[ 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: 849 KB, 1352x3404, read theory incel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16004941 No.16004941 [Reply] [Original]

/theory/ general

>> No.16004949

>>16004941
“Theory” is the most rage inducing buzzword. Just shut up.

>> No.16004953

>>16004941
>animefag
>read theory
checks out

>> No.16004968

>>16004953
>posts on an anime site
>doesn't watch anime
literally how big of a loser do you have to be lmao. go to reddit.

>> No.16004971

>>16004941
Lol, I've read half of these books, and at least a quarter of this chart is absolute trash.

>> No.16005018

3/4 of it are philosophy not theory

>> No.16005031

>>16004971
Plz list so others can avoid them.

>> No.16005066

>>16005031
>>16004971
they are all worth reading

>> No.16005079

>>16004941
>translations
lmao

>> No.16005120

>>16004941
Shitiest books i´ve read in my entire life. Literally not one of this shit is usefull except if you´re a teenager.

>> No.16005149

>>16005120
but you don't read anon

>> No.16005150

>>16005031
>>16005066
Edward Said worth reading? Lol, he's laughing stock for any serious historian.
Luce Irigaray and other lacanians are trash too, since Lacan was a pseud himself.
Bookchin is an utopian, he does have some interesting stuff, but in general he aims for a fantasy.

>> No.16005162

>>16004941
it's impossible for a person, philosophy teacher or not, to read all these books and understand them in a lifetime, not only because they are highly difficult to read but because most of them not only disagree with each other on core issues but were written as a refutation of their main ideas and assumptions and that can't be overlooked.

>> No.16005219

>>16005150
>Should be laughing stock for any serious historian*
People still cite him religiously because they are afraid of getting bullied
He has spawned the most toxic form of scholarship in recent times

>> No.16005240

Start with the Greeks
Proceed with the Romans
Further with the poos
Conclude with the chinks

>> No.16005254

>>16004968
this

>> No.16005285

>>16005150
This. Lacan deteriorates the mind

>> No.16005326

My problem with "read theory"-fags isn't that they claim to read theory, it's that they don't read it. Mainly because they have a very high ratio of women (who never read anything in general, let alone understand anything), and the kinds of moron men who hang around half-assing women, and either don't notice or don't mind that they half-ass everything.

Anything with a high ratio of women is immediately suspect, because it is guaranteed to have low or no barrier to participation. The only kind of men who would want to be in such a group are the dregs who can't get past the barriers to participation of real groups. That's the issue.

>> No.16005372

>>16005326
Why do you resent women? What would your mother say if she read your post?

>> No.16005406

>>16005372
Moronic post. I would say the same about any group of children, but that doesn't mean I hate kids.

>> No.16005592

>>16005406
Women aren't children. Why do you resent women? answer the question.

>> No.16005610

>>16005372
based retard

>> No.16006320

Bump

>> No.16006334

>>16004941
The reason why you call it “theory” and not simply “philosophy” is because you’re afraid that “philosophy” sounds too elitist or intimidating. In other words, you’re a slave and should kill yourself.

>> No.16006344

>>16005326
This

>> No.16006694
File: 88 KB, 976x741, neat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16006694

>>16004941

Currently reading the Public Sphere book. It's neat!

>> No.16006987

>>16004941
I'm confused.
Am I being asked to read about theory, or this a chart on "read theory" whatever that is?

>> No.16007138

bump

>> No.16007174

>>16004941
You desperately need to have sex dude

>> No.16007180

>>16007174
womanposting is not allowed

>> No.16007191

Why is it called theory?

>> No.16007193

>>16004941
>Whitehead
>James
If they get to be theory, why not Carnap, Goodman, Quine, Sellars, Davidson, Kuhn, Putnam, Rorty? They're basically secret poststructuralists anyway (Rorty not so secret).

>> No.16007259

>>16007191
ok ok i just goggled it
>“Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246).

>> No.16007518

>>16007193
I'm not sure about James, but I'm pretty sure Whitehead was a somewhat important influence on Deleuze, which would explain why he's there.

>> No.16007770

>>16005326
Honest question:
Do you actually meet or interact with the kind of people you describe?
I haven't encountered a single person who was even aware that most of these books exist despite my friend circle being largely made up with academics.
So I'm always curious where others make these connections.

>> No.16008039

>>16007770
you meet them here anon

>> No.16008092

>>16005150
>Edward Said worth reading? Lol, he's laughing stock for any serious historian.
I'm not sure what you mean by "any serious historian," but every single historian of MENA I've met, spoken to, and read holds his work in high regard. There's a reason why his friends, associates, and relatives run everything from Jadaliyah to the Journal of Palestine Studies.

>> No.16008107

>>16007191
Because it's intended to inform academic praxis. Academics read "theory," then use it to help them form questions, conduct research, and analyze evidence.

>> No.16008131

>>16007770
What kind of academics do you meet who don't discuss /theory? Everyone I know who reads reads this stuff. Shit, there were two clubs in my hs about it

>> No.16008283

>>16005326
Man you really are generalizing like anybody I've ever read on this site. You'd benefit form TRYING a bit harder on interacting with anyone and TRYING to get to know them before judging them like you are doing. People don't bite, and if you ever got bitten, then don't go around spreading the rabies that you contracted.

>> No.16008353

>>16008283
triggered roast

>> No.16008901

>>16004968
this is 4channel buddy, you're thinking of 4chan

>> No.16010270

Bump

>> No.16010316

''Read theory''
Theory on what? Big and small apples? What a shit broad term

>> No.16010326

>>16010316
critical theory

>> No.16010329

>>16008092
Yes, he's still quoted, but most of the bullshit he says on Orientalism has already been debunked. Even back when it was published a lot of historians started publishing responses to his work because he says a lot of bullshit.

>> No.16010338

>>16010326
''critical theory''
The critical theory of big and small apples. None of those guys can do that.

>> No.16010343
File: 53 KB, 600x800, 614.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16010343

>>16010329
>debunked

>> No.16010355

>>16010343
Why did you post yourself?

>> No.16010868

Buump

>> No.16010904
File: 110 KB, 839x610, 1586197100824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16010904

This month... I will definitely read Capital this month!

>> No.16010952

test

>> No.16011013

>>1601090
I believe you uwu

>> No.16011240

>tread about continental philosophy has absolutely no discussion of content
What a surprise.

>> No.16011895

bump

>> No.16011935

>>16010329
i'm curious, what is that he's said thats been debunked, genuinely want to know since i'm gravitating towards MENA studies

>> No.16011947

>>16007770
thats because you grew up in Hicksville, USA. I live in a big euro city and people def know at least half of these, not academics either

>> No.16011956

>>16004941
I’m noticing a lot of jewry in this chart. Is that intentional?

>> No.16011960

>>16011947
ok desu looking at these again maybe not half but a third easily

>> No.16011980

>>16011956
N-no... this can only be a coincidence...

>> No.16012052

>>16004941
I don’t care about stupid bullshit and just wants to know how things actually work.
What should I read?

>> No.16012061

>>16012052
All of it

>> No.16012084

>>16012061
Wrong

>> No.16012927

bump

>> No.16012941

>>16008107
By praxis, do you mean action? I dont see that explaining why this is called "theory." For example, gravity is a theory, but gravity is not "theory."

>> No.16012997

>>16012941
It's just Marxist-informed vocabulary, theory/praxis both. Nothing wrong with it. It's (etymologically) called theory because it is theory (in the neutral sense gravity is) but it's specifically distinguished from gravity/etc by being Marxist/leftist theory.

>> No.16013035

>>16012997
If it's specifically distinct from something else but uses the same label, isn't that a motte-and-bailey type move? For example, the theory of gravity seems to have excellent predictive power, and lots of experimental support, whereas much of "theory" is not rigorous in this way. Doesnt calling them both by the same shorthand seem like a move to elevate the latter to the prestige of the former without performing the labor of elevating the content?

>> No.16013055

>>16012997
it's a bit ridiculous that they don't say "marxist theory' or 'leftist theory'. Especially when there is no context that would even indicate they're marxists

>> No.16013082

>>16004941
90% nonsensical bullshit that no one will ever read

>> No.16013111

>>16012997
Not a single post in this thread has been able to answer why they call it "theory." Do you people even understand what you're talking about?

>It's theory because it's not praxis, but it's not theory in the usual sense.

So it's like religious texts for marxists, the metaphysics which they base their worldview off?

>> No.16013160

>>16013111
>So it's like religious texts for marxists, the metaphysics which they base their worldview off?
This exactly what it is, and as said before, a lot of it is bullshit. Said, the lacanians, Althusser, Bookchin...

>> No.16013188

>>16013160
Amazing.

>> No.16014152

Bump

>> No.16014216

Where's Girard?

>> No.16015030

>>16004941
How the fuck is the Critique of Pure Reason political theory???

>> No.16015063

>>16013111
>>16013160
>>16012941
>>16012997
The vocabulary is Marxian, but the theories themselves are not. It's not even religious. It's just about figuring out new and more effective ways to do work in the social sciences. John Mearsheimer and Carl Schmitt technically wrote theory. They're just not as popular as your run-of-the-mill left-wing humanitarian "theorist" like Adorno.

>> No.16016072

I've never seen a Byung-Chul Han thread on here

>> No.16016085

>>16015063
so it's 'social scientific theory'?

>> No.16017331

>>16015063
>It's not even religious.
Then what is theory based on?

>> No.16018637

>>16013111
There's literally nothing wrong with a tradition using words in a technical restricted sense within said tradition. All kinds of groups do things like that. Sometimes religions do it, but academic movements also do it very often. Social movements (certainly movements online, including on this very website) also do it.
>So it's like religious texts for marxists, the metaphysics which they base their worldview off?
If there is one thing characterizing so-called Marxian 'theory' it's that it is critical of ideology on the basis of pointing out how material conditions determine class consciousness and superstructure and things like that. Later 'theory' switches to criticizing morality based on genealogy of ideas (Nietzsche), and criticizing all sorts of things based on power structures (Foucault), just as it continues critique on the material dialectical basis (Adorno). People like Debord and Baudrillard point out just how much of our existence is basically unreal, call it spectacle or simulacrum or what have you. Lastly stuff like Hegel and Kant is included because they are important as antecedent to give historical context to stuff later on. If you want to call that 'religious texts' just call everything a religious text. Everyone with a worldview can point to foundational texts if there are any. That doesn't make your belief system a religion or else every belief system would be a religion.