/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15734954]

Seriously. can you get a more accurate image?

[Anonymous No.15734978]

>>15734954
is taleb actually midwit? his work on statistics is much more interesting than dawkins’ work on biology, not that its complement anyway

[Anonymous No.15734985]

>>15734978
Absolutely

[Anonymous No.15734991]

>>15734954
Jordan Peterson fans aspire to be midwits

[Anonymous No.15734994]

>>15734954
reminds me of this classic

[Anonymous No.15734997]

>>15734954
>essential
>contains opposite tendencies

[Anonymous No.15734998]

>>15734994
Do you have a higher res of that, anon?

[Anonymous No.15734999]

>>15734954
Thanks for the Recs

[Anonymous No.15735015]

>>15734997
Among midwits they usually are attracted to a subset of these things - no one said they agree with all of these

[Anonymous No.15735153]

>>15734978
Yes, because he consistently attempts to posit himself as an authority on matters distinct from his own field, the same issue plagues the other legitimate intellectuals in the image.

[Anonymous No.15735176]

>>15734954
>I read and enjoyed the meditations
>started reading Stirner last night
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.15735182]

>>15735015
>no one said they agree with all of these
No, of course, but if they're essential then midwits read them all (which they usually don't), if not they're not midwits. If midwits don't read all of them, then they're not essential. The image doesn't apply any category like subset or whatever, but stratifies its own components in a whole

[Anonymous No.15735379]

>based arabo-phoenician man
TAKE THAT BACK

[Anonymous No.15735393]

Machiavellian and Sun Tzu are fine authors whose works have been appropriated by midwits.

[Anonymous No.15735413]

>missing Deleuze, Spinoza, Fisher, Land, Lovecraft, Burroughs

[Anonymous No.15735427]

>>15735413
Pseud-core isn’t the same as midwit-core.

[Anonymous No.15735441]

>>15735427
Pseuds are midwits though

[Anonymous No.15735450]

>>15734997
>midwits have only one philosophical or sociology-political outlook
This is something that midwits say to pretend to not be midwits by associating midwittery with things they disagree with whilst ignoring midwits that agree with them
>>15735413
Spinoza and Land aren’t loved by midwits, they’re loved by intelligent but lazy pseuds

[Anonymous No.15735459]

>>15735413
Lovecraft just wrote horror stories, he was lowbrow

[Anonymous No.15735466]

>>15734954
>John Oliver and Noam

Seem to give no respect to the midwits - Noam is the head of humanities at MIT, Dave Rubin is a gay retard.

People like Rubin, Rogan, etc. haven't earned a place there; I'd say cut off is Peterson just because he is a sperg on politics

[Anonymous No.15735471]

>>15735441
>t.coping midwit who can’t compete with the chad pseuds

[Anonymous No.15735475]

>>15734954
The Selfish Gene is not midwit just because le epic atheist Dawkins wrote it. it's a foundational work
Nassim is too complicated for midwits, although he's a midwit in many respects
Hoppe is too obscure to be on this chart
everything else works out

[Anonymous No.15735477]

>>15735413

>Spinoza midwit

The absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.15735488]

>>15735477
The rabbis are still upset about it

[Anonymous No.15735491]

>>15735471
What difference is there between ants and beetles to a MAN?

[Anonymous No.15735498]

>>15735477
Spinoza was virtually irrelevant until his cultural uplifting after the Jewish emancipation as the only Jew to have ever amounted to anything between it and Jesus

[Anonymous No.15735519]

>>15735450
You totally misunderstood me, that implies different types of midwits, but no midwit sums all the tendencies that the image contains (afaik) as they're contradictory. Enough is to point how midwits fall in love with whatever they've read and then proceed to discredit all other positions based on that only source they've, they don't read books to criticize them, but to lay on the soft theoric surface that they provide

[Anonymous No.15735533]

>>15734954
Where is the true intellectual chart though?

[Anonymous No.15735601]

>>15735533
it's an image of this man

[Anonymous No.15735614]

>>15735533
Asking the real questions here. We need an "essential highbrow-core" chart that is equally accurate. I nominate Spengler, Weininger, Quigley, Eliade, Lasch, Sloterdijk, Adler, de Tocqueville, Patrick O'Brien, Flannery O'Connor, Iceberg T. Slim and Tariq K. Flex.

[Anonymous No.15735617]

>>15734954
>thank you im gonna go read them all now fuck you

[Anonymous No.15735646]

>>15735182
midwit detected

[Anonymous No.15735663]

>>15734954
Where's Zizek?

[Anonymous No.15735704]

>>15735153
No he doesn't, what you need to understand is that many papers in the sciences use statistics, he shows that such math is terribly wrong, thus making the study false and useless. It's not my opinion but the way the nature of science works. You don't need to know anything about such topics if the math is wrong. Imagine a simple school problem, they ask you to show that if a popsicle cost 1 unit, how much does 3 popsicle costs. Someone does 3*1=3 and is correct, but then another one does 3*3=9 and instead of saying is wrong, another person says you cannot say is a bad answer because you don't work in the place that makes popsicle. That is your critique of Taleb.

[Anonymous No.15735720]

Essential "politically oversaturated" /lit/wit-core
>Hegel
>Marx
>Spengler
>Stirner
>Deleuze
>Evola
>Guénon
>Land
>Debord

[Anonymous No.15735729]

>>15734954

Alan Watts *is* for midwits but that's precisely what made him based. And I will still put him on for background noise from time to time.

[Anonymous No.15735762]

>>15735729
>allowing Watts to penetrate your subconscious
That's going to be a yikes from me, homeboy

[Anonymous No.15735775]

>>15735762

What's wrong with Alan Watts exactly?

[Anonymous No.15735784]

>>15734954
Spookbuster Stirner shouldn't be on it.

[Anonymous No.15735797]

>>15735775
Why, he's a midwit, don't you know! There's also a sort of subversive counterculturalist aspect to him. Watts was pseudo-deep and pseudo-wholesowm.

[Anonymous No.15735812]

>>15735797

>pseudo-deep midwit

This is for you.

[Anonymous No.15735817]

>>15735797
>Why, he's a midwit, don't you know! There's also a sort of subversive counterculturalist aspect to him. Watts was pseudo-deep and pseudo-wholesome.

[Anonymous No.15735839]

>>15735812
Seems like Watts got shallower as he got older

[Anonymous No.15735852]

>>15735839
see >>15735729

Watts wrote explicitly for the layman.

[Anonymous No.15735863]

>>15735614
>highbrow
>Spengler
You already lost

[Anonymous No.15735885]

>>15735852
Nice one, Control+F him in this:
https://tavistockagenda.weebly.com/tavi-overview.html

[Anonymous No.15735964]

>>15735885

>conspiracy theory blogpost

lol

[Anonymous No.15736002]

honestly most of this is essential reading and decent material to get deeper into more complicated ideas, dont shit on people for getting into mid-brow lit

[Anonymous No.15736012]

the fact that you go out of your way to collectivize midwit material makes you lower in status than a midwit, you realize this, no?

[Anonymous No.15736026]

>Stirner
Far from midwit. What's midwit is reading Stirner and coming out of it thinking "Haha, everything's a construct," which everyone besides a select few with the massive intelligence and supreme constitution required to understand the far-off philosophical implications and subtleties about Stirner end up getting from him. This goes for Nietzsche, too.

>inb4 what implications?
Filtered. Even if I told you, you wouldn't understand.

[Anonymous No.15736082]

>>15734994
the yogscast is still kino faggot

[Anonymous No.15736102]

>>15735153
>because he consistently attempts to posit himself as an authority on matters distinct from his own field
I thought he tries to dispel the notion that there are academic authorities on fields, and that only those with tactic or practical experience can be trusted or respected?
>>15735393
this.
>>15735614
>Iceberg T. Slim
lol, I want to hear your reasoning for nominating that purple prose pimp. I think there's probably some good sociological and psychological takeaways from his autobiography.

[Anonymous No.15736104]

>>15735775
everything

[Anonymous No.15736109]

>>15734954
>the prince
>midwit
cringe. niccy boi was the man

[Anonymous No.15736119]

>>15735477
his readers are

[Anonymous No.15736198]

>>15734954
>all those shills
wtf is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.15736273]

>>15736026
Can you give me a hint given that I probably won't get to the Young Hegelians for like a year or two of personal reading?

[Anonymous No.15736343]

>>15735413
You are just revealing your lack of erudition in philosophy if you consider Spinoza and Deleuze “pseuds”. The rest I can agree on.

[Anonymous No.15736348]

>>15735614
Lmao, embarrassing

[Anonymous No.15736349]

The only thing more pseud than embodying this image is avoiding the great books in this collage out of a sense of elitism.

[Anonymous No.15736357]

>>15736349
There are, like, 2 books/authors in this image that can genuinely be considered good

[Anonymous No.15736370]

>>15734954
Is it the assertion of these charts that the books are ones that midwits gravitate towards, or that the books are themselves midwitty, or both?

[Anonymous No.15736371]

>>15736357
name them

[Anonymous No.15736377]

Le Moldbug!! XD

[Anonymous No.15736380]

>>15736370
I think it's either or, for they both lead to the same inevitable conclusion (appeals to midwits).

[Anonymous No.15736388]

>>15734978
Dawkins’ work on biology is actually interesting. His atheism stuff is not.

[Anonymous No.15736408]

>>15735153
Noooooooo you can’t have opinions on subjects outside of your narrow speciality!

[Anonymous No.15736426]

What are the strata here?
>Retard
>NPC
>Midwit
>Pseud
>Highbrow
?

[Anonymous No.15736432]

>>15736426
you forgot
>based
everything I like
>cringe
everything I don't like

[Anonymous No.15736436]

>>15734954
This is quintessential /lit/. “Reading” books and acquiring knowledge is like a fashion accessory for the vast majority of this board’s users, hence why there is so much of a focus on
>Is this author midwit-tier?
>No, I’m not a midwit, I’m a superior patrician

Ironically, the biggest indication that one is a midwit is obsessing over midwittery.

[Anonymous No.15736440]

>>15736273
No need to read the young Hegelians if you don't feel like it. Stirner is fairly standalone, though knowing some Hegel is definitely a good start.

As for your hint
>Stirner isn't a political philosopher

[Anonymous No.15736462]

>>15734954
Why isn't Christopher Hitchens on there?

[Anonymous No.15736577]

>>15734954
It's really disappointing that this guy faded into oblivion. Imagine him running for President or leading anti-BLM militia with this smug expression.

[Anonymous No.15736590]

This really hits the whole midwit spectrum perfectly

[Anonymous No.15736787]

>>15735477
>>15736343
Don't worry, they're just asshurt commies that resent Land, and are further butthurt by the right's occasional interest in Deleuze (and consequently, Spinoza)
>Deleuze, Spinoza, Fisher, Land, Lovecraft, Burroughs
Massively based chadosophers.
Consider the miserable retard that would actually try to write them off as midwit on an imageboard.

[Anonymous No.15736854]

>>15736082
Commit suicide.

[Anonymous No.15737368]

>>15736371
The Shock Doctrine
A People's History

[Anonymous No.15737397]

>>15735617
>He thinks he's going to read
Cute

[Anonymous No.15738347]

>>15734954
>Chomsky is mid-wit
>On thje same level as Joe Rogan
based

[Anonymous No.15738352]

>>15736082
I like there Christmas casts.
Also the classic yogpods are good for cozy winter days.

[Anonymous No.15738377]

What should I read to not become pseud or midwit then?

[Anonymous No.15738425]

I've just finished reading Nineteen Eighty-Four. In my opinion, the political regime described is as ludicrous as you can get. However, their mechanisms (in a much smaller scale) are achievable and are somehow used today.

Why do people think this is somehow deep and enlightening anyway? Is it because of some political bias, trying to use the book in your favor (Lefties accusing the Right of replicating the book and viceversa)? I can't find the appeal in it.

[Anonymous No.15738632]

>>15735498
>who is Maimonides?

[Anonymous No.15738641]

>>15734954
I mean you are putting Ben Shapiro and School of Life in to the same league as Chomsky and Stirner so I wouldn't call it exactly accurate

[Anonymous No.15738691]

>>15735720
Don’t forget Jung.

[Anonymous No.15738708]

>>15735413
>people failing for the bait

[Anonymous No.15738975]

>>15734954
>Unironically makes chart about midwits
Is one

[Anonymous No.15739186]

>>15735153
>Yes, because he consistently attempts to posit himself as an authority on matters distinct from his own field, the same issue plagues the other legitimate intellectuals in the image.
ok, they all have that in common (except maybe Marx), though they definitely do that to very varying degrees, so throwing in Dawkins with Gladwell is excessive

[Anonymous No.15739189]

>>15739186
And what the fuck is Sun-Tzu doing there?

[Anonymous No.15739487]

Autism.

[Anonymous No.15740427]

>>15735601
Correction

[Anonymous No.15741218]

>>15734954

>I liked Art of War and 1984

oh no.

[Anonymous No.15742324]

>>15737368
Sigh.

[Anonymous No.15742348]

>>15738425
Haven't read it in a while, but remember the idea of newspeak as prescient. There were others as well. It wasn't so much the political authority that was interesting, it was basically just totalitarianism taken to he extreme. But the components of it were good. 2 minutes hate. Goldstein or whatever. Changing enemies. Memory hole. The partitioning of society. Etc.
Orwell was based.

[Anonymous No.15742446]

>>15734999
lol serious op is just a contrarian. He mixed in some legit midwit stuff like John Oliver, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro and somehow we are to assume everything compiled is in the same category?

[Anonymous No.15742448]

>>15734954
Largely accurate, but there’s a huge disparity in quality between some of the books (The Prince, 1984, The Art of War) and fucking school of life and Ben Shapiro. The best books and thinkers here are somewhere between midwit and topwit, in that they have something to offer to both. On the other hand, if someone regularly reads Shapiro or Harrison without either fuming or laughing (depending on their disposition), they do the world a disservice by being literate.

[Anonymous No.15742472]

>>15735176
I don’t know about stirner but I maintain Meditations is worthwhile lit for just about anyone. The fact that it’s midwit-accessible doesn’t mean it doesn’t have anything to offer anyone else.

[Anonymous No.15743136]

>>15742448
>hating on based shapiro
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.15743415]

>>15734954
I cannot bring myself to read The Strange Death of Europe.

It's just too depressing.

[Anonymous No.15743439]

>>15736577
he was never really relevant the media just needed a face for the 'alt-right' menace that wasn't too impassioned and was a B-tier public speaker

[Anonymous No.15743610]

>>15734954
Other than Chomsky being on this and generously calling this tripe midwit tier, I'd agree.

[Anonymous No.15743641]

>>15743136
>liking Ben "Die for Israel" Shapiro
Go away

[Anonymous No.15743693]

>>15743641
As I said, you have to go back.

[Anonymous No.15743714]

>Taleb
>Hoppe
>Sowell
>midwit
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.15743720]

>>15734954
Brave new world is good. Also, the prince.

[Anonymous No.15743733]

>>15736436
This

[Anonymous No.15743929]

>>15734954
Sun Tzu isn't bad

[Anonymous No.15743949]

>>15743714
Found the lolbertarian
Get fucked kiddo