred.

Stormcuck scum belong in /pol/, or better yet, in the ground.

It's funny how retards always think that you just have to be a capitalist if you're against Marxism.

>>5798832
I'm not from /pol/, I actually care for art so I'm apolitcal, retard.
> cuck
Go back to your containment board, fag
>>>/v/

> people actually believe in the Analytic/Continental divide
lolplebs

>>5798842
>You can't care about art and have a political opinion
>>>/b/
Cuck faggot. I bet your gay husband fucks other men in front of you on a regular basis.

>>5798851
You're a fucking retard that doesn't know shit about Aestheticsm, I swear Wilde's essays should be stickied

>>5798850
It's a meme to a greater degree than it is a reality.

>>5798690
>>5798522
ladies, ladies, well rounded patricians frequent both

>>5798853
Are you that same cuckold that made a fool of himself in that other thread by going off about Wilde for 20 posts and saying that art was more important than life itself?
How spooked can you get?

>>5798586
Nobody here takes the economic side of Marxism seriously. Even reactionaries don't take econ side of the right-wing seriously.

>>5798872
>Stirner is a spook
>Spooks are spooks
>Think you can just exercise yourself of spooks is a spook
>Thinking you've removed your spooks is a spook
>Yfw you're a slave to spooks without even knowing it

>>5798876
>Nobody here takes the economic side of Marxism seriously
>Implications
Fuck off fag

>>5798878
I know the spook is a spook, but art is a bigger spook.
Are you that same spooked cuckold?

>>5798884
>Are you that same spooked cuckold?
If you think you don't have spooks yourself you're lying to yourself
Stirner had spooks
Stirner thinking he was able to remove himself of spooks was a spook
That's why Stirner failed

Stirner is PURE ideology

>>5798889
I know I have spooks. Spooks are inescapable.
Are you that same cuckold?

>>5798889
I should write a Zizekian critique of Stirner as ideology for a philosophy thesis

>>5798894
I'm not that person
Also ebin le cuckold may may
i r8 8/10 chuckles my good gentlesir
an upboat 4 u

>>5798902
You seem like him. Wilde worship, posts full of memes, cuckoldry...

>>5798889
Stirner did not think you could evade all spooks.

>>5798895
Don't steal my ideas.

>>5798903
I've never read Wilde sadly
>>5798911
I've had this idea for awhile now
I got into Stirner when I was in like Middle School before I even knew of /lit/ so I've already the Stirner material digested

I just need to pick up more Zizek/Lacan and refresh myself of Stirner and I would write it

>>5798872
> Stirrer
filtered

>>5798919
?

>>5798560
the utility monster would be used as a justification against capitalism... stay pleb

>>5798618
>Their crown gem, Marxism

Implying Marx is a gem of continental philosophy.

Implying analytic philosophy has anything relevant to say about the subjectivity of human experience.

>>5798618

>>5798522
>/sci/

>>5800222
> acknowledges the divide
> hasn't read Kant or Hume
pleb

>>5798525

Okay, OP. I have about an hour to kill. Who do you want to talk about?

Mises, Rothbard, Hayek? One of the Austrians?

Milton or David Friedman?

Nozick?

I'm game. Fuck the Marxists.

>>5801063
>hasn't read Hegel
>isn't an idealist/materialist

I bet you're a mathematical realist too?

>Socialism is essentially the idea that you treat unequal people unequally, so as to make them equal. Unfortunately, that is almost never the way things actually work out in a socialist society.

Thomas Sowell

>>5798515
You are mistaken, OP. A 300 post thread is not the sign of a circlejerk. It's the sign of a bitter shit-flinging bitchfight.

Circlejerk threads usually go on for like, 10 posts before there's nothing left to say

>>5801191

I got your back bro.

Hayek/Friedman/Sowell can handle anything, be it economic or cultural Marxism.

>>5801208
>mfw Keynesian faggots

yeah utilitarianism is totally cool

>>5801191
Nozick is just a spoilt, petulant child that can't understand that we have to do things we don't want to.

Discuss.

>>5801199

Marxism is awful, but Thomas Sowell is an unoriginal hack

>>5801208
>>5801231

Agreed, love that Machinery of Freedom exists. If Rothbard doesn't turn you, Friedman will. I still think the utilitarians are wrong, but I'm glad the argument exists and I don't think anyone could have put it all together so concisely as David.

>>5801432
In the end, Nozick was right. If you stick to just the parts of ASU that were almost entirely just a critique of Rawls, then he's great. When he goes deeper into his world trying desperately to justify his belief that the state is immoral but a little bit is okay, then he loses me.

If you want to debate on where his critiques on Rawls fall flat then I'd love to engage you. I've written several papers (for school a few years back, nothing too serious) on the topic and find it quite entertaining,

>>5798521
This.

/thread

>>5801199
>socialism is wrong, and will never work because I say so

Thomas Sowell

>reading exclusively European philosophies
>reading exclusively 19-20th century philosophies
>citing "the Greeks" as their only classical influences

>>5801193
Hegel was wrong

>>5801857
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GOOD ONE FAGNON!!!

>>5801620
Wrong

>>5801862
He was, deal with it pleb

>>5798710
blood meridian really doesn't get talked about that much, it just gets recommended a lot

because it's good

>>5801857
He's not falsifiable, how are you going to prove that?

>>5801200

Bullshit.

Go to /v/ and post a thread with a Thousand Year Door Paper Mario image and some random combo of intro, pit, 1-8, and endgame,

(e.g. 3 > intro > endgame > 7 > 2 >>> 1 > 5 = pit > 4 >>>>> 6 = 8)

guaranteed 600 post circlejerk.

And yes, it's a circlejerk, just one that can't figure out why its jerking.

/lit/ is such a disgusting Marxist hellhole.
Sure, I fucking hate libertarians and every other market acolyte, but fuck, you guys are some of the most arrogant pricks around thinking any common sensical remark about your ideological pursuits being silly and possibly misguided isn't sophisticated enough to pay attention to.

Fuck you, you're exactly what right wing working class folks call bourgeois marxists.

>>5801922
Read and actually understand Kantor and then you'll see why
> B-B-BUT THEN I'LL HAVE TO LEARN REAL PHILOSOPHY
> B-B-B-BUT MUH STIRNER AND OTHER MEMEPHILOSPHERS

>tfw they deleted the film thread

>>5798881
then see >>5798607
fucking idiot

>>5798515
Because Zizek is interesting and has good ideas, whereas stupid American recycling of individualist, Lockian philosophy is boring as shit

>Marxism is mathematically impossible, fuck off retard.

Retarded.

>>5798889
Can I despookify myself by developing severe autism?

>>5798594
What a bourgeois alienated reactionary spectacle.

>>5798607
>It's mathematically impossible for the workers to own the means of production!
>Also I learned everything I know about Marxism from one slide in a powerpoint my econ 101 professor showed us

>>5802439
Fact.

>>5798690
Don't forget

>Does IQ matter?
> Does .99999.. actually equal 1?
> Does PopSci star#593 have any credibility?
> "Only retards get this wrong" N=NP
> le black science man
> Explain this complicated concept to me in laymans terms

>>5798690
10/10, however

nothing about AI, Yudkowski or whatever his name is, "uploading" your consciousness?

>>5801208
>cultural marxism

i puked

>>5798539
Thanks for the input.

>>5798583
>left
>Democrats
kek

>>5798515
>Why must you circlejerk the Marxists?
They reply to Marxist as opposed to Classically Liberal/Libertarian threads because they haven't read the latter even though I would assume most purport to be of that very school and thus can't adequately discuss it as opposed to Marxism which is just so damn easy to strawman and shitpost about.

/lit/ is an echochamber after all.

>>5803857
Again, anything left of the Democrats is wrong.

>>5798618

As someone who is thoroughly, intractably Analytic, it is clear to me you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I'm gonna go down your post and object to virtually everything you have to say.

First of all, it is absurd to assume that the natural sciences have suddenly displaced the humanities in the 21st century. Keep in mind that Analytic philosophy, which you seem to have such a hard-on for, is a part of the humanities, and not something empirical in the least, and its quantitative component (formal logic) is only an appendage, and not, I would assert, the "meat" of the thing. Analytic philosophy remains a fundamentally verbal thing, in spite of its rigor.

I also find it curious that you claim the superiority of Analytic philosophers but then go right back and claim that philosophers "are floundering." And I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the claim that "everything that can be said in philosophy has already been said" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard repeated by many people who are otherwise intelligent (note, however, that you do not quite fit in that category, as you are not otherwise intelligent). How can you fail to see the boundless potential of the Analytic method (and indeed, also the Continental "method," though I should say that it is boundless only in its potential to produce a whole lotta nothing), as philosophical questions are clarified, answered, raised, and made more complicated than previously thought by the march of the empirical sciences? Natural science and philosophy are not either/or things - they are the best of friends, at least when properly formulated. They challenge and stimulate eachother, and there are still a potentially limitless number of new things to say in and about both spheres. With one claim you reveal your profound ignorance and close-mindedness. Also, how is it that Analytics can "win" empirical testing (indeed, how can anybody "win" it? What does that even mean?) when they are not those who empirically test?

And I should love you to point me in the direction of a physician using distinctly Analytic methods to cue patients (and indeed, whole new diseases!), or a computer architect going at things from a Quinian point of view. While it may be true that most physicians, computer architects, and financiers look upon Analytic philosophy with more favor (notice I say MORE favor - in all likelihood most of them don't give a damn about philosophy in any form) than Continental drivel, this has almost nothing to do with their work, and indeed I've met many successful doctors who have a hobby in the most obscure (and in my opinion inane) Postmodernists and phenomenologists. Nothing except Analytic philosophy is the fruit of Analytic philosophy. (cont.)

>>5804117
>>5798618
These posts have too many words in them

>marx or some other marxist fuck
kek

>>5804117

>Analytic

Stopped reading there.

Who wants to talk about how a citizen's income indexed to an NGDP target (of, say 4% growth a year) would end unemployment and bring unprecedented prosperity to all levels of society.

Leftism is a meme philosophy

>>5798618

There is no difference (at least in principle) between an Analytic cure for cancer and a Continental cure, though I should suspect the Continental would be far more likely to shun the "bourgeois, phallogocentric medicine" and instead begin casting incantations so as to coerce the evil spirit of Late Capitalism out of the unfortunate Dasein suffering the pancreatic cancer through means of sheer de-alienation and reinterpretation of the Metanarrative. Analytic philosophy has been a huge help in interpreting and coping with the progression of science in the 20th and 21st centuries, and many of the great Analytic political philosophers have been a great part of the discourse in Western nations, but this does not actually make Analytic philosophy responsible for the scientific progress it observes and indirectly stimulates.

The fact that you think the Continentals are "fun to talk about" further cements my weariness, but I suppose that's just an acquired bias of mine. It is also questionable that Marxism is their "crown gem," especially considering most Continentals nowadays shun Marx in some way or another. No doubt Marxism has been hugely important in the history of Continental philosophy. But the "crown jewel"? Doubtful. More likely phenomenology is (indeed, it should clue you in to Continental philosophy's suckiness that something as poorly executed as Heidegger's phenomenology is their crown jewel, but so it goes). And anyways, I find it highly dubious that Analytic philosophy has contributed more to "the modern dialogue" than Continental philosophy. This is not an insult. I believe Analytic philosophy to be too challenging and rigorous for the average person to even feel like he has comprehended it, whereas Continental philosophy, with its affected profundity and often polemically-presented, radical solutions to political problems, is easy for the disgruntled layman to at least feel like he understands. As such, I think Analytic philosophy has had on the whole a somewhat lesser influence on politics than Continental philosophy, but I don't take this to be much of a fault.

By the way, there are scientists, "technologists" (what the fuck does that mean), and members of "the elite" (huh?) who maintain profound interest in Continental "philosophy", and it is not, I would say, "Analytic principles" which were really the driving force behind these various groups' success. Has Analytic philosophy helped them along and directed them? Yes. Have they helped along Analytic philosophy? Yes. But Analytic philosophers cannot reasonably take credit for what successes they may have had.

By the way, need I remind you that most academic philosophers in the UK and USA are solidly Analytic.

On the whole: fuck yourself. You cast shame on the name of Analytic philosophy.

>>5804178

:^)

>>5804194

This was meant to reply to that:
>>5804117

Whoops.

>>5798515
What is funnier is the ones who circlejerk it the most aren't marxists but anti-marxists.
What do you think OP?

>>5804117
as someone who puts up with this scientism bullshit on a daily basis on this board, i thank you for your reply. i see it so much and this guy(s) is so stubborn in his/their view i don't bother trying to reply or explain anything.

>>5798810

>this is what Marxists A C T U A L L Y believe
>if we treat everyone poorly, everyone'll be OK!
Wow...I mean...wow...

>>5804194
ayy mr. smartfuck, doesn't canada count as the "us"?

>>5804403

I suppose not, but it should. North American Union when?

>>5804785
when russia rounds the north pole.

People actually talk about this crap like it makes a difference after they graduate?

If there's ever anything like a Marxist revolution, it will be started by working people, not liberal arts fags.

School was about the sacred grove of literature, not trampling it with your petty jargon crap.

>>5804191

a little mustard seed of truth there

>>5801199
>quoting Thomas Sowell

>>5798515
The Ultimate Marxist Shutdown:
it creates inequality, Who Watches the Watchers?
you do away with all semblance of class and then you are left with a bunch of workers right?
what's insentivising them to work? lets say food, this is a role that workers must fill, thus elevating them above the typical worker... who keeps them in check so that they arent skimming of the side?
Soldiers or Guards, further elevating workers above the elevated... they manage society society as ideological leaders typically live the high life.

Orwell really said it best; "all are equal, but some are more equal than others"

In Conclusion, Marxism is too romantic of an ideal to be implemented without estranging itself from the ideology. Remember kids, revolution also means 360 degrees

>>5804819
revolutions are often led by the educated...

>>5802573
>doesn't know how production works
Unless if you're okay with living in a self-subsistence agrarian economy Marxism will not work.

>>5806497
of course the jew would be mad

>>5806527
there are no "shutdowns" in political philosophy, you're a pleb

>>5806527
>means 360 degrees

You forgot the NOSCOPEZ MOUNTAIN DEW CHUG at the end there

Also, you dropped your fedora

>>5801518
Not sure if you're still in this thread, but my issue with Nozick is that, while I agree with many of critiques of Rawls, who I'm not a huge fan of myself, but it's just that my reaction tends to be "that's right, but we live in the real world". Nozick himself seems to have noticed this later in his career (of which I'm largely ignorant of), with the issue of inheritance.

I've also written an essay on Nozick recently, only like 1,200 words (focusing on the Wilt Chamberlin example) though and my understanding isn't as deep as I'd like

>>5798521
t. Sartre

>>5798521
/thread.

>>5798515
>lelbertarians

Was Hegel a proto-Marxist?

>>5798521
underrated post

>>5809735
see >>5801866

>>5810011
see >>5798539

>>5809991
No.
Hegel would not believe in revolution. He would be more of a progressist guy

>>5798722
more like

>strokes keffiyeh

>>5798515
>taking economics seriously, ever

You goofed, OP

>>5798515
Its a Hegelian board and Marxism is just a branch of it.

>>5810295
>Its a Hegelian board
No

Most the philosophers we talk about are

>>5810303
Because retards can't read real philosophers like Kant.

>>5798515
>a conversation i dont agree with is a circlejerk
are you an autist?

>>5798515
Good Marxists don't circlejerk, they try turning more people into Marxists.

>>5798515
because challenging ideas hurt lil babbies

>>5811503
is not his point tho

>reading comprehension