They are all frauds...

[Anonymous No.19258207]

I've spent a tonne of time reading them especially Lacan and Deleuze, but he's right about them isn't he?

[Anonymous No.19258237]

>>19258207
What's even more enjoyable than FFF is reading the critiques of the book, which are all /lit/-tier counter-arguments when an anon is caught in their bullshit:
>n-no you are misinterpreting them
>nooooo Habermas never really said that, he's putting words in his mouth
>heh, from this little paragraph I can infer he never really read the erudite thinker called Foucault

[Anonymous No.19258263]

SOVL

[Anonymous No.19258274]

>>19258207
Foucault is right-wing. Scruton is a tobacco shill (arrested and executed)
.

[Anonymous No.19258276]

Lacan was a conservative
Foucault was an Islamic Heideggerian

[Anonymous No.19258530]

Baudrillard is the only good one

[Anonymous No.19258606]

Most of these guys wrote their bullshit only for fame and academic prestige

[Anonymous No.19258616]

>>19258237
I think Scruton just made it to piss people off. None of the critiques are really new or in-depth, but he knew they would make a lot of people angry.

[Anonymous No.19258627]

>>19258274
>Foucault is right-wing.
Fucking how?
>>19258276
>Lacan was a conservative
HAHAHAHA
>>19258530
True.

[Anonymous No.19258630]

>>19258530
What makes Baudrillard different?

[Anonymous No.19258879]

>>19258263
>Roger Scrotum

[Anonymous No.19258896]

>>19258530
>The Holocaust never happened

Wtf did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.19258929]

Based Scruton, may he rest in peace.

[Anonymous No.19258968]

>>19258627
Yes Lacan was a conservative

He showed that you can’t transcend the master discourse and the big Other

God and the Father can’t be done away with and radical politics is just fruitless castration cope

[Anonymous No.19258970]

>>19258207
EMJ's criticism of him was pretty incisive

https://culturewars.com/news/why-is-beauty-truth

[Anonymous No.19258977]

>>19258968
>He showed that you can’t transcend the master discourse and the big Other
why not?

[Anonymous No.19258980]

>Scruton

[Anonymous No.19258994]

>>19258970
>Look up EMJ
>First hit is an ADL article
hmm

[Anonymous No.19259038]

>>19258994
Based

[Anonymous No.19259126]

>>19258970
>Christian anti-semitic extremist lunatic starts divorcing beauty from truth, despite the fact that this is a Judaic tendency
Cringe

[Anonymous No.19259133]

>>19259126
He doesn't divorce truth from beauty. Scruton does that.

[Anonymous No.19259268]

>>19258237
I’ve never really heard a good defense against the kind of arguments against thinkers like these. If you press people on it hard enough, you will inevitably get them to say something like “ yes, they did believe the things you say they, but they didn’t have malicious intentions, so you’re wrong.”
>>19258606
That’s been the whole of continental philosophy since Hegel. Any sensible person should be distrustful of its proponents.

[Anonymous No.19260198]

>>19259268
>That’s been the whole of continental philosophy since Hegel.
Scruton would disagree with you here. Hegel definitely didn't JUST write for fame, that was completely secondary, and Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche didn't even at all.

[Anonymous No.19260221]

>>19258616
This is actually correct, if I remember it well.
I think those were articles he wrote for some magazine which was being boycotted or something, maybe he just wanted to piss people off even more.
It's a good book, by the way. And I am not conservative nor against post-modern art, but Scruton is a very good critic of non-conservative stupidities, which is why he's worth reading (his less polemical work on art can be very good too, although of course you don't have to agree with it, but he makes you think).

[Anonymous No.19260240]

>>19258980
What's the problem?
Back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.19260249]

>>19260198
Scruton was an admirer of Hegel, actually. He even selected some pages from Hegel in his anthology of conservative thought.
He also called Sartre a genius, in that same book which the OP has posted.

[Anonymous No.19260252]

>>19260240
>What's the problem?

[Anonymous No.19260272]

>>19258896
but it did happen, it just didn't take place

[Anonymous No.19260276]

>>19258207
You see, when people say mean things about your favourite philosophers, all you got to do is just act smug and let their imagination do the talking for you : maybe they truly are wrong if you feel like you're in the position to afford being so smarmy?

At the very worst, just tell them that they never read the philosophers in question, or if they say they did, just tell them that the point went over their head.

[Anonymous No.19260700]

>>19260198
>Scruton would disagree with you here. Hegel definitely didn't JUST write for fame
Fair enough, but that could be said for any of these thinkers, but I don’t think he would have fellated the Prussian government like he did if he weren’t concerned with it at all.
Schopenhauer was absolutely obsessed with recognition and popularity. It’s part of the reason he was so bitter towards his mother and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.19261337]

>>19260252
Actually chud, on /lit/ we are for the empowerment of capital through mass immigration. Now kindly go back to your containment board.

[Anonymous No.19261426]

>>19258207
>left-right
Looks like Scruton is the fool and fraud in this case. What a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.19261486]

>>19260700
The irony is Schopenhauer worked against his own favour, he could have become quite popular if he had just tried to popularise himself. But he made no attempt, it's like he'd just become famous if he was worth anything.

[Anonymous No.19261528]

>>19258207
>I've spent a tonne of time reading them especially Lacan
My condolences

[Anonymous No.19263551]

Bump

[Anonymous No.19263620]

>>19258207
Check "fashionable nonsense" for a scientifically oriented critique of French post modernism.

[Anonymous No.19264292]

>>19258929
based

[Anonymous No.19264300]

Roger Scrotum haha

[Anonymous No.19264333]

holy smokes...do lacanites really?

[Anonymous No.19264348]

>>19258980
POV: you turned the wrong corner while in London

[Anonymous No.19264366]

>>19264333
Now I need to read this

[Anonymous No.19264369]

>>19264333
based

[Anonymous No.19264921]

Bump

[Anonymous No.19265176]

>>19264333
Can someone explain to me why Lacan is still taken seriously with shit like this? Like most scholars have pretty much dropped Freud, so why hasn't that happened for Lacan yet?
Some of this sounds too absurd to be true.

[Anonymous No.19265267]

>>19265176
Same reason why most left-wing ideologies are still around: the sunk costs are too high.

[Anonymous No.19266453]

>>19265176
>most scholars have pretty much dropped Freud
Not really. Freud was a pioneer and some of the concepts he developed became so deeply ingrained that we talk about them without even realizing they came from his work. Other aspects were dropped entirely (e.g. mental fluid) or are mocked and overshadowed the above (e.g. penis envy, anal stage, etc).

On the other hand, Lacan was an outright charlatan and doesn't have the excuse that he was pioneering a new branch of science. This means that his work is more fairly attacked. He hasn't been dropped because he's known more for his esoteric theory derived from psychoanalysis and that type of work isn't as easily rooted out.

[Anonymous No.19266478]

>>19261337
Oh sweet summer child. The fences exist to give you the illusion of safety, not actually contain us. We are everywhere. Even m00t was still in denial about this till the very end , he kept deleting and remaking boards till we broke him and he sold this place to the gook. Sleep tight anon, there are monsters under the bed.

[Anonymous No.19266490]

>>19258207
this one is better

[Anonymous No.19266524]

>>19266490
Comfy cover. Should be read near a fireplace or woodstove with a big glass of brandy in hand (possibly around Christmas time).

[Anonymous No.19266661]

>>19258276
>Islamic Heideggerian

Big if true

[Anonymous No.19266669]

>>19258627
I'm not any of the people you quoted, but I can't let your Lacan slander go by unchallenged. The fact that Lacan was a conservative is widely known. He voted for de Gaulle and told the maoist of '68 that all they were looking for was a new master.

The case for Foucault being right-wing is a bit harder. I don't think it's productive to even try to label Foucault. But in his last lectures, the ones on bio-politics, he shows great sympathy for neo-liberalism and the Austrian school of economics and so on.

[Anonymous No.19266677]

>>19260272
Holocaust, Gulf war, 9/11, Iraq War, Trump Presidency, Coronavirus pandemic. Happened but did not take place.

[Anonymous No.19266699]

>>19265267
Neither Freud or Lacan is left-wing.

[Anonymous No.19266896]

>>19266453
>some of the concepts he developed became so deeply ingrained that we talk about them without even realizing they came from his work
Such as?

[Anonymous No.19266899]

>>19266896
"your mom" jokes

[Anonymous No.19266916]

>>19258263
Beautiful, life-affirming book.

[Anonymous No.19266987]

>>19266661
He said the Muslims was the freest of the 3 Abrahamics, with the emphasis on society rather than something stupid like the family

[Anonymous No.19267673]

>>19266896
You honestly can't think of any for yourself? All you have to do is look at his impact in terms of the history of psychology and not bog yourself down with trying to prove he's a pseud (which is kind of a pseud thing to do by the way--failing to understand Freud within his historical context and rather based on how his ideas were developed, especially by people like Lacan). I'll give a brief rundown of just on aspect of his work and you should be able to derive his lasting contributions from it. Instead of operative concepts like 'the unconscious' and 'ego' (which are in fact traceable to Freud) I'll just focus on aspects of his work characterizable as "scientific" even by (an unfair) modern standard.

Freud was a materialist who initially sought to establish psychology as a physiological science; not only is this a herculean endeavor given that lack of technology and anatomical knowledge in the early 20th century--you have to take into account that psychology was still growing out of its philosophical roots and its subject matter is mental events. Although he abandoned his attempt to reduce psychology to physiology--he retained a lot of the theoretical framework he had developed in this course and translated the central ideas over to the psychological sphere.

For example, he developed what he called "the principle of neurotic inertia" that theorized neurons reduce in quantity ("Q") according to stimulus. This was a development of certain ideas relating to Gustav Fechner but Freud importantly emphasized the minimization of energy within the nervous system whereas Fechner had argued around the idea of equilibrium. This paradigm is still echoed today in subfields involving learning and memory--it's a basic fact we're taught.

Freud has other contributions but that's just one example. Basically, armchair philosophers and cultural critics have emphasized Freud's work in terms of conceptual ideas and this overshadows his other contributions. His ideas are still found at the most basic level in various subfields of psychology. On top of this, you can add how his work influenced someone like Carl Rogers in terms of clinical practice or even the functional use of his conceptual models like the aforementioned "ego" or "unconscious" (though easily target by pseuds).

He's truly a giant.

[Anonymous No.19267731]

>>19267673
>"the principle of neurotic inertia"
Just to be clear, this is the idea that mental events related to a given stimulus become lasting in terms of neuronal activation. The psychoanalytic concept of "repression" came out of this (i.e. it wasn't just "you ignore things that make you feel bad and become reactive based on this hidden unconscious aspect of your personality" which it translates to clinical practices developed by Freud developed and later abused by people like Lacan).

Also, I'm not reading that into Freud's work like some pseud who argues the basis of quantum mechanics is in The Monadology. It's literally a core concept he developed and worked from.

[Anonymous No.19267738]

>>19261337
Hey Siri, show me the leaked Amazon report detailing how more diverse workplaces unionise at a far lower rate

[Anonymous No.19267842]

>>19266677
don't forget the death of George Groid

[Anonymous No.19267870]

>>19258207
Ive never read any of them but I hate that googly eyed fuck.

[Anonymous No.19267964]

>>19266661
>Seyyed Ahmad Fardid (Persian: سید احمد فردید) (Born in 1910,[1] Yazd – 16 August 1994, Tehran), born Ahmad Mahini Yazdi,[2] was a prominent Iranian philosopher and a professor of Tehran University. He is considered to be among the philosophical ideologues of the Islamic government of Iran which came to power in 1979. Fardid was under the influence of Martin Heidegger, the influential German philosopher, whom he considered "the only Western philosopher who understood the world and the only philosopher whose insights were congruent with the principles of the Islamic Republic. These two figures, Khomeini and Heidegger, helped Fardid argue his position."[3] What he decried was the anthropocentrism and rationalism brought by classical Greece, replacing the authority of God and faith with human reason, and in that regard he also criticized Islamic philosophers like al Farabi and Mulla Sadra for having absorbed Greek philosophy.[4]

>Fardid studied philosophy at Sorbonne university and University of Heidelberg. The sparsity of Fardid’s written work has led to his recognition as an "oral philosopher". This was, to be sure, a puzzling attribute. Although Fardid tried to justify his expository reluctance to the poverty and contamination of the language, (in the Heideggerian sense) some suspect his reticence stemmed from his paralyzing perfectionism.

>Fardid coined the concept of "Westoxication" which was then popularized by Jalal Al-e-Ahmad on his then widely known book Gharbzadegi, and after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, became among the core ideological teachings of the new Islamic government of Iran. Among those influenced by his thought are also included "the theoretician of Islamic cinema", Morteza Avini,[5] and the former conservative president, Ahmadinejad.[6]

>Fardid's turbulent intellect was absorbed in the enterprise of synthesizing (promisingly or otherwise) the results of his studies of Eastern civilizations with the Western philosophy, as interpreted by Heidegger. Fardid's project remains unfinished and fraught with shortcomings and errors. Nevertheless, it remains an enormously intriguing and valuable endeavor. Heidegger himself on several occasions (including in his encounters with DT Suzuki concerning "transmetaphysical thinking" and in his valedictory interview with Der Spiegel) optimistically alluded to the possibility of a convergence of Eastern and Western thought but he never explored the subject matter himself, citing a lack of knowledge and insight about the non-Western universe of discourse. Ahmad Fardid, from his corner, hoped to produce a blueprint for the endeavor, but he only succeeded in vaguely adumbrating certain contours of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Fardid

Foucault also had an immense debt to Heidegger

[Anonymous No.19267977]

>>19267964
Just link the page and write a blurb next time, lazy Captain Copy/Paste. No one wants a wall of green text.