/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15747153]

why are we supposed to hate him now?

[Anonymous No.15747160]

>>15747153
He has anger management problems but he makes very good videos on philosophy. Really, just don't post in his comment section (I don't anyway) and he'll be fine for what you need.

[Anonymous No.15747188]

He's a cunt, his kid is a tranny, and most egregious for me is that he's a "boomer Catholic" meaning he wants to call himself a Catholic despite rejecting its social teaching.

He's just not a good teacher. He meanders in his lectures and can't stop being awkward.

[Anonymous No.15747194]

He's fine for people who dislike books, people who read can learn better easily.

[Anonymous No.15747319]

If I worked in a field for over 20 years and was still relegated to entry level work, I would probably change careers. I would imagine he rubs a lot of people the wrong way and personal networking is so important for advancement. I remember one time he was talking about how just because somebody went to an Ivy league school it doesn't mean they're very intelligent and he recalled a story about how he met somebody who went to Harvard who he didn't think was very smart. I think it demonstrated a certain level of arrogance on his part and people are good at picking up on those vibes. I wouldn't want to hang out with him.

[Anonymous No.15747323]

tradcath zoomer nazis hate him because he isn't racist and doesn't hate his son for becoming trans

[Anonymous No.15747330]

>>15747319
so you hate him because he isn't a total brown-nosing dicksucker? Lol. What a cuck you are.

[Anonymous No.15747335]

>>15747153
he is psychotically passive aggressive. it's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.15747358]

>>15747323
If you have a transgender child, you have failed as a parent, and therefore no one should listen to a word you say because your ideas are either at best moronic or at worse poisonous.

[Anonymous No.15747376]

>>15747358
^ This.

[Anonymous No.15747400]

>>15747358
>>15747376
Wew lad. Can't wait until you loser children have kids of your own one day (unlikely, since you're all anti social virgin types, making you an even bigger failure by your system of values), and realize that you're actually not in control of them because they're actual people with their own wills, desires, ideas, and beliefs that aren't your own, and attempting to control these things just backfires, because that's what it means to have a will. It's gonna be so funny seeing millenial and zoomer nazi types 15-20 years from now all depressed, bitter, and full of regret from completely destroying their relationship with their only kin over identity politics bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15747419]

>>15747153
Funny how people have known about Greg on this board for years and everyone always liked him, but now that we're majority reddit npc hylics who don't even read suddenly everyone hates him. What people don't get is that he isn't an e-personality like your favourite youtuber, he's just a teacher. None of the shit they complain about has any bearing on his usefulness as a teaching resource on philosophy (and imo he's basically the best free resource for learning about philosophy on the internet).

I mean, I get that some of the stuff he says is funny or weird in the same way as pretty much any boomer online, but there was literally zero dislike of Greg on here before the reddit-demographic tipping point of 2019

[Anonymous No.15747454]

>>15747419
If you actually read the texts he talks about he doesn't have anything to offer. His videos are good for people who are too stupid to understand what they're reading. I don't need training wheels so he's worthless.

[Anonymous No.15747471]

>We

[Anonymous No.15747479]

>>15747454
I don't watch his videos for texts I'm reading, but for the one's I'm not reading. Unless you literally start at the beginning of philosophy and work your way through chronologically, his videos are indispensible to get a quick read on someone you don't have time to read at the minute

[Anonymous No.15747493]

>>15747479
So you're a psued, exactly as I suspected. You watch some Youtube videos and think you're learning something. If people like you disappeared this board would be so much better.

[Anonymous No.15747532]

>>15747400
>and realize that you're actually not in control of them
> and attempting to control these things just backfires,
That doesn't make sense.
You may not be able to control them, but you're saying in the same sentence that parents can and do have an affect on their children.
I find it utterly unlikely that parents have no power to at least attenuate the likelihood of their child growing into someone who hates their own body because of some discordance between a social construct like gender and how they perceive their body. You're saying it yourself, attempts to control can backfire, therefore parents have some influence: why would that be mutually exclusive with influence on their identity?

[Anonymous No.15747538]

>>15747400
This idea that growing up in a house with discipline or with parents otherwise engaged with high investment rearing strategies leads kids rebellious failures in life is completely baseless and contrary to all observable reality. If you look at any rich and successful adult you will generally find a "helicopter parent" who forced their kid to a lot of things he didn't want to do, and whose lifestyle is regularly demonized by lower class parents who raise lower class kids.

Sadler is divorced from his wife and rarely sees the boy who spent all his time with his mother. That boy was not raised in a disciplined house and he was not controlled, so if what you say is true why would he turn into a tranny? If high investment parenting is bad he should be a model citizen.

[Anonymous No.15747540]

>>15747493
I can already tell you're a shallow reader because you can't appreciate that there are vast degrees of understanding that you can have of a text. Yes, if you watch a video of a philosophy professor telling you about Descartes, you won't understand Descartes, but you will understand enough Descartes to navigate the parts of first Kritik where Kant is responding to Cartesian scepticism more easily.

Retards like you are always against using secondary materials because you think you can just pick up a philosophical text and understand it as if the writer is in the same room as you. You completely lack hermeneutic sensitivity. If you want to understand a philosopher properly, you need to focus on that philosopher, their texts, and their context. That means you'll need to investigate their historical context and the writers that influenced them, *specifically* with an eye to understand, not those writers or that context for its own sake, but as it relates to the philosopher you are studying. That means you might not have time to simply jump back through the history of philosophy and read every single author at leisure. So yeah, I have to rely on secondary sources like books or youtube lectures sometimes.

Also sometimes I'm bored and want to learn something about a philosopher I know next to nothing about. I'm not going to get an "impure" knowledge from a youtube lecture, though obviously it's better to read the original text. It's also better to read the original text in its original language (and for ancient writers, I'd argue that it's impossible to understand e.g. Plato in translation without sophisticated commentary from those who speak the language.) But who has time to learn every single european language.

[Anonymous No.15747560]

>>15747540
I'm not against using secondary material, I'm against using worthless secondary material and I'm against relying solely on secondary material which is precisely what you're doing. Sadler has nothing to offer if you actually read the text. You don't understand Descartes if you don't actually read Descartes. You're the worst type of pseud because you think you actually know something after watching a Youtube video. I see your type constantly jumping into conversations and trying to tell people what is what and it lowers the quality of any forum. It's why nobody likes a first year philosophy student.

[Anonymous No.15747603]

>>15747560
Not that guy but you're wrong. He's helped me understand Aristotle's categories, for example.