[ 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: 534 KB, 1071x576, 1607783598832.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17525393 No.17525393 [Reply] [Original]

What happened to intellectual discourse?

>> No.17525403

It was always bad, and will forever be

>> No.17525512

>>17525393
The thing is that back then, some academics themselves felt the need to or the desire to make some ideas reach a broader audience, for education reasons and sometimes because they felt it was important, or maybe just because they wanted their ideas to reach more people. At some point people realized there is an audience out there who wants to hear ideas and get """educated""" no matter who does it, so long as there's some way in which they can grasp it and so long as there is a relatively endless stream of content for them to consume. And that's allowed people who aren't academics or experts to tap into a consumer audience and get into business. The experts and academics can still do it, but a lot of them genuinely dislike public intellectuals and their audiences and therefore stay out of the whole arena completely, sometimes because they think their peers will feel it discredits them even, to associate with such pseuds. Unfortunate. Anyway Zizek's not the worst, I don't track Pinker even if he says the wrong thigns, Harris and Peterson are pretty bad when they talk about things they're not experts in but at least they're both experts in some other things, so the biggest problem is Joe Rogan types, and people worse than that who are taking over everywhere.

>> No.17525561

>>17525393
If you think the ones on top were any smarter or any wiser just because they couched their thoughts in more esoteric fashion, you're fooling yourself.

Public intellectuals were never good.

>> No.17525580

>>17525561
All of them on top except Derrida and Buckley made pretty significant contributions to their fields. The same can't be said about those on the bottom.

>> No.17525606

>>17525393
I don't see the difference. Both groups are hacks.

>> No.17525620

>>17525580
Derrida contributed to his field as well. Peterson contributed to his field as well.

>> No.17525622

>>17525580
Peterson made significant contributions to psychology, Zizek to philosophy and Rogan to the art of strangling people.

The rate of charlatanry is about the same really.

>> No.17525629

>>17525393
Intellectualism is a symptom of the decadence of modernity. They were never something to be classified as good.

Peterson is so appealing because he isn't like them; he kind of just preaches common sense. And there's sure as hell a lack of that nowadays.

>> No.17525642

>>17525512
based and reasonablepilled

>> No.17525657
File: 41 KB, 640x640, 1588851405597.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17525657

>>17525580
>except Derrida

>> No.17525658

Intellectualism is disseminated in different ways and to a different audience today. Is there any wonder competing dogmas tend to inhabit celebrities as their mouthpieces?
Also Pinky is a whole level above Buckley. Otherwise the pic holds true.

>> No.17525724

>>17525393
What s the difference here besides colour? Both rows feature pseuds.

>> No.17525752

>>17525393
Why do you lump in Zizek with all those pseuds?
Zizek unlike the rest of the people in the bottom row, is actually insightful and trying to break some new ground with his philosophical project of reading Hegel through Lacan.

>> No.17525760

>>17525393
They were losers too, they just didn't live in a time of mass public surveillance.

>> No.17525788

>>17525393
Internet

>> No.17525818

>>17525512
I agree mostly. The new intellectuals are mostly in an entertainment business that has ‘intellectual’ flavors. Peterson has had a good academic career and autistiaclly stumbled into piles of money on the e-celeb circuit.
but the rest are entertainers in total practice.

>> No.17525875

there are no public intellectuals, why do you think these people were called (from) "the darkweb"

>> No.17527261

>>17525658

This. Its a consequence of the dominance of visual media.

>> No.17527311

>>17525622
>and Rogan to the art of strangling people.
lol

>> No.17527315

>>17525393
B&W portraits went out of style because they're pretentious?

>> No.17527373

>>17525393
Not understanding Peterson makes you a pseud. He elaborates on Jungian archetypes and provides a much needed modernization of religion. He should be taught in schools.

>> No.17527440

>>17525512
>>17525818
Has Peterson given signs that he has any understanding of ancient or modern philosophy? My vague idea of what he says on public shows is that it's somewhat philosophical or of the 'self-help' kind

>> No.17528680

>>17525393
I just see 10 brainlets