[ 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: 6 KB, 250x147, download_4.jfif.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16116355 No.16116355 [Reply] [Original]

>im gonna namedrop 4 references every 5 words look im so smart
i hate authors like this write your point faggots nobody should read a thousand pages volume to understand your references

>> No.16116361

You would love Ready Player One

>> No.16116363

>>16116355
>getting filtered by low IQ writers

>> No.16116372

>>16116361
It's my favorite book

>> No.16116376

>>16116355
Often times they haven't read the author's they're referencing. They just check wikipedia for a summary and then pretend they're well read. Kind of like of everyone here.

>> No.16116403

>>16116376
You're giving us too much credit

>> No.16116418

I have never understood why people care about who said what. If a statement is true, it stands by itself.

>> No.16116440

>>16116418
>statement
>being true
Lmao

>> No.16116448

>>16116440
Shut up Philo 101 dickweed

>> No.16116461

>>16116440
>t. edgy nihilist teen who is addicted to impure vices

>> No.16116474

>>16116418
Philosophy is plagued with that shit.
>"So and so debunked that with his ______ theory"
>No, what's his face countered effectively with chapter 13 of _____"

Never actually having the conversation just referencing where the conversation has already happened. Utterly detestable.

>> No.16116481

>>16116440
You're a faggot. That's a statement and a fact

>> No.16116490

>>16116418
You're missing the point.
They reference books and quotes from mainstream intellectuals because they don't have the mental capacity to rebuild arguments in its entirety. On top of that it's a braindead method of dodging responsibility for your own opinions by saying it's someone else's and if there's a major flaw they suddenly "believe something slightly different".
It's basically saying "here's an opinion I can't support with arguments but if you have a question about it go read this guy's 1000 page essay in French don't ask me dude lmao".

>> No.16116563

>>16116490
if my argument is using someone elses idea, i don't see how it's worth my time or yours for me to "rebuild" it. the guy wrote a 1000 page essay for a reason.

>> No.16116578

>>16116490
I think you're being too severe with that sort of judgment. References, like symbols, can be used as a shorthand for expressing or implying something in a condensed manner. Of course that doesn't apply to Ready Player One tier self-indulgent namedropping, though the difference between the former and the latter can be quite thin, admittedly.

>> No.16116616
File: 75 KB, 473x486, F3EF1655-486E-4F44-851E-4C41D51CD848.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16116616

>>16116355
Maybe just, read more? Would you expect a book on differential equations or heat transfer to go over what a derivative is?

>> No.16116633
File: 24 KB, 334x499, 41jvU59zn5L._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16116633

>>16116355
Got pretty tired of that shit in pic related.

>> No.16116634

>>16116355
I was reading some longpost on lit earlier that did that and was thinking exactly this. I despise that kind of referencing. Not only does it come off as pretentious, but unoriginal. I don't care how Baudrillard or whatever describes what you're talking about, define it in your own terms and stop leaning on other author's ideas as a crutch.

>> No.16116636

>>16116355
Bruh especially Bloom

>> No.16116646

>p l e b f i l t e r e d
Read more, you fucking illiterate. Or dedicate yourself to watch marvel movies, they explain the references there

>> No.16116711

>>16116616
most of Borges quotes are fake and gay

>> No.16116780

>>16116418
Because the world functions in terms of authority and chains of transmission. A lowly graduate student making a claim will likely be dismissed, but if he couches exactly the same claim in the language of some recognized authority, he has a much stronger chance of being recognized. There are fields and circles in which theoretical grounding is more important than the strength of one's own empirical work.
And if your next question is, "But why must things be so?" my answer is that what you take to be rational inquiry pursued with the aim of grasping the truth is not actually such. Knowledge production has a different aim, one that has more to do with power than the truth, despite the protestations of those in power. Learn how to distinguish between the two, and things will become much clearer to you.