/lit/ - Literature

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363225]

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363229]

But these are films.

you so silly..

[Anonymous No.1363231]

Thanks. Been hoping for one of these from you (you seem to know your shit).

[ty No.1363233]

i'm in a dilemma,

ive done begginer tier obv but only read the republic which was extremely shit & all the rest of his stuff taught me that philosophy is just either obvious stuff dressed up or complex stuff that has no use to me other than wasting my time.

do i need to read aesop's fables b4 properly giving up?

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363236]

>>1363233
I have read aesop's fables and i can assure you.. it will just make you say.. 'what the fuck is he talking about.. cant he just apply it to humans instead of a fucking tortoise and rat, wtf you cunt ass fucking loser.'

[Anonymous No.1363237]

>>1363229
You will shut the fuck up or I am literally going to murder you

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363238]

>>1363236
LOL

[ty No.1363239]

no actually the republic was the ok one so i will try frenchy then see

[Anonymous No.1363242]

>>1363236

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363243]

You're also missing.. Beyond cant be arsed to look down to see what tier you wrote, tier.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363251]

>>1363243
>mfw I can't include the Bible, Quran & Atlas Shrugged because ppl will think I'm trolling

maybe in more open-minded times

[Anonymous No.1363252]

as usual a retarded tier from a retarded tripfag

[ty No.1363257]

hey d&e i dont see any existentialists on there. did you forget or not?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363261]

>>1363257
Being and Time is a lil existentialist

[Anonymous No.1363263]

>mfw when no tao te ching, art of war or analects

[Anonymous No.1363265]

>>1363243

>Beyond cant be arsed to look down to see what tier you wrote, tier.

[ty No.1363266]

>>1363252
no i think this one makes sense for /lit/. isabelle's assumes you're going to go out & read all the pre-socratics, greeks, christians, etc & thoughts on them by other people & stuff like that. this one is more relevant to today.

[Anonymous No.1363268]

Needs some Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363271]

>>1363257
D&E is so stupedddd

[Anonymous No.1363272]

I'm confused. The "intermediate" tier is philosophy, but everything else is pop culture or hippie bullshit. Why do you think these things are philosophy?

[Anonymous No.1363273]

D&E i...FUCKING LOVE this tier list..omg..newfound respect (blavatzky is a risky choice but I like it even better for that aberration)

[Anonymous No.1363274]

Add "The Wu-Tang Manual" by the RZA to mastery

[ty No.1363279]

>>1363274
lol

[engines vrôp vrôp No.1363283]

>no Schoppenhauer
>no Comte
>no Lacan or Levi-Strauss
lol

also, what are numbers 1 and 3 in mastery tier?

[Anonymous No.1363287]

what collection of aesop's fables is complete?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363288]

>>1363263
fixed, can't believe i forgot em
leaving out art of war though because I'm pretty sure no-one still plays Shogun: Total War

Everyone else is left out because this is a newbie list and we don't want to confuse ppl

[Anonymous No.1363289]

>>1363283
bro, Lacan was not a philosopher--he was influential but you cannot seriously read him unless you study psychoanalysis. Also, schopenhauer is shit-tier (seriously!) a lot of aphoristic nonsense about "human nature", etc. He even fails as a pessimist (why didn't he an hero?) Seriously, this tier list is legit (not a rehash of rehash)

[ty No.1363291]

wait
>dat fox

i had these read to me when i was a leetle kid

[Anonymous No.1363294]

>>1363288

New one's coming out next year.

[engines vrôp vrôp No.1363297]

>>1363289
ok, swap Lacan with Foucault, philosopher enough 4u? you got's to have some structuralism in there

>schpenhauer shit-tier (seriously!)
lol again

[Anonymous No.1363299]

Muuuuch better

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363309]

>>1363299

[Anonymous No.1363312]

Fixed for truth, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.1363313]

>>1363297
Yeah Foucault instead for sure and if you want Lacanian inspired philosophy Zizek is always a good choice. I really don't like Schopenhauer.

[ty No.1363320]

>>1363312

[engines vrôp vrôp No.1363325]

>>1363313
I disagree but I respect your opinions. gonna have to read some Zizek

:D

[Anonymous No.1363326]

>>1363312
to be honest I would put Descartes and Hume under intermediate

[Anonymous No.1363327]

>>1363312
Fixed for truth, deal with it.

[ty No.1363329]

>>1363326
>implying Hume is easier than Plato

[Anonymous No.1363333]

>>1363329
I haven't read PLato so maybe

[ty No.1363335]

>>1363333
nevermind i thought you were replying to the proper chart.

nice quads.

[Anonymous No.1363336]

Can't read the title of the one on the bottom left.

[Anonymous No.1363340]

>>1363325
If you're going to read Zizek, start out with something light like "First as tragedy, then as farce." You'll get a feel for what he is like. If you are a marxist, you'll love it. Zizek also writes extensively about Hegel and Dialectics and Lacan (like I said) and those works are a bit more dense. The Paralax View is srs bzns philosophy. I also really enjoyed his theological work "The monstrosity of christ" (a debate between he and an orthodox theologian)..His videos on youtube are pretty choice, he's quite the character for a cultural theorist.

[ty No.1363344]

>>1363336
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

[engines vrôp vrôp No.1363350]

>>1363340
thank you for the info! I'll make sure to check it out

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363359]

>>1363336
noob

[Anonymous No.1363365]

>>1363312

Everyone is a troll except for this troll

[Anonymous No.1363367]

>>1363344
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.1363370]

>no Voltaire

Not interested, kid.

[Anonymous No.1363391]

What about Sophie's world?

[Anonymous No.1363399]

[Anonymous No.1363406]

switch "advanced" and "mastery" and it might be ok then

[Anonymous No.1363411]

What is the one on the bottom left for real?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363414]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363415]

>>1363411
Moon in a Dewdrop

[Anonymous No.1363419]

>>1363414
nope.gif

[oblimo !DSzvku.lzI No.1363422]

>>1363288 Everyone else is left out because this is a newbie list and we don't want to confuse ppl

Then get rid of the mysticism in your "advanced" and "master" tiers.

Better yet, create a "Mysticism, Cult of Personality, and other White-Washed Orientalist Mumbo-Jumbo" list. And give some credit to the German nutjobs. Where's Wilhem Reich?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363431]

>>1363422
>"Mysticism, Cult of Personality, and other White-Washed Orientalist Mumbo-Jumbo"
>goes on to suggest a hokey psychologist who couldn't cut it with Freud and Jung, and whose name is not Fritz Perls

[Anonymous No.1363436]

mfw the Tractatus and Phänomenologie des Geistes in "intermediate" category. I am 99% sure you are trolling -- the other 1% of me believes that you are a huge faggot who hasn't read or understood either work (particularly Hegel's).

[Anonymous No.1363439]

>>1363431
Freud is pretty much considered the most over-rated psychologist of all time by most college professors. Those who still think he's worth a shit teach at community colleges or high schools...

[ty No.1363442]

>>1363251
where would you put the first two on the list & what age did you read them irl?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363446]

>>1363439
oh yeah I forgot it's super-edgy to hate Sigmund Freud these days

Back when I was in psychology studies 101 we had a female lecturer who was like "yea basically he's been utterly discredited now" and I was all like, "PSH look at the walking talking electra complex"

[ty No.1363450]

>>1363439
no dream theory was funnie.

[Anonymous No.1363461]

>>1363446
>it's super-edgy to hate Sigmund Freud these days

No, it's just how these things work. Someone says "I have an idea"; then their idea gets studied and people try and make it more than just a theory but, it turns out that their idea was wrong or it remains just a theory because it has been neither proven nor has it been discredited. That's the way the world works... His only real uses in modern times are when we speak of the history of psychology.

[Anonymous No.1363462]

>>1363450
Funny, but utterly fucking retarded, lol

[ty No.1363465]

>>1363466

Whatever, that is just absurd.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363466]

>>1363461

naw bro naw

[Anonymous No.1363468]

Fuck this troll thread

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363469]

>>1363465
Lol'd

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363472]

>>1363465
>>1363466
>>1363465
>>1363466
>>1363465

[Anonymous No.1363474]

>>1363461

cool empty post bro. go actaully read a book or something or maybe say something original you little cunty child.

[Anonymous No.1363475]

>>1363466
Yeah brah

[ty No.1363477]

>>1363468
lololololololololol

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363479]

>>1363472
Why are you so random?

[oblimo !DSzvku.lzI No.1363480]

>>1363431 goes on to suggest a hokey psychologist who couldn't cut it with Freud and Jung
Yes, hence: nutjobs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with your selections for mysticism. I just think it's a different track to philosophy. *Especially* Zen.

[Anonymous No.1363481]

>>1363474
What about my post was empty?

[Anonymous No.1363484]

>>1363481

cause your a dumb faggot child. go eat a dick.

[Anonymous No.1363485]

>>1363479
cuz hes deep and edgy,
you just dont get it

[ty No.1363487]

>>1363479
>check'em

>>136488

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363492]

>>1363487
lol nice try bro

[ty No.1363493]

check'em

[Anonymous No.1363497]

>>1363484
>cause your a dumb faggot child. go eat a dick.
>cause your a dumb faggot child.
>go eat a dick.
>your a child.

Ohhhhh ok I get it, you were trying to troll me.
0/10, nig-nog

[ty No.1363509]

>>1363497
>typing a response instead of improving his stupid copy pasted response further above.
just go to the fucking text board you reject.

[Anonymous No.1363511]

>>1363497

no you don't get it. you don't get anything. "nig-nog"? like i said, go suck nigger dicks.

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363512]

No.1363501
You talk so much shit..

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1363515]

>>1363512
huh waw

Lets all laugh at the.. (Spoiler/)Retard9Spoiler)

[Anonymous No.1363517]

>>1363519

hahahaha shut the fuck up faggot

[oblimo !DSzvku.lzI No.1363523]

>>1363446

Agreed. It is so bizarre to watch someone lambaste Freud and then just use his threefold dynamic with different names. Or just trot out another version of Galen's bodily humour theory.

When the first post-Freudian comes up with a model that does not reduce to "choleric, melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic", then I'll be impressed.

[Anonymous No.1363532]

>>1363509
rofllolwtfbbq? This IS a text board. Especially since it's a board related to literature... Hence, text.
>>1363511
You're totally right. You're so misunderstood and dark and brooding, there's no way I could possibly begin to even comprehend you. lulz.

[Anonymous No.1363544]

>>1363532

Have you actually read anything by Freud y/n

I don't even need you to tell me you've never read anything in your life lmao faggot gb2school

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363554]

be honest for a second, don't we all just want to kill and fuck the neighbours once in a while?

[ty No.1363557]

>>1363532
>rofllolwtfbbq? This IS a text board. Especially since it's a board related to literature... Hence, text.
OMG you fucking moran. /book/ is the text board this is the image board
< image

go to the top of the frontpage & click the /book/ link & dont come back

[Anonymous No.1363565]

>>1363544
ohwow.jpg a victory by fiat, eh? Fair enough, even /mu/ isn't as pretentious and faggy as the majority of niggers and half-breeds on this board. Just so you know, the answer is "yes"; I have read Freud and for the most part it's outdated and useless. But; it's not as though psychology is a hard science, so I suppose any twat with his head stuck up his ass will argue and argue theory as often as he can so that way he alienates and assures his virginity even more, all the while declaring victory by fiat...

[Anonymous No.1363574]

>>1363565

>I have read Freud and for the most part it's outdated and useless.

Instant faggot certification for flat-out lying. What have you read and some brief thoughts on them please.

[Anonymous No.1363580]

>>1363557
Text. Sorry, you can label it whatever you want, but people come here to be pretentious through words. Prove me wrong kids, prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.1363582]

>Wittgenstein
>Intermediate Tier

[Anonymous No.1363590]

>>1363574
Really? I'm an absolute layman, but most of the psychology people I've talked to have said that a large part of his theories are more or less outdated, although there are parts that are still highly influential.

>>1363580
I mean, in a common sense of the words you're absolute right. In the usage prevalent on 4chan / the internet generally, however, this is an imaged board because it is set up to allow and encourage the posting of images. On the other hand, text boards, although they may allow images to be posted, are not set up around allowing it.

[Anonymous No.1363592]

mfw The Phenomenology of Spirit was put below The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying... As if it couldn't be on Oprah's book club tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.1363594]

>>1363574
Gosh, Scooter, I don't know about you, but I'll give you an example; I don't want to fuck my mother and I don't hate my father for doing so. I guess I'm the weird one here, huh?

[Anonymous No.1363596]

>>1363590

>Really?

I was talking about him lying about the fact he's read Freud (he hasn't, he's 13 years old). Not interested in his shit opinion.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363600]

>>1363594
>I don't want to fuck my mother and I don't hate my father for doing so

whatever you say buddy

[Character Corwin !!ck2126MfhZD No.1363603]

Deep&Edgy with the work you have been putting out lately, you have already surpassed GamerGirl and tybrax. Soon you may even go beyond Stagolee.

[Anonymous No.1363604]

frued's theories may be bunk scientifically but are necessary if you want a deep understanding of much of the art and literature made in the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.1363606]

>>1363603
I think D&E has to win just in terms of sheer duration. I don't think GG or stag lasted this fucking long...

[ty No.1363607]

>>1363603
was i ever good :'|

[Anonymous No.1363608]

>>1363594

>has no intelligence and thus no faculties of introspection, true thoughts locked away to protect his delicate childmind

[Anonymous No.1363611]

>>1363607
no, you weren't any good. nobody fucking likes you

go away

[Anonymous No.1363612]

>>1363596
LMAO whatever you say, kid. If you didn't want an opinion, then why did you ask for one? Probably because you're a nigger.

[Anonymous No.1363616]

>>1363603
>Soon you may even go beyond Stagolee.
It will never happen.

[Anonymous No.1363619]

>>1363608
You've no fucking idea what you're talking about do you? Completely lost and void of any direction, aren't you?

Have fun with that psych degree with a minor in sociology, I'm sure I'll be seeing you at my local convenience store unlocking the beer coolers for me.

[Anonymous No.1363622]

>>1363612
he asked you for an opinion so he could mock it and thereby discredit you

[Anonymous No.1363623]

>>1363600
I can honestly say I don't; sorry to let ya down.

[Anonymous No.1363624]

>>1363612

>conveniently cops out of backing up his bullshit lies

>still hasn't read freud

[Anonymous No.1363628]

>>1363604

Hahaha no they aren't

[Anonymous No.1363632]

>>1363622
He didn't do that though.

[Anonymous No.1363637]

>>1363624
Yep, I've read Freud, and I even backed up my shit earlier by saying I don't want to fuck my mother nor am I jealous of my dad for doing so. CONGRATULATIONS on failing. For being on /lit/ you can't read for shit, nigga

[Anonymous No.1363640]

>>1363632
well, no, but that's what his intent was

[Anonymous No.1363641]

>>1363628
Proof plox

[Anonymous No.1363648]

>>1363640
Oh ok, gotcha; yeah I know

[Anonymous No.1363649]

>>1363637

>thinks pop-culture knowledge of oedipus complex is evidence for reading freud

>is slowly shifting to "trolling" mindset to protect his fragile ego

[Anonymous No.1363652]

>>1363641

Most of the art and literature of the 20th century doesn't reference Freud, I know because I have read/seen/experienced most of it

QED Freud is bullshit for faggots who like Lacan

[ty No.1363653]

>>1363637
>self-delusion

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363669]

[Anonymous No.1363674]

mfw reading Totem and Taboo.

[Anonymous No.1363680]

>>1363649
It wasn't "pop-culture" knowledge actually, it was a summation, and I think I about hit the nail on the head since Freud did say something to the effect of he constantly loved his mother and was jealous of his father all the time. He considered that to be a universal truth. Arguing with people like you is fucking pointless because no matter how many valid points I bring up you're going to proclaim victory even though you can't because it's psychology and psychology is based primarily on fucking theories which is why it's still considered a soft science as opposed to botany, biology, chemistry, etc. You are arguing a fucking theory. Yes, it is important to know the history of psychology but if you do not move on from the history of it you become a historian, not a fucking psychologist.

[Anonymous No.1363695]

>>1363652
>>1363652
Ok I see. I thought you were saying that you disagreed with what the other anon said about "frued's theories may be bunk scientifically". Never mind, my bad.

[Anonymous No.1363697]

Why are we focusing on Freud and not OP's incredibly embarrassing list?

[Anonymous No.1363699]

>>1363697
We did that earlier
full of dicks

[Anonymous No.1363700]

>>1363680

>literally has no knowledge beyond skim-reading wikipedia of what he's trying to argue

>actually has nothing better to do with his time than argue about things he has no knowledge of

>the effort he's put into that incoherent rambling vacuous post about psychology being "theory based", lol

[Anonymous No.1363715]

>crowley

>implying he wasn't an agent of the british

[Anonymous No.1363720]

>>1363715

>implying you are in the right thread

[Anonymous No.1363730]

>>1363700
LOL where are the facts? Why is it a soft-science? Didn't use wikipedia by the way. Maybe you just have a problem with being bested.

[Anonymous No.1363737]

Once philosophers like Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein kicked western philosophy in the balls, the Asians get a lot more relevant. Not a bad list if you're actually interested in wisdom, rather than the latest axiomatic mastubation that comes from the Russel-is-my-God school.

[Anonymous No.1363744]

>>1363730

>still arguing about freud, his only knowledge of whom being the wikipedia article for the oedipus complex

[Anonymous No.1363752]

You have not understood OP. Putting Tsogyal Rinpoche's book there made me realize that he is really into the profound and deep aspect of spirit. Not mere academics as the 90% of philosophers and students. Although I'd put out Blabatsky, she is way Overrated, she made lots of mistakes... I'd put Tsogyal Rinpoche in the first place, also you need more classical indian philosophers like Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Asanga and Vasubhandu. There you have hard ontology and then phenomenology with Asanga and Vasubhandu.

[Anonymous No.1363757]

What, no Hannah Arendt?

[Anonymous No.1363766]

>>1363757
Heidegger is there. We all know that Hannah Arendt (just as Simone de Bouviardfsgr) are famous only because: Heidegger ate Arendt, and Sartre ate Bouvreasdrgt

[Anonymous No.1363773]

>>1363766
Fuck you, son, Hannah Arendt is fucking awesome as hell

I'm cool with her omission because a) it's a dumb list and b) she's more a political thinker than a philosopher but don't talk shit about hannah arendt

>>1363757
my homeboy

[Anonymous No.1363779]

>>1363757
ITT: we name our favorite philosopher and complain because OP didn't include them in his shittastic list

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363780]

>arendt
why not put fucking levinas on the list now there's a guy I never see being talked about around here

[Anonymous No.1363787]

>>1363780

You've stopped making sense lately, but they seem to like it.
I
Do
Not
Understand

[Anonymous No.1363792]

>>1363780
levinas is a pretty cool guy. i need to actually read, him, though, most of my operative knowledge of him comes from an afternoon-long argument with a friend about the bases of morality.

[Anonymous No.1363793]

FTFY

[ty No.1363800]

>>1363793
is there two layers to atlas shrugged?

[Anonymous No.1363801]

wtf with 4chan... why are there so many fans of that fuckin Atlas thing.

Why don't we see some Marx in any of the lists eh?

[Anonymous No.1363811]

>>1363801
If you're gonna have Marx, you might as well have Rand.

[Anonymous No.1363814]

>>1363811
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1363822]

>>1363801
Because then we would have over nine thousand arguments about the early Marx and the late Marx

[Anonymous No.1363825]

>>1363814

What? Extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are as bad as eachother.

[Anonymous No.1363828]

>>1363800
Atlas Shrugged is both advanced and mastery because of how great it is.

[Anonymous No.1363853]

>>1363801
>>1363801
>>1363801

Because half of 4chan is made up of asspies who are trying to justify their inability to interact and empathize with others.

[Anonymous No.1363869]

>>1363853
>>1363814
>Marxfag is rectally inflamed

[Anonymous No.1363888]

>>1363822
Why didn't Engels tell Marx to stop scrounging after the inheritance?

[Anonymous No.1363903]

>>1363811
Naw man, if you're gonna have Marx, you may as well have Hayek and someone like Rudolf Rocker.

[Anonymous No.1363978]

>>1363869

Actually I'm a separate poster. I just loathe Rand for the idiot she is.

Also, I am sorry for your assburgers. I'm sorry that you will never be able to feel what being sorry actually means.

[Anonymous No.1364015]

>>1363869
The thing is I'm not even defending Marx. Ayn Rand is fucking terrible. Marx is an important thinker. If you want to make your points about political extremism or w/e, I still think you're wrong, but at least have the decency to include someone like Hayek, who has some kind of intellectual coherence, something interesting to say. Karl Popper would be even better. For God's sake, don't say that Rand is equivalent to Marx - that transcends political differences. It's just fucking stupid.

I honestly don't think Marx should be on a list of this sort. But if you want him to be on there, and if you want to put a right-wing thinker on there for 'political balance' - if you MUST do this - at least have the self-respect to have it be someone with something worthwhile to say.

tl;dr it's not that i disagree with rand, it's that rand is fucking terrible even by the standards of 'people i disagree with'

[Anonymous No.1364022]

Awesome list, so far.

One thing. Can't read the title of the book on the far left bottom corner. Anyone know it?

[Anonymous No.1364046]

>>1364015

Marx should be on the list for being probably the most influential modern social/political philosopher. Communism is his most well-known contribution, but it's the style of his critique that makes him so important.

[Anonymous No.1364048]

>>1364046
well yeah but that's on a level of "their political ideology isn't really related to their importance as a thinker" that i didn't want to get into because EVEN IF YOU IGNORE THAT it's fucking dumb to compare marx and rand

[Anonymous No.1364063]

>>1364048

>it's fucking dumb to compare marx and rand

agree absolutely

[Anonymous No.1364160]

>>1364022
>>1364022
Anyone?

[Anonymous No.1364165]

Add V for Vendetta to movies. If anything, it should be above any of those movies on there, besides The Matrix.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1364167]

>>1364160
Moon in a Dewdrop by Dogen

zen stuff e.g. gimme the stick don't gimme the stick gimme the stick shit

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1364170]

>>1364167
>>1364167
that should read *give'em

[Anonymous No.1364763]

>>1364165
>>1364165
>>1364165
only suggestion i agree with in this thread.

[Anonymous No.1364771]

>>1364015

But Rand actually espouses a philosophy that's workable in the real world, and Marx's ideas have all led to the ruination of every country that tried to use them.

Socialism, while seemingly fair in theory, is impossible to maintain in the long run, unless you can find a country full of people who have no greed or ambition. Capitalism, while obviously grossly unfair, works BECAUSE of the inherent greed and ambition of people. And it really does work...

[Anonymous No.1364772]

>>1364771
Nicely said.

[Anonymous No.1364779]

>>1364772

Thank you, anon. Although, since 99% of philosophy professors in the western world gush about Marx and consider Rand to be the devil incarnate, I'm sure I'll get my share of hecklers. Not that I blame the hecklers, since being brainwashed by the educational system has a tendency to make little Lenin clones out of the vast majority. I just wish they'd actually read and understand Rand before denouncing her ideas so LOUDLY.

[Anonymous No.1364786]

>>1364771
>>1364772
>>1364779

[Anonymous No.1364788]

Hegel is a piece of shit little bitch faggot. Take him off.

[Anonymous No.1364789]

>>1364779
You're not being that much better, calling anyone not open to objectivist philosophy 'brainwashed'. That said, I take your point, I haven't myself read any Rand, but a glance at the wikipedia article doesn't make it seem any more enticing, and I am by no means a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.1364793]

>>1364789

Well, when the entire sociology and philosophy departments of major universities force their student to believe in Marxism and write papers that are pro-marxist of fail, what else would you ahve me call it? It is brainwashing.

[Anonymous No.1364792]

>>1364788

Hello mr Russell, nice to see you here

[Anonymous No.1364794]

>>1364786
I can never take anyone who actually takes the time to save, search for and then post a reaction pic. It's the idiots way out of an argument they know they can't win, hence why they have nothing to say.

[Anonymous No.1364795]

D&E, fuck off, /lit/ deserves better trolls than you.

>>1363312
This.

[Anonymous No.1364796]

Well, when the entire sociology and philosophy departments of major universities force their student to believe in Marxism and write papers that are pro-Marxist (or fail the course), what else would you have me call it? It is brainwashing.

[Anonymous No.1364797]

>>1364793
You may be right, I do History, which is largely unaffected nowadays. If I may ask you a question: How would objectivist bias (or method) manifest itself in an essay or argument?

[Anonymous No.1364798]

>>1364796
>force their student to believe in Marxism and write papers that are pro-Marxist (or fail the course)
>babby never gone to college

[Anonymous No.1364799]

>Marx
>Rand
>Freud

Wow, just wow.
This thread demonstrates pretty well what a crappy board /lit/ actually is.

[Anonymous No.1364800]

ultimate grand mastery song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to5T1O730pE

[Anonymous No.1364808]

>>1364797

For the most part it wouldn't, because if kids want to pass philosophy classes, they can't espouse a love for anything overtly Randian. The ideas of Objectivism (and Rand's ideas on Economics) are based in the real workings of the world, and how people really interact with each other and their environment. That scares Philosophy professors, because their whole careers are based on ideas that don't actually work when implemented, or are so abstract that there is no way to implement them.

Objectivism praises selfishness, because it's the preservation of self that actually does motivate people, not altruism. Objectivism lauds greed and ambition, because it's exactly those things that make the best leaders, and the best men.

While socialism rules the minds of the intelligentsia, it's Objectivism that puts food on people's tables, and incidentally allows for the intellectuals to ruminate about how unfair Capitalism is. An intellectual who's starving on the streets because of the inherent unworkability of Socialism finds out very soon that greed and selfishness are the only way to survive.

[Anonymous No.1364809]

>>1364798
>Write something the journal editor/professor agrees with
>High mark, well defined arguments, good understanding of the subject
>Write something they disagree with
>Low mark, non-sequitur, naive/surface understanding of the subject

This is true for your average essay or paper, and occasionally even for a brilliant one, especially in the case of journal submission.

[Anonymous No.1364812]

>>1364798

Try telling a philosophy professor that you're an objectivist, and see how fast you fail out of the class. Philosophy professors hate Ayn Rand, not because her philosophy is worse than any of the others that they teach, but because it's a philosophy that actually works. Selfishness is inherent in all people by necessity, altruistic notions of the benevolent state giving equally to all don't work.

[Anonymous No.1364814]

>>1364812
wasn't that Adam Smith?

[ty No.1364816]

>>1364812
>Philosophy professors hate Ayn Rand, not because her philosophy is worse than any of the others that they teach, but because it's a philosophy that actually works
Is this that same one guy from last night? Insisting on this nonsense is like a full time job for you ghouls. Are you also the guy that thought i was tybrax the musician? That shit was ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.1364819]

>>1364808
Thank you for the thoughful response. I can't say I agree though, the collective can work together in everyone's best interest, as in the welfare state, and the line between egoism and altruism is not so black and white - it is bordering on cliché to point out that people (barring the pathologically incapable) get satisfaction from aiding or enabling others, and once this behaviour is internalized, can form the basis of communality. I do agree, though that capitalism is the best method of distribution, in its implementation, and that it fosters progress to a degree.

Another point is that socialism does not equal altruism, nor does it equate to inefficiency, we need only look at soviet russia after 1928, under stalin, to see that it can foster immense economic growth, though, as I said, I am not a communist, nor an apologist for Stalinism.
I just think it is very unfortunate that we curtail our potential as human beings by sinking to the behaviour of the worst of our members, and legitimize behaviour that we have every possibility of transcending. I am not talking about transcendentalism in a conventional sense, but I am a firm believer in a strong welfare state.

[Anonymous No.1364821]

>>1364808
Oh my god, so much right wing contradictions...

Seriously, Objectivism is, if anything, based less in reality than the philosophies of Schopenhauer, Hegel, Kant, Plato... you get the idea.
>>1364814
No. Right wing Neo-liberals like to pretend they've read Adam Smith and act as such though, so I see why you'd think that.
Also, Adam Smith really wasn't left wing either. But he did argue heavily for things like welfare states and what have you.

[ruby vajeen No.1364829]

I have never read ayn rand but since she studied philosophy and witnessed the most important event of the 20th century, why not? betrand russel lobbied to nuke moscow after the war, sartre turnt out to be stupid and sex-starved creep in his book on antisemitism, deuleze and guattari were read by pol pot. what other 20th century thinker do you want to read? heidegger? joseph stalin? carl schmitt?

[Anonymous No.1364836]

>>1364816

No, I'm neither of them. I'm just a guy who recognizes bullshit when I see it, and having studied all of the major philosophies, Objectivism is the only one I can see that actually does work in real life. Objectivism rejects all of the crap that gets taught, and replaces it with a system that is actually real. Selfishness is a virtue; without it, there would be no human race. People who outwardly reject Objectivism actually have to live by it, because selfishness and greed are the inherent ground state of the human psyche. You can't help but want more for yourself, so why fight it? It doesn't make you a better person to be an existentialist or a humanist, or whatever philosophy you choose, it just makes you a hypocrite and delusional.

Choose greed, or be forever left in the wake, picking up the scraps of those who do. Live your life for yourself, or let other people decide how you live you life. It's up to you. Personally, I choose Objectivism because it makes sense, it's not mystical, it doesn't ascribe lofty unrealizable ideals onto the minds of men, and it works.

[ruby vajeen No.1364839]

>>1364819
if not for hitler, stalin would have outmatched the western world. we'd all be living in a slaveholder flavour of socialism now.

[Anonymous No.1364840]

>>1364839
What? That is neither true nor relevant.

[Anonymous No.1364843]

>>1364829
> betrand russel lobbied to nuke moscow after the war
Really? pretty peculiar for an outspoken pacifist.
> sartre turnt out to be stupid and sex-starved creep in his book on antisemitism
I think he always was that way
> deuleze and guattari were read by pol pot.
Pol Pot was also a major fan of Rimbaud (because he struggled with Marx' theoretical works).
But seriously, the rouge khmer were basically Rousseauists (again: no joke).
> what other 20th century thinker do you want to read? heidegger? joseph stalin? carl schmitt?
Stalin hardly wrote anything in his life. His supposed works were ghostwritten and are devoid of any actual insight into anything. There was a reason why he was suspicious of everybody who even remotely showed a sign of "intellectuality" and his closest affiliates were often practically illiterate.
Heidegger and Schmitt, despite being both insufferable assholes, are worth a read, and if just to position yourself against them.


Rand on the other hand is completely neglegible. There is nothing in her thought that is original, there is nothing in her thought that even resembles actual insights. Her whole body of work is the expression of her trauma. Much like Arendt she is making her inquiries by first finding a desired result and then constructing everything else according to that.
Hannah Arendt wasn't such a bitch, though.

[Anonymous No.1364848]

>>1364819

It's nice to see a fellow anon who can use his brain, even if I don't agree. The problem I have with the welfare state is that at it's core, it takes the earnings of people who work, and gives it to those that don't. So in reality, the welfare state is dependent on those people who have an Objectivist state of mind and earn. The welfare state system isn't supportable in the long term without the Capitalists who make the money that gets redisributed, so in essence the welfare state (and Socialism in general) require some peopel to be Objectivist. If no one was earning, and everyone was on the welfare rolls, then the system would collapse almost immediately. And if you need people to be greedy and innovative and cutthroat to make the altruistic system work, then the altruistic system really isn't working at all, is it?

>>1364821

Give me reasons why I should believe that. Just saying "herpderp, Objectism is dumb" isn't going to convince me. And I'm not a conservative in any sense of the word. I try not to label myself, but I'm ridiculously liberal in all social issues. The only thing I agree with conservatives on is the need for smaller government. I'd say I'm a libertarian, but the term has been so co-opted and bent that I can't even use it anymore. I'm for the freedom of people to do what they want, anything they want, as long it doesn't take property, means, liberty, or life from others. That's what objectivism is all about, the freedom to take your greed and ambition, and make something tangible out of it. It's pretty much the same idea that America was built on.

[Anonymous No.1364850]

>>1364836
>Live your life for yourself, or let other people decide how you live you life. It's up to you.
>it doesn't ascribe lofty unrealizable ideals onto the minds of men
Go read some Seneca. Then see how this is a "pick one" situation.

[Anonymous No.1364853]

>>1364848
>conflating saying objectivism is dumb with saying the post was dumb
>conflating conservatism with right-wing
Oh dear...

[Anonymous No.1364856]

>>1364843

Her ideas may not have been original, but she framed them in such a way that a normal person could understand them, and she came up with a system for them that is workable. Most philosophy is completely unintelligible to the masses, but Rand's work stands as some of the only philosophical work that the average man can understand. Plus, I think you'll find that her works have sold quite a lot more than most of the philosophers in this thread, which makes her less marginal than most philosophers, at least in terms of actually getting her message out there. She's only seen as marginal because philosophy professors hate her and don't teach her work, for the reasons I stated earlier.

[Anonymous No.1364857]

>>1364848
I think you might be too quick to assume that all who earn money are objectivist in spirit. You made the commendable point that philosophy should relate to the real world, and as such it might be helpful to accept that most people are concerned with themselves, the people closest to them, as well as a variety of social issues, though, sadly, primarily those social issues pointed out to them by the media. If that is the ordinary economic actor, he falls into neither categories.
To that, I might add that the purpose of the welfare state as it has been successfully implemented (in scandinavia, primarily), is not in financially egalitarian in its objectives, it merely aims at providing the same basic services to all members of society, regardless of wealth - and it is a consequence that the wealthy pay a larger sum to sustain this system. It should be the basis of an understanding that those who are rich, who can afford these services without aid, is still paying for their own privilege in the future, should they fall on harder times (like many have, recently), or that of their children, or further down the line. Sadly, this view is slowly eroding in scandinavia, though this may still be reversed, and is presently being dismantled in the UK.

[Anonymous No.1364859]

ITT: 10 philosphy students argue with one Ayn Rand fan, and lose

[Anonymous No.1364860]

>>1364848
regarding your welfare state thoughts:
Your termini are a little off (throwing objectivism, liberalism, socialisims and everything around a lot), but I agree with you. But the "welfare-state" was not invented by the early socialists or communists. It was invented to by bourgoise capitalists in order to prevent civil uprising of the pauperized masses. For that reason communists always opposed "reforms" because it would prolong the rule of capital (by lessening the suffering, the workers would never become a "klasse an und für sich". pretty humanist, huh?). "Objectivists" should have a vital interest in maintaining a welfare state, especially nowadays. The shift in western economy from primary and secondary to the tertiary sector will necessarily leave a lot of people without jobs or minimum wage jobs. In order to sustain consumption and a stable society, it should be in the very egoistical interest to find a system to provide the "unneeded" caste with their opiate: transfer payments.

[Anonymous No.1364861]

>>1364857

It's eroding and being dismantled because it only works when there are rich people to support it. Recession has the tendency to bring out the objectivist in all of us...

[Anonymous No.1364862]

>>1364857
I blame that idiot Von Mises.

[Anonymous No.1364865]

>>1364861
But then so do hospitals, schools and most other public sector services. Well, it is in fact big business the supports these things, the corporations, not the individuals.

[Anonymous No.1364868]

Godel
Escher
bach

[Anonymous No.1364869]

>>1364861
Please engage with the entire argument, or not at all, the tendency of people to jump on the slightest concessions make it very tempting to not present a rounded argument at all.

[ty No.1364870]

>>1364868
d&e is too dumb to do the math

[Anonymous No.1364872]

>>1364862
Yeah, good point, the Austrian and Chicago schools are still fucking up the remaining good parts of the world. I do have some hope for the current Post-Keynesian revival, though.

[Anonymous No.1364873]

>>1364856
nobody knows her in europe.
YOu are right, her works have a very low entry-barrier. THe other reason why she was so hugely popular is that she expresses (and radicalizes) the underlying thought of the founding ideals of the US: "work hard and you will be rewarded. your reward will be proportional to how hard you worked. do not keep what you have earned, but reinvest it to achieve even more. because in the end, you work for the glory of god." (if you don't believe me on that, just look at the religious convictions of the pilgrims and the majority of the "founding fathers") This "work" concept is inheritly competitive, because there is no "objective" frame of reference.

Rand secularized this concept, transferring the transcendental part (being in gods grace) into the material world (a good, healthy, wealthy society).

[Anonymous No.1364879]

>>1364872
Keynesian economics... oh how I miss thee...

It's become so much now about short term results, and it's fucking everything up. Fucking politicians.

[Anonymous No.1364881]

>>1364873
this is the most insightful comment on Ayn Rand I have ever read on lit.

Thank you, bro.

[Anonymous No.1364885]

>>1364873
So you're saying Rand is like the force behind Manifest Destiny?

[Anonymous No.1364886]

>>1364879
Indeed. It also seems that human cost is being taken out of the economic equation entirely, which is very unfortunate. Even if I was to concede that government cuts (like we are experiencing in the UK at the moment) would help the current economic situation in any way, which I of course do not (it is gonna be a double-dip recession), I would still oppose them - I would rather have slower recovery with a lower human cost.

[Anonymous No.1364887]

>>1364885
Manifest Destiny preceeds Rands birth by almost half a century.

[Anonymous No.1364889]

>>1364886
>it is gonna be a double-dip recession
Where do you get this idea from?

[Anonymous No.1364891]

>>1364887
Manifest Destiny has to do with territorial expansion, not the "spirit of capitalism" as Weber and Sombart called it.

[Anonymous No.1364893]

>>1364889
The cuts are going to create a dip in aggregate demand which the private sector will not be able to fill, since there is very little confidence to invite investing, so we are going to go back into a recession. Of course, historically, Britain has a tradition of double-dipping.

[Anonymous No.1364895]

>>1364891
shouldnt you adress that to
>>1364885
?

[Anonymous No.1364896]

>>1364895
I should've, but I'm tired. Apologies.

[ruby vajeen No.1365009]

>>1364843
>> betrand russel lobbied to nuke moscow after the war
>Really? pretty peculiar for an outspoken pacifist.
Yes, really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR4_wjjYe5A
>Stalin hardly wrote anything in his life. His supposed works were ghostwritten and are devoid of any actual insight into anything. There was a reason why he was suspicious of everybody who even remotely showed a sign of "intellectuality" and his closest affiliates were often practically illiterate.
Take your head out of your arse. Where have you gone to school (given you have), Stalin was as much an intellectual and a scientist as all the other bolsheviks. Those who have survived him were indeed from the "second wave", but still, say Khruschev, had as much education as a Ukrainian peasant in Tsarist Russia could get he still had a fine command of all relevant philosophy. There are aplenty of interviews floating around the internets.
Stalin was not the Russian Hitler, he was a poet, a trade union activist, a terrorist, a philosopher and a journalist by 1917
Although he was not writing in his first language (ossetian) his style is surely still better than that of Ayn Rand. And, trust me, many more philosophy professors were impressed by his writings than by hers.
who could have ghost written for after he shot all the maxists? ;)
you haven't answered who is to read. The ivory tower twits who couldn't have possibly experienced the real world and haven't hence been 'traumatised'?

[Anonymous No.1365020]

>>1364873
It's pretty amazing that she took on those ideals considering she was born in pre-Soviet Russia.

That wasn't sarcasm, by the way. I'm being serious.

[Anonymous No.1365029]

>>1365020
Are you amazed at Trotsky as well?
I'm seriously interested at how she tackeled antisemitism. Folks who lived through tsarist pogroms tended to either become marxist or zionist.

[Anonymous No.1365042]

>>1365029
I know a hell of a lot less about Trotsky. What I do know about Trotskyism, though interesting, seems like an atypical offshoot of the ideas that pushed for the Russian Revolution.

What was particularly weird about Rand is that she was a Jew, educated by Soviets, and then became about the most persistent U.S. apologist that ever existed. Most hardcore patriots I know don't give the Founding Fathers as much credit as she seems to have.

Not that she's right; I think she's over-idealizing the whole thing. I think it's just weird to take on the thought-processes of another culture, particularly one so diametrically opposed to the one she grew up in.

[Anonymous No.1365047]

>>1365009
lolwut?

Did you actually READ "on historical and dialectical materialsm"? THat shit was nothing new, I was basically a comment on Lenin. And obviously many professors needed to take Stalins work more seriously than Ayn Rand. Simply because it influenced Soviet doctrine a great deal. But that was not because of its intellectual merit.
Stalin never was an "intellectual" or "scientist". He spend a lot of his youth amongst them, true, but he wasnt one of them. Don't read all too much into that Montefiore-book...

[Anonymous No.1365051]

Fixed.

[Anonymous No.1365052]

>>1365020
she fled communism so she decided to go the complete opposite side of the spectrum like a fucking retard. rand's philosophy & books stink of her mental illness.

[ruby vajeen No.1365272]

>>1365047
stalin was an intellectual scientist. his later works are a bit childish. dictators tend to be like that. read more.

[Anonymous No.1365306]

>>1365052

Your post is devoid of anything resembling a cogent point. You might as well have wrote "herpderp, Ayn Rand is a dumb bitch, LOL XD".

This the problem I always run across with people who don't like Ayn Rand. They never make any points, they never try to disprove Rand's ideas..all they do is make snide remarks and shit talk like middle schoolers. Is the idea of Objectivism so frightening to you that you can't even try form a logical argument against it?

[Anonymous No.1365320]

>His supposed works were ghostwritten and are devoid of any actual insight into anything. There was a reason why he was suspicious of everybody who even remotely showed a sign of "intellectuality" and his closest affiliates were often practically illiterate.
Sounds like Trotsky's story of Stalin as a dumb and previously-unimportant usurper.

>>1365272
His later works as in after his influence waned and he was relegated to writing about linguistics?
People also forget that he had been editor of Pravda.

[Anonymous No.1365341]

Krishnamurti is shit and couldn't write for his life let alone think
Deep&Edgy, you're the biggest, crappiest troll on this board and don't know shit about literature

[Anonymous No.1365358]

Generally /lit/ has fucking shit taste in philosophy.

If you want an introduction to philosophy or any other topic, the solution is obvious: Read a fucking introduction text not some shitty german philosophy (most german philosophy is shit). Typical introductions are: Quine's The Web of Belief and Russell's Problems of Philosophy.

If you are an history fag, you can begin with a history of philosophy but that shit bores me to tears. Proceed at your own risk.

[Anonymous No.1365365]

>>1365358
>Quine
>Russell
Why do the analytics always try to mask their partisan statements behind a veil of neutrality? You are making a statement against the entire tradition of Continental philosophy, but 'merely suggesting' some introductory texts..I mean, nevermind..

[Anonymous No.1365372]

>>1365365

Continental generally philosophy is waste of time. But there are introductions for that shit too. Again, if one wants to learn something, read an introduction... I imagine that something like "Continental Philosophy - A very short introduction" will work. One can get it on torrent, just search for "very short introductions".

>Why do the analytics always try to mask their partisan statements behind a veil of neutrality? You are making a statement against the entire tradition of Continental philosophy, but 'merely suggesting' some introductory texts..I mean, nevermind..

Whatever that means.

[ytxarb No.1365379]

so is analytic sort of like the imperialist system of measurement & continental is metric?

also x< y^ z> axis vs x< y> z^

[Anonymous No.1365380]

>>1365379

That's the oddest analogy I've read recently.

[Anonymous No.1365382]

>>1365372
It means, certain philosphers (and perhaps their philosophy) hide behind "science" in order to appear as though they are not agents of ideology, which in the case of Analytic philosophy, is an intentional obfuscation.

[ytxarb No.1365386]

>>1365380
well its only coming from something as vague as - 'americans getting mad at a newer system again'

[Anonymous No.1365393]

>>1365382

Whatever that means.

>>1365386

That sounds like bad journalism.

[Anonymous No.1365404]

>>1365393
You, like your heroes, obscure the ideology behind your views by feigning a neutral, and sometimes scientific (in the case of popper, and woefully by wittgenstein) approach to philosophy.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1365443]

Everyone having a good time itt?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1365446]

>>1365382
>certain philosphers (and perhaps their philosophy) hide behind "science" in order to appear as though they are not agents of ideology
>baby's first Frankfurt

[ytxarb No.1365484]

>no aristotle
i thought you liked him & hated plato? maybe that was at the start of second year.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1365516]

>>1365484
h8 both of em but this isn't a guide to my preferences

[Anonymous No.1365520]

I like how Aleister Crowley is on here.

[Anonymous No.1366903]

>>1365404

Do you always write things that don't make sense? Common of continental philosophers (and the like) and a very good reason not to bother reading it.