/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13027381]

When did you realise philosophy was just baseless speculation by faggots who are too narcissistic to just write fiction?
For me, it was after watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXPyCY7jbs

[Anonymous No.13027392]

>>13027381
Never realized that because I’m not a retard spooked by the totalizing “truth” of blind materialism

[R Æ V S S Q A N D V S !KNDYYIIins No.13027396]

>>13027381

YOU IGNORE WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY.

[Anonymous No.13027410]

>>13027381
When did you realise fiction was just baseless allegories by faggots who are too narcissistic to just write philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13027421]

>>13027392
>dude if you don't accept that toilets have some deeper ideological meaning you are just a blind materialist!

[Anonymous No.13027517]

>>13027421
You dont know what zizek means by ideology. Tell me then, what isn't blind speculation.

[Anonymous No.13027544]

>>13027517
>Tell me then, what isn't blind speculation.
Don't change the subject. Explain how fucking TOILETS are ideological.

[Anonymous No.13027574]

>>13027544
Im not changing the subject you ape, its literally the entire subject of the thread. Explain to me what you think he means and answer my basic question, if something is x then you must know something that isnt x, give me an example.

[Anonymous No.13027639]

>>13027574
you replied to the post about toilets, not to the op
and he means an underlying system of ideas in society, which is absorbed subconsciously by us all, even affecting us in our sleep

[Anonymous No.13027641]

>>13027544
Everything is ideological; the point is that ideology is so pervasive that it's the only thing you can appeal to in order to explain the varieties of European toilets.

[Anonymous No.13027655]

>>13027641
And what about those nations which have the same toilets as 'British toilets' then? I guess they have British ideology too. kek.

[Anonymous No.13027660]

>>13027392
this tbqh

[Anonymous No.13027701]

>>13027655
I don't think that was the point he was making, that you can only use a toilet that suits you ideologically; it was more a comment on their historical development

[Anonymous No.13027727]

>>13027639
Ok, and in what way would you say that toilets, an abstract technology that is controlled by multiple institutions within the public sphere is NOT affected by ideology?

[Anonymous No.13027764]

>>13027381
Im from Slovenia and i love this guy

[Anonymous No.13027770]

>>13027727
Toilets are just innocuous functional objects. There's no way to disprove Zizek's craziness, just as there's no way to disprove undetectable alien beings that resemble monkeys are not all around us.

[Anonymous No.13027777]

>>13027727
Toilets are just innocuous functional objects. There's no way to disprove Zizek's craziness, just as there's no way to disprove undetectable alien beings that resemble monkeys are all around us.

[Anonymous No.13027793]

>>13027777
see
>>13027701
it's ultimately not about their relative function. the British toilet is the most common because they colonized the most, it's proliferation has nothing to do with how it developed historically

[Anonymous No.13027801]

>>13027793
There's nothing ideological about them. The germans just didn't want toilet water splashing their fucking ass when they shit. Stop your schizophrenic speculation.

[Anonymous No.13027817]

>>13027801
why did the British want toilet water splashing on their ass? you have no alternative theory, which is ironically his whole point: regardless of what you want to think about toilets, the only way to analyze them in their material reality is ideological

[Anonymous No.13027841]

>>13027817
clearly the german architects saw the faults with british toilets (ie toilet water splashing) and tweaked it a bit to fix the problem. this happens all the fucking time.
>the only way to analyze them in their material reality is ideological
HAHAHAHA i'd sooner accept it was a coincidence than its being ideological

[Anonymous No.13027995]

>>13027544
If you use a toilet you are placing the comfort of modernity and state over independent living. Using toilets is an act of statism and anti primitivism.

[Anonymous No.13028141]

>>13027381
I always observe my shits because I have an irrational fear of intestinal parasites

[Anonymous No.13028159]

Philosophy is the poetry of things we do not know

[Anonymous No.13028181]

>>13027817
>why did the British want toilet water splashing on their ass?

they didnt want the poo to stain the porcelain, as in that picture. disgusting.

[Anonymous No.13028186]

>>13027841
actually it has to do with an outdated custom in continental Europe where it is considered good praxis to smell and observe your shit to see if there's anything wrong with it (worms, ect.)

[Anonymous No.13028190]

>>13028181
>Germans are philosophical
>British are practical
Zizek did it again

[Anonymous No.13028197]

>>13027381
I want to be a public speaker / philosopher but I'm too young (24) and I fear my deep hatreds will emerge.
Some philistines in pubs in England think I'm from Brooklyn just because I want to talk to them about aesthetic social theory and systemic fashion choices.

[Anonymous No.13028212]

>>13028190
Lmao you could justify the opposite with the same logic. Germans are practical because they want to inspect their shit to see if they are healthy while britons want to keep everything clean because they are philosophical and strive for beauty. It's all nonsense speculation. And this ideology schtick is central to his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13028218]

>>13027544
why is it so hard to accept that a common thing we use can be determined by ideology? when you say that morality is ideological it is okay, but when you talk about architecture, then its something different, no way such common thing can be ideological. fucking anglos man

[Anonymous No.13028241]

your mistake is assuming that everything zizek says is meant to be taken literally and/or seriously

[Anonymous No.13028249]

>>13027381

you should really gain an appreciation for baseless speculation
It's the only way to live

[Anonymous No.13028256]

>>13028241

but we should think of all objects as being ideological. like coke bottles, starbucks coffees, toilets, ode to joy. thats literally a movie he did.

[Anonymous No.13028257]

>>13028212
sure, that's fine, his point is ideology is the only line of analysis for a toilet's material development through history. are you sure you're not missing something here?

[Anonymous No.13028259]

>>13028218
Of course architecture can be influenced by ideology. The ideology of a small countryside village will be represented in the way their houses are structured and authoritarian states might express their ideology in buildings like pic related. However what Zizek said is retarded.

[Anonymous No.13028264]

>>13028259
he's just taking this idea to it's logical conclusions; it's a joke but it's also making a serious point about the importance and pervasiveness of this idea

[Anonymous No.13028275]

>>13028257
>sure, that's fine
It's the exact opposite of what Zizek said lol. If you can use an interpretive framework to support two contradictory assertions your framework is useless.
>his point is ideology is the only line of analysis for a toilet's material development through history
Two explanations have been given to you: they didn't want toilet water to splash their ass, and they wanted to inspect their shit to see if they are healthy.

[Anonymous No.13028314]

The peak irony of your statement op is that in itself is a philosophy

[Anonymous No.13028341]

>>13028275
>If you can use an interpretive framework to support two contradictory assertions your framework is useless
>he skipped Plato
name one interpretive frame work that doesn't support contradictory assertions you fucking mong. think about the words you are saying, "they didn't", they as in the Germans? as in the Germans had a different cultural position which informed the way they constructed toilets? because this is literally Zizek's point

[Anonymous No.13028369]

okay

[Anonymous No.13028388]

>>13027381
>>13027392
>>13027396
>>13027410
>>13027421
>>13027517
>>13027544
>>13027574
>>13027639
>>13027641
>>13027655
>>13027660
>>13027701
>>13027727
>>13027764
>>13027777
>>13027793
>>13027801
>>13027817
>>13027841
>>13027995
>>13028141
>>13028159
>>13028181
>>13028186
>>13028190
>>13028197
>>13028212
>>13028218
>>13028241
>>13028249
>>13028256
>>13028257
>>13028259
>>13028264
>>13028275
>>13028314
>>13028341
>>13028369

Friendly reminder that toilets aren't ideological, and anyone who says otherwise is asking to be sectioned immediately

[Anonymous No.13028396]

>>13028341
>name one interpretive frame work that doesn't support contradictory assertions you fucking mong.
Let's see: math, logic, and science are three big ones. You'll never be able to assert "P and not P" in any of those disciplines.
>think about the words you are saying, "they didn't", they as in the Germans? as in the Germans had a different cultural position which informed the way they constructed toilets?
HAHAHAHA yeah german ideology is not wanting to get toilet water on your ass, good one. Such a liberal use of the term makes it vacuous. What, then, does one have to do to escape ideology? Be an emotionless, reserved, unaffected, docile zombie? Everyone knows this isn't what Zizek meant.
He said, very explicitly, that German toilets are this way because Germans are into poetry and philosophy and metaphysics(lets ignore the wealth of German scientists and the fact that 'German' can be used as an adjective to mean cold and austere) and that this is somehow linked to observing your shit. Does Zizek then think that observing anything means you have this ideology? Because doctors do similar observations of their patients, yet most people think doctors are practical instead of artistic. Britons are deemed 'practical' and 'rational' by him, and again he asserts that this is linked with British toilets. Naturally he doesn't address why not checking your shit to see if you're healthy is more rational than doing that.

Mindless psychobabble. I have no respect for this "philosopher".

[Anonymous No.13028405]

>>13028388
Basically this

[Anonymous No.13028419]

do germans really check their shit to see if theyre healthy? like you stand up before you wipe?

[Anonymous No.13028421]

>>13028396
>Let's see: math, logic, and science are three big ones. You'll never be able to assert "P and not P" in any of those disciplines
Math: X = 5; X = 6
Logic: learn about the difference between valid and sound syllogisms retard
Science: You know scientists disagree with each other all the fucking time right? Is this a joke? you can't be this retarded

[Anonymous No.13028427]

>>13028396
>imagine being this much of a brainlet
not going to lie anon I feel bad for you after that one

[Anonymous No.13028436]

>>13028421
Holy shit nice digression bro, just ignore the most important part of my post.
>Math: X = 5; X = 6
X is not simultaneously 5 and 6. It is 5 at one time, 6 at another.
>Logic: learn about the difference between valid and sound syllogisms retard
Valid: structure of the argument is good, the conclusion follows from the premises
Sound: valid and the premises are true
Where's the contradiction
>Scientists disagree
Not my point at all.

>>13028427
Nice refutation

[Anonymous No.13028445]

>>13028436
>X is not simultaneously 5 and 6. It is 5 at one time, 6 at another.
I can see why you chose liberal arts instead. X = 5, 6 at the same time.

[Anonymous No.13028449]

>>13028388
>sectioned
I want Angloids to GTFO

[Anonymous No.13028452]

>>13028436
Zizek doesn't believe his interpretation AND your interpretation at the same time, that's obviously not what I meant, I meant his framework allows for the analysis to work either way, the same way you can have a different integer for a variable, or a logical syllogism that isn't sound, or two scientists using the scientific frame work to get to contradicting positions. Just because you come up with an interpretation that disagrees with someone else's, that doesn't disprove the framework any more than an unsound argument disproves logical validity. if you are not able to follow my arguments, how on earth do you expect to follow a continental philosopher?

[Anonymous No.13028454]

>>13028445
5 or 6. or =/= and. But I do admire how you've managed to cling onto the marginal point of my post while ignoring my main critique of Zizek. It's like you can't defend him.

[Anonymous No.13028456]

>>13028454
not me, please keep up, this an anonymous website. see
>>13028452

[Anonymous No.13028458]

>>13028436
you're right btw

[Anonymous No.13028467]

>>13028454
I'm not that dude, you just have no fucking clue how math works. If its not an applicable analogy, its time to change your approach and you need to know that before asserting something false as something true, just to prove another UNRELATED point.

[Anonymous No.13028470]

>>13028436
you must know absolutely nothing about mathematics or logic to make that assertion, read Godel, in fact read literally anything past the high school level math you peaked at. Furthermore, how does science not contradict itself in its framework? What the hell do you think science is?

[Anonymous No.13028481]

>>13028470
i think youre confusing the fruits of science's framework with its actual framework

[Anonymous No.13028487]

>>13028388
put on the glasses. PUT ON THE GLASSES

[Anonymous No.13028496]

>>13028452
>Zizek doesn't believe his interpretation AND your interpretation at the same time
It's not my interpretation. I don't believe Germans are inherently practical while the English are poetic and artistic. I was using it as an example for how you can support anything, even contradictory assertions, when you view it through something as vague and flimsy as ideology. In fact both interpretations are equally plausible under this framework and there can be no possible argument made or evidence given that would support Zizek's interpretation over my example. That is why it is worthless.
It's like abstract art in which everyone can find a meaning, and where everyone's meaning is as valid as the next person's. That's what happens when you try find philosophical meaning in toilets.
>>13028456
You never responded to my critique either. See: >>13028396

[Anonymous No.13028497]

>>13028481
Im confused alright you absolute cleft, confused at what you mean by science, hence I asked, what the hell do you think science is?

[Anonymous No.13028508]

>>13028496
>In fact both interpretations are equally plausible under this framework
no, not every valid argument is sound, do we need to go over this again?
>It's like abstract art
I seriously think you just really don't want to read Plato
>You never responded to my critique either
see
>>13028421

[Anonymous No.13028522]

Isn't it most likely that plain materialism is all there is any any philosophy beyond is merely baseless wishful thinking?
It's nihilist, but it seems entirely reasonable to me.
Just animals, hoping.

[Anonymous No.13028525]

>>13028497
im not that anon sorry

[Anonymous No.13028526]

>>13028522
Zizek isn't a nihilist but he would agree with you

[Anonymous No.13028547]

>>13028508
>not every valid argument is sound
My point is that you cannot even begin to decide whether an argument is sound under this framework because you can never determine the truth of its premises. 'German toilets represent poetry because they are designed for inspecting your shit' is just as reasonable as 'German toilets represent practicality because they are designed for inspecting your shit to see if you're healthy.' This is why it's worthless as anything but artistic speculation, which is why he should just write fiction.
>see the post where I ignored the main point of your critique and clung onto a marginal point you made
Nice. I'm going to go to bed, keep believing in your ghost stories if you want. Next the square root symbol will be a representation of the phallus because patriarchy and car headlights will be representations of human eyes because the government is always watching you. Also Hollywood actors wearing triangles are doing Illuminati symbolism. Of course you can't disprove these assertions because they are perfectly reasonable speculations under your framework.

[Anonymous No.13028560]

>>13028547
you know there are logical arguments against Zizek's positions right? can you make one (1)? actually never mind, you're right, go to bed

[Anonymous No.13028648]

>>13028522
I think this as well, even fucking is an add-on from gathering resources.
Mr. Smith from the Matrix was spot on, we really are in essence gatherers or 'leeches', even when we hunt it's to gather food.

[Anonymous No.13028864]

>>13027381
Germans have a weird obsession with shit. Their toilet was also practical for inspecting shit for diseases. I don't see the ideology in here

[Anonymous No.13028867]

[Anonymous No.13030259]

>>13028421
this is really stupid,re- labelling doesn't have anything to do with truth or false statements.

[Anonymous No.13030264]

>>13027381
shut up bro

[Anonymous No.13030283]

>>13027392
fpbp