[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 120 KB, 898x555, 1578950351161.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15316394 No.15316394 [Reply] [Original]

>it's still up

>> No.15316400

>>15316394
>autism pranks
trying to be patient

>> No.15316412
File: 7 KB, 252x240, 1587696923954.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15316412

>>15316394
This always makes me kek so hard. Autism of the highest order.

>> No.15316434
File: 33 KB, 750x259, F97376E9-883A-4244-AEBE-6714494C0C23.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15316434

>

>> No.15316440

>>15316394
>he plagiarizes Simple English wikipedia
pathetic

>> No.15316445

can someone explain this to a brainlet?

>> No.15316502

>>15316445
Retroactive refutation is a meme made up by an autist from here to prop up his favourite philosophers. He has gone so far as to edit wikipedia articles in order tp legitimize his autism.

>> No.15316513

>>15316502
>google his source
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/
>ctrl+f
>no results

kek

>> No.15316526

The term retroactive refutation makes no sense, shouldn't it be a preemptive refutation?

>> No.15316529
File: 360 KB, 600x580, 1551681054222.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15316529

>>15316394

>> No.15316534

>>15316394
BASED GUNEONPOSTER

>> No.15316537

>>15316526
You exo-passive refutation

>> No.15316555

It's amazing just how unacademic wikipedia is. They're fantastic guardians of pop culture nonsense, but if there's no article about an esoteric book, and you write an article full of nonsense, your nonsense will go unchecked for decades.

>> No.15316570

>>15316394
wait, i thought it was invented by Guenon?

>> No.15316610
File: 34 KB, 320x401, 154786295124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15316610

>>15316394
Holy shit, this is so fucking autistic

>> No.15316621

>>15316555
Wikipedia is absolutely hideous when it comes to anything political. They use shitty news sites as sources and it reads like a leftist rant.

>> No.15316631

>>15316621
>anything political
But anon, everything is political

>> No.15316655

>>15316631
easy there derrileuze

>> No.15316700

>>15316555
>>15316621
Literal leftist clubs run Wikipedia, they're always vigilant.

>> No.15316707

jokes aside - is there an actual name for the practice of refuting an argument from its own point of reference? is "immanent critique" a proper phrase?

>> No.15316728

>>15316707
Internal contradiction would be the simplest and most effective term.

It's probably one of the healthiest ways to debate with people if you take their principles as valid and come from their own perspective. And if you get them to admit to two clauses they like, and show them how they have to splinter what they're saying, you make them modify their original argument. You can do it with nationalists, liberals, etc, and a lot of people will actually enjoy the experience if you're being fair with it.

>> No.15316760

>>15316655
>derrileuze
>http://www.pageliberale.org/
wtf am I reading? Some french boomer lolbert rants?

>> No.15316778

>>15316707
there is an actual term, OP linked it. stop trying to start another

>> No.15316784

>>15316760
he was refering to Deleuze you imbecile

>> No.15316825

>>15316760
Lmao you're so stupid

>> No.15316958

>>15316784
>>15316825
Explain then, geniuses

>> No.15317150

>>15316555
just like real academia

>> No.15317162

>>15316784
and Derrida

>> No.15317200
File: 597 KB, 1944x2592, wikipedia editathon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15317200

>>15316555
>>15316621
>>15316631