[ 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: 3.74 MB, 1920x1080, 1581874853071.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15790395 No.15790395 [Reply] [Original]

Zizek's wrote in the book "Myth and Mayhem":

>I cannot but notice the irony of how Peterson and I, billed in the publicity for our debate as the big opponents, are both marginalized by the official academic community...

I have noticed a trend where people like Zizek and Peterson use the very fact that no other intellectual takes them seriously -- that they have been thrown out of reputable institution and relegated to Twitter and YouTube -- as an argument *in their favour*, as if being supported by the masses is somehow an achievement. As if having a million thumbs up on a lecture is worth more than the opinion of a few snobbish elite professors, right?

>> No.15790408

Okay, what's your point?

>> No.15790482

>>15790395
Was Zizek saying it's an argument in his favor or Peterson's? The irony he noticed is there. He always points out stuff like that, it doesn't mean he's flattering himself, much less Peterson who doesn't deserve it.

>> No.15790508
File: 32 KB, 363x312, 364px-Thomas_Aquinas_in_Stained_Glass-e1548704947897.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15790508

Honestly, to me it seems like a point in their favor, or at least in HIS favor. I've gradually come to think of academic philosophy as being essentially worthless. It has to fit within the confines of modern Western academia, so how really challenging and life-transforming can it be?

I know that some of the greatest philosophers ever to live, like Aquinas and Kant, were college professors. But it just seems, these days, like academia is a really negative place in which to do real philosophy. It seems like the modern school environment hinders the honest exploration of ideas, rather than supports it.

>> No.15790520

And is having institutional credentials worth something in itself eh?

>> No.15790721

>>15790508
Anon, not just academic philosphy is essentially worthless

>> No.15790768

>>15790508
This is anti-intellectual garbage take by a plebeian who has no understanding of what is going on in academical circles, there is plenty of substantial work being done today in philosophy.

>> No.15790797

>>15790768
>there is plenty of substantial work being done today in philosophy.
lmao

>> No.15790808

>>15790768
If you know about that shit then why are you on 4chan lmao

>> No.15790811

>>15790768
like what?

>> No.15790831

Zizek is marginalised for political reasons, mainly. He's actually quite an exceptionally gifted academic. Peterson is marginalised because he's a fucking idiot. I will not expand on this comment.

>> No.15790836

>>15790831
Peterson is a fucking idiot, but that’s not why he’s marginalized. There are plenty of stupider people in academia that enjoy quite prosperous careers and public attention.

>> No.15790840

>>15790831
>He's actually quite an exceptionally gifted academic.

No he is not. The extent of his intellectual gift is making "oh but really?" type of remarks based on psychoanalysis, Lacan, Marx and Hegel, basically the exact mix you want to be familiar with if you want to make things seem quirky and ridiculous.

>> No.15790842

>>15790831
>Peterson is marginalised because he's a fucking idiot.
Zizek doesn’t seem to think so, unless you think you’re smarter than him.

>I will not expand on this comment.
Of course you won’t. Back to Breadtube and Reddit.

>> No.15790846

>>15790836
Fair point. I would contend that Peterson is unusually retarded for a public academic, but that might be pedantic.

>> No.15790861

>>15790840
The idea that his books are somehow "serious" is a total joke. His stand up comedy performances and his books only differ in tone and the amount of speech impediments and tics. Yes his books have a more serious tone...that boils down to the same "oh but really? isn't this actually a penis and thus completely the opposite of what we think? hoowee I'm a master magician look at me, gotchu again senpai" type of shtick.

>> No.15790865

>>15790508
That's exactly what one of this uneducated followers would say. I too drank this kool-aid, but once you grow up intellectually you realise these people are pandering to the masses. Professors in universities aren't dumb.

>> No.15790866

>>15790846
most of public academics are retarded. read Taleb you fucking idiot

>> No.15790877

>>15790408
Getting fired and amassing 2 million followers on Twitter doesn't mean you smart and it doesn't mean the academy made a mistake. It means you marketed yourself well to the 2 million idiots.

>> No.15790890

>>15790831
>Zizek is marginalised for political reasons
Where? Even right-wingers love Zizek.

>> No.15790903

>>15790877
yeah everybody except the intersectional tranny-enabling academia is an idiot.

>> No.15790906

>>15790395
Academia is not immune to human nature, and generally people that swim against the current, mindlessly or not, will meet more obstacles than those who follow it, mindlessly or not. A given academic community will, in an aggregate sense, aim at some goal, using whatever method or theory to reach it. If that goal is not "truth" alone, then it is doomed to eventually launch people like Žižek and Peterson into fame / infamy. Because the particular academic community is not aimed at truth alone, it's not only good, and people like these can rightfully view it in their favor to have been treated as heathens by their fellow academics, after calling out the partial or hidden goals (whether known or unknown by the community itself). You can hate them for all they say and do, but if they have a point about academia or institutions of higher learning in general, then you'll be disappointing in finding out that they won't go away just because you may find a flaw or many in other things they say.

>> No.15790910

>>15790890
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/10/what-is-zizek-for

the absolute state of this article

>> No.15790925

>>15790890
Zizek got into trouble for saying (mildly)anti-migrant stuff in 2017 or around then.

>> No.15790927

>>15790910
Just another product of liberals who believe themselves to be Marxists.

>> No.15790936

>>15790903
>yeah everybody except the intersectional tranny-enabling academia is an idiot.
This, but unironically.

>> No.15790940

>>15790925
Oh, right. I also remember him saying that the LGBT culture is capitalist in nature due to it's overwhelming individualism. Can Zizek readers confirm if this is true?

>> No.15790951

>>15790910
>What would be my—how should I call it—spontaneous attitude towards the universe? It’s a very dark one. The first one—the first thesis would have been—a kind of total vanity. There is nothing, basically. I mean it quite literally. Like, ultimately—ultimately—there are just some fragments, some vanishing things, if you look at the universe it’s one big void. But then, how do things emerge? Here, I feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum physics, where, you know, the idea there is that the universe is a void, but a kind of a positively charged void, and then particular things appear when the balance of the void is disturbed. And I like this idea spontaneously very much, the fact that it’s not just nothing, things are out there. It means something went terribly wrong, that what we call creation is a kind of a cosmic imbalance, a cosmic catastrophe, that things exist by mistake. And I’m even ready to go to the end and claim that the only way to counteract this is to assume the mistake and go to the end. And we have a name for this, it’s called “love.” Isn’t love precisely this kind of a cosmic imbalance? I was always disgusted with this notion of “I love the world, universal love.” I don’t like the world. I’m basically someone in between I hate the world or I’m indifferent towards it. But the of whole of reality, it’s just it, it’s stupid. It is out there. I don’t care about it. Love for me is an extremely violent act. Love is not “I love you all.” Love means, I pick out something, and you know, again it’s this structure of imbalance, even if this something is just a small detail, a fragile individual person, I say “I love you more than anything else.” In this quite formal sense love is evil.

Zizek confirmed for making Gnostic threads on /lit/

>> No.15790952

>>15790940
This is a pretty common leftist critique that isn't limited to Zizek. Mark Fisher made similar comments in his excellent essay, Exiting The Vampire's Castle.

>> No.15791054

>>15790952
It goes back to Marx in fact.

>> No.15791091

>>15790797
plebeian

>> No.15791115

>>15790808
what kind of stupid question is that, what does posting here has to do with me being aware of contemporary developments in philosophy

>> No.15791131

>>15790811
Do you think philosophy just stopped after Kant and Aquinas? This is literally the best shape philosophy has ever been.

>> No.15791169

>>15790951
Christ, what trash

>> No.15791180

>>15790940
that's a criticism that runs back to lenin and stalin

>> No.15791211

>>15790861
He publishes primarily essays. If you stand Less Than Nothing up against Pandemic! you'll immediately see what I mean.

>> No.15791224

>>15791169
Please say more

>> No.15791238

>>15790831
>Zizek is marginalised for political reasons, mainly.
>Peterson is marginalised because he's a fucking idiot.
What a retard. Don't ever post again.

>> No.15791243

>>15791238
I just posed again.

>> No.15791294

>>15791211
his essay about pandemic was completely wrong. he called for nations to put all the power into WHO's hands, as it turned out WHO actually had no idea what they were doing and it would be a disaster. if you go back and read his older essays i have a suspicion they havent aged well either. he is just a writer in the vein of mental gymnastics, of trying to look at a problem in a different quirky way, but he has nothing to say beyond that, when he does he is often wrong.

>> No.15791295

>>15791224
What else I'm supposed to say, it's all style with no substance. There is nothing in quantum mechanics that support the idea that "It means something went terribly wrong, that what we call creation is a kind of a cosmic imbalance, a cosmic catastrophe, that things exist by mistake."

>> No.15791300

>>15791131
I asked for examples unironically. Not being facetious, just curious.

>> No.15791348

>>15791300
I can give you examples of discussions in the nature of causality, philosophy of religion, scientific realism vs antirealism, there is a whole ocean of works being published covering topics of philosophical importance. For example in the philosophy of religion there is a new rise in classical theism, which is especially interesting since anti-humean metaphysics in general start to get more traction.

>> No.15791463

>>15791294
Agreed, you're making my point here.
Now please, say something comparative about Less Than Nothing or make the case that creators are to be judged by their lowest quality work.

>> No.15791492

>>15791348
Can you recommend some Classical Theism books or authors other than Feser?

>> No.15791519

>>15791295
In quantum mechanics as a mathematical subject, you are correct. I believe he uses wrong to mean improbable or incoherent with the dominant order of void or nonbeing, which, given the Copenhagen interpretation of QM (which is quickly becoming a domain of smart people showing off their technical prowess) as a statistical emergence is correct.

In popular discourse you've got to admit people are less interested in Schrodinger's equation than they are meaningless vacillations on "god particles" and similar mysticisms. Taken with Zizek's work in mind, do you think he's really talking about theoretical physics or pop culture?

>> No.15791732

>>15791492
Rob Koons and Alexander Pruss would be some other interesting ones, although I am mostly familiar with them second hand, from the atheistic side. I am assuming you already know Oderberg from Feser.

>> No.15791760

>>15791732
Thank you, I'll check them out

>> No.15791782

>>15791519
I think he's heard some popularisers talk about it, but he isn't really interested to actually delve in the science himself. And from what I've seen from his philosophical views in general I don't think he is a very serious thinker.

>> No.15791867

>>15790395
But both of them have their places within Academia, both of them teach (or used to) and have published several things including books among other things. Zizek just likes to play up his persona as a clown and loves to say his sense of humor is what keeps him blackballed (even though he still speaks at Ivy League schools and other Academic conferences regularly). As for Peterson he finds that playing a martyr is what broke him out of his boring day job of professor at a Canadian University, so of course he will bring it up whenever possible since he thinks it strengthens his talking points.

>> No.15792723

>>15790768
>there is plenty of substantial work being done today in philosophy.
Philosophy, as Stirner correctly pointed out, is nothing but pure mockery; a joke - a wretched form of humanism to replace after the cracks in the hegemony of the church

>> No.15792770

>>15790890
liberal/progressive circles

>> No.15792777

>>15791348
>the nature of causality, philosophy of religion, scientific realism vs antirealism, t
You absolute retard could have gone to the actually novel fields of philosophy that are near new breakthroughs into a new era of philosophy and you went for the most boring 100x regurgitated philoosphical topics that regularly get revived because they are easy.
Believe it or not, it is actually kinda hip (or was in the early 2000s) to (re-)interpret Kant. As if that hasn't been done by thousands of people and in so many more interesting ways, we now have to go thruogh morons publishing works where they "work otgether" with other contemporary Kant specialists from across the globe; somehow this unique approach will finally settle the noumenon debate xD.

I would defend the fact that many of the actually enlightened philosophers will be in academia and will only recognize you or interact with you if you are also in academia of some sorts, but, please, any shit the average American Ivy League anglo prof likes to do to stand out a bit is not worthy of
>substantial work being done in philosophy today

>> No.15792798

>>15790508
There's a reason why schoolmasters have been portrayed as miserly villains.

>> No.15792800

>>15791243
>posed
Yes, yes you did.

>> No.15792803

>>15790395
Obviously being anti-establishment is a good thing because I don't care hearing more of the same ideology I'm hearing every day. Get fucked you pathetic academicuck

>> No.15792807

>>15790831
Zizek is a hack and a bit of a dipshit.

>> No.15792812

>>15790768
This is brainwashed hogwash from a low IQ academic who suffers of sunk cost fallacy and being retarded

>> No.15792820

>>15790395
>I have noticed a trend where people like Zizek and Peterson use the very fact that no other intellectual takes them seriously
People do take and have always taken Zizek seriously, and Peterson in his heyday was a respected firebrand at Harvard.

>> No.15792831

>>15791243
>phoneposter ridiculed with instant karma autocorrect
based God

>> No.15793510

>>15792777
>the actually novel fields of philosophy that are near new breakthroughs into a new era of philosophy

like what

>> No.15793635

>>15792723
Philosophy existed before the christian church, and during the time of the church, so Stirner's idea that philosophy is a replacement for religion is demonstrably false. Additionally, the role of philosophy is the advancement of certain spheres of human understanding, so the idea that it has the same role in society as religion is simply absurd. You just lowered my opinion of Stirner significantly.

>> No.15793657

>>15792777
You have obviously no idea what are you even talking about, I am not going to waste my time arguing with a retard

>> No.15793665

>>15792812
When men talk, you should stay silent

>> No.15793676

>>15790768
>there is plenty of substantial work being done today in philosophy
Imagine typing this out in the year of our lord, MMXX

>> No.15793683

>>15790808
>lmaoo man why are you on a literature/(partly) philosophy site if you're like an actual academic and stuff
degenerates projecting, serious question why do people like you even come here? Maybe you can enlighten me. You just reduce and dilute any of the (already rare) academic/higher discussion with the drowning background noise of your degeneracy; surely there are better places to satisfy your need for daily internet stimulation and shitposting

>> No.15793699

>>15790395
>the scoundrel finds consolation in the fact that he is a scoundrel
- dosto

>> No.15795354

>>15793665
>studies philosophy
>considers xerself a man
post a timestamped picture of your flexed bicep
>inb4 snarky weakling excuses

>> No.15796245

>>15792803
>>15792812
>academia is one person

>> No.15796253

>>15790395
Zizek is a professor at New York university who publishes like crazy. Furthermore academia is not supposed to be an isolated ivory tower but a public institution. As such public interest in their work and person should at least be met with academic interest.

>> No.15796263

>>15790768
Name literally one thing. Especially Anglo philosophy is largely useless, the only useful work I will allow is philological work. The state of the art is extremely depressing, but it is no surprise really. I remember reading that already Horkheimer predicted the decline of Western philosophy as the academic institution was Americanized after WW2.

>> No.15796279

>>15791348
Do it then. Give me one example of something substantial then. Just one work that you would say is indicative of philosophy doing something new, fresh and worthwhile, that is not just mere posturing or a hidden repeat of something already done.

>> No.15797736

>>15792777
Enlightened philosophers that are reduced to academic circles are an oxymoron.

>> No.15798101

>>15796263
Analytic philosophy is the only good philosophy today, the continentals only produce meme books like spinal catastrophism. Anglo-American philosophy not only has not declined but continiues the philosophical tradition that passes through antiquity, the middle ages, and the modern period. You simply have no idea what are you even talking about, like 99% of this shitty board.

>> No.15798121

>>15796279
Why would I even waste my time trying to educate some dipshit who doen't know anything about philosophy that there is important work being done today.

>> No.15798135
File: 1.37 MB, 900x900, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15798135

>>15790865
>Professors in universities aren't dumb.
Yeah sure thing

>> No.15798440

>>15798135
this but unironically and not a bait

>> No.15798523
File: 31 KB, 470x470, 1526925756615.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15798523

>>15790768
>there is plenty of substantial work being done today in philosophy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MY FUCKING SIDES

>> No.15798579

>>15798523
i mean it's not like 4chan shitposters like yourself know anything about current work in philosophy, you are just posturing

>> No.15798859

>>15790508
oh irony

>> No.15798929

>>15790395
>ctrl+f
>No Stefan Molyneux

Like him or not, he's contributed a great deal to the conversation.
By the way: has anyone read The God of Athiests? The characters were very interesting.

>> No.15798955

>>15798929
Molyneux has officially been cancelled. Nice try guy

>> No.15799065

>>15798135
Still mad that he roasted you before blocking your account?

>> No.15799076

>>15798955
Wait, this is my first time here. Is this a Marxist board?

>> No.15799135

>>15799076
>doesn't like retarded far right thinker
>u must be le marxist!

>> No.15799174

>>15799076
Fuck off to Reddit, and never come back.

>> No.15799222

>>15798121
Not him, but as much as he posts like a retard you have failed to substantially answer his request so far.

>> No.15799269

>>15799222
He obviously doesn't know anything about philosophy, so engaging would be a waste of time. If he actually elaborated as to why he thinks that the work done today is insignificant I would respond to it, but if he is not even familiar with the literature there is no reason to waste my time engaging.

>> No.15799292

>>15799269
Some have asked the question in earnest though. What book published by an academic philosopher in the past 10 years brings a fresh and important perspective on a topic that isn't just a modernization or a rehash of an older philosopher's insight?

>> No.15799305

>>15799292
/lit/ at one time seemed interested in the 'object oriented ontology' guy. Idk if he is seen as a meme in academia or not

>> No.15799364

>>15793635
Not him but he's only quoting stirner on philosophy being a joke. He certainly didn't say it was a replacement of religion since in the first part of the Ego and its own he makes quite a distinction between pre-christian and christian philosophy.

>> No.15799395

>>15799292
Actually I already elaborated in response to a similar question previously in the thread. Are you talking specifically about entirely new systems in the style of Schopenhauer or Sartre etc. ? Because for me the quality of philosophical discourse is not primarily a matter of having a lot of novel or creative ideas, but rather dealing thoroughly and rigorously with the subject matter, arguing effectively against opposing viewpoints etc.

>> No.15799396

>>15790768
keep counting beans and cross examining truth tables you st upid fucking philosemitic nigger, a hundred grand for a zoom course on how scientific morality is real taught by a man who gets paid $250k to make a single speech in front of IMF executives about annexing the west bank. i hope you catch covid and die choking on your own blood

>> No.15799413

>>15799174
I've not been on reddit since gamergate. Was on cripplechan until it got booted. Now I'm here.

>>15799135
You still haven't made an argument. Get one and we can talk rationally.

>> No.15799428

>>15799364
I guess that makes him slightly less bad

>> No.15799435

>>15799396
>Actually I already elaborated in response to a similar question previously in the thread.
Yes I saw your post, but a revival of classical theism in analytic philosophy is hardly what I would call a fresh perspective that's not a rehash of older philosophies. It seems like the usual game of analytics playing catch-up with the things they've collectively ignored for a good part of their history. I'm being unfair for the sake of the argument, but my point is that if I wanted to read about classical theism, I'd go to classical theists and their scholarly translators and commentators.

>Are you talking specifically about entirely new systems in the style of Schopenhauer or Sartre etc. ?
Not necessarily, but there are original thinkers even within old systems. Is there a contemporary analytic as original as Quine for instance? I guess Kripke is a decent candidate but he's more of an older generation already. What do you think of Parfit?

>Because for me the quality of philosophical discourse is not primarily a matter of having a lot of novel or creative ideas, but rather dealing thoroughly and rigorously with the subject matter

I feel both are indispensable, especially since rigor in philosophy is at best tentative, but I agree that the latter is enough to qualify as a valuable contributor to philosophy.

>> No.15799440

>>15799396
you will never be a real woman

>> No.15799630

>>15799435
I guess David Armstrong, Paul Churchland and Nancy Cartwright would be some examples, or do you consider those to be older generation too? What about Thomas Nagel? But in any case the position I was defending was that there are valuable contributions to philosophy today, which you seem to agree, I am not saying that there is some super original system coming out every day, nor I think there is a need for it.
In regard to classical Theism I mentioned it because it fits in with a recent trendin trying to get away from the Humean paradigm, and some of the theistic thinkers I mentioned have tried to give novel accounts of Quantum Mechanics based on Aristotelian Metaphysics.
Regarding Parfit I am not terribly familiar with him, I am very much a hardline antirealist in metaethics but maybe I should engage more with the opposite side. Currently I am very much into the theistic discussions, specifically regarding the contrast between Aristotelian vs Humean metaphysics.