post your /lit/ arch nemesis

[Anonymous No.19543103]

[Anonymous No.19543127]

>>19543103
Not mine. Foucault is based, and filters most on /lit/ for a reason.

[Anonymous No.19543132]

[Anonymous No.19543134]

I hate this faggot so much.

[Anonymous No.19543143]

>>19543103
I hate this nigga like you wouldn't belive

[Anonymous No.19543148]

>>19543143
cioran's hilarious, what are you talking about

[Anonymous No.19543160]

>>19543134
>I hate this faggot so much.

[Anonymous No.19543170]

>Antivax
>Anti cancel culture
>Anti sjw
>Anti Psychiatry
>Crypto-libertarian
No wonder /lit/troons hate him

[Anonymous No.19543175]

>>19543143
this is my arch nemesis desu, not because he is wrong but because I want him to be wrong

[Anonymous No.19543187]

>>19543103
Nietzsche for me. Relativism does not make sense and we have known this for thousands of years. You cannot make the statement "everything is an opinion; there are no facts" mean anything no matter how you try to weasel about with language. The only actual meaning it has is that peoples beliefs are biased by their self interest among other things, which everyone already knew.

[Anonymous No.19543197]

>>19543170
are you 5

[Anonymous No.19543199]

>>19543103
So why is Foucault hated again?

[Anonymous No.19543205]

>>19543199
conservative backlash?

[Anonymous No.19543231]

>>19543199
Most of his detractors haven't read him and are instead expressing their dislike of his admirers.

[Anonymous No.19543232]

[Anonymous No.19543242]

>writes one book which happens to be the peak of analytic philosophy
>The world is everything that is the case
Name a bigger autist than this. Continental philosophy will always be superior.

[Anonymous No.19543245]

>>19543103
Like him or not, Foucault DID help establish the modern anti-vax movement, and he took doctors (and especially psychiatrists) down a few pegs in terms of their reputations.

[Anonymous No.19543248]

>>19543103
correct me if i’m wrong but is his take on rape that it is about power and not a sexual impulse? why can’t these things go hand in hand? if it were merely about power than why not just physically assault a woman?

[Anonymous No.19543274]

>>19543187
Start with the Pyrrhonists and Academics

[Anonymous No.19543276]

>>19543248
Not really. Remember, he was obsessed with SYSTEMS of power and control. Any individual rape might be motivated by any number of things, but he tried to look at 'rape' in the systematic sense (mass-rapes during wartime, for example) in terms of a broader scheme of state control.

[Anonymous No.19543281]

>>19543248
I don’t think Foucault is responsible for that feminist dogmatism

[Anonymous No.19543288]

>>19543242
you don't care about truth though. you don't care about actual insight. you only care about impressing thots and other pseuds.

[Anonymous No.19543304]

>>19543231
Many such cases. I wonder how his ideas would be received poltards if they came from someone like Evola. Foucault is definitely one of the most interesting philosophers (sociologist?) for current times

[Anonymous No.19543310]

>>19543199
>>19543170
Isn’t it funny Foucault gets accused of being a commie by the right and a cryptofascist by the left? A great troll through and through, he will always have a soft spot in my heart for putting this absolute liberal shit heap in his place

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19543319]

>>19543304
no way anyone on /pol/ would be able to read fookaw

[Anonymous No.19543321]

>>19543274
Pyrrho is fine but if you want to go with him you cannot make statements like the ones nietzsche makes.

[Anonymous No.19543326]

>>19543281
it’s not feminist to say most rape is motivated by an internal insecurity of power as a continuation of state violence, it’s a blatant observation of reality. If rape did not carry those connotations they would just be coomers who watched anime. Feminism came far after this basic fact…

[Anonymous No.19543335]

>>19543321
True, true, but Nietzsche is hyperbolic. He is not dogmatic. And besides, I’ve seen two similar quotes attributed to him. One is “there are no moral facts, only moral interpretations of facts” (which seems unobjectionable) and “there are no facts, only interpretations” (less sound), but I feel like the second is a misguided truncation of the first. Anyway, I may be wrong

[Anonymous No.19543338]

>>19543326
Its motivated by the desire to stick your dick in something. Most animals rape sometimes

[Anonymous No.19543339]

>>19543103
Not really an arch nemesis, but I do hate how a subgroup of /lit/ keeps sucking his dick like he's the next plato or something.

[Anonymous No.19543343]

>>19543197
Yes, 5 inches inside your mooom!!!

[Anonymous No.19543344]

>>19543339
Literally who?

[Anonymous No.19543348]

>>19543343
moom?

[Anonymous No.19543353]

>>19543338
if we’re talking about violent penetrative rape and not “she was drunk / didn’t say no / I want horny” etc etc. Than it absolutely is more than that, see the anon above citing war time rape as a form of control.

[Anonymous No.19543370]

>>19543353
It can be more than that but it can also just be a sexual impulse. Again, rape is a common phenomenon in the animal world

[Anonymous No.19543372]

>>19543353
it stems from a sexual fetish that includes domination. power is certainly involved, but it begins and ends with a sexual desire.

[Anonymous No.19543378]

>>19543344
Some failed Canadian progressive author, who failed at making genre fiction, who also failed at getting his PhD in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19543379]

>>19543370
>evopsych
Are you gonna quote Bronze Age pervert at me

[Anonymous No.19543386]

>>19543199
He was a pedophile allegedly

[Anonymous No.19543391]

>>19543372
sure that’s a lot more contextual and developed of a thought than “it’s not about power” though. Rapes are either from an objectification (sex doll etc) or a place of anger

[Anonymous No.19543417]

>>19543288
Yes and?

[Anonymous No.19543418]

>>19543379
Do you think we didnt evolve?

[Anonymous No.19543431]

>>19543418
Libtards just deny evolutionary psychology altogether

[Anonymous No.19543434]

>>19543418
Yes, human beings evolved to be social animals. Evopsych is phrenology tier social Darwinist pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.19543438]

>>19543434
>evolved to be social animals
This is a statement of evolutionary psychology, you are aware of that right lol

[Anonymous No.19543445]

>>19543434
you are actually retarded

[Anonymous No.19543447]

>>19543431
Lol go listen to your joe rogan podcast about activating Keto almonds retard

[Anonymous No.19543453]

>>19543434
Ok, but phrenology is literally correct, and AI will prove it

[Anonymous No.19543455]

>>19543438
>>19543445
ITS NOT FAIR MOMMY THEY WONT LET ME RAPE

[Anonymous No.19543461]

>>19543431
>evolutionary ps(o)ychology
Read this. Not a field worth paying attention to.

[Anonymous No.19543463]

>>19543455
The prevalence of rape in humans is a sign that it is one evolutionary strategy used, though it has obvious dangers.

[Anonymous No.19543468]

>>19543288
Gonna cry?

[Anonymous No.19543531]

Bump

[Anonymous No.19543590]

>>19543378
It's Jason Segel

[Anonymous No.19543593]

>>19543248
he doesn't give a fuck about petty power dinamics, he talks about systemic and institutional power

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19543678]

>>19543593
>systemic and institutional power
not really, he explicitly ignores structuralist critiques of legal systems and government for the real "below the surface" dynamics of power, for example

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19543691]

>>19543678
it actually lines up v well with lenin's assertion that the state and its institutions are just instruments of real class power, and BTFOs orthodox anarchist moralism over the state as the ultimate evil

[Anonymous No.19543698]

Can someone refute this?

[Anonymous No.19543796]

>>19543698
>Judith Butler
Refuted itself.

[Anonymous No.19543865]

>>19543134
This. I hate him too.

[Anonymous No.19544517]

bump

[Anonymous No.19544584]

>>19543232
This gay retard
Sadly he's already dead

[Anonymous No.19544931]

>>19543103
Nietzsche

I hate this subhuman. I have bipolar and in mania this cunt makes too sense. I hate it as a Philosophical Pessimist because only suffering is real. The overwhelming sense of beauty in mania is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.19544944]

>>19543245
how so. there's nothing about foucault vaccines on wikipedia or from a brave search.

[Anonymous No.19544958]

>>19544931
So gay. I have bp I and mania is fun and you haven’t treated your depression.

[Anonymous No.19544968]

>>19543698
It's just the logical end product of philosophical idealism, and more specifically postmodern philosophy. Since language is regarded as an arbitrary ascription overlaying an absence, there being no real essential self, we can use words whichever way we please. The issue with Butler's argument is that words may be arbitrary and we can change which words we use but there still are underlying biological realities which are not necessarily neatly separable from the social categories. By making words and language arbitrary they have ironically elevated words and identity categories to the level of Godhood.

[Anonymous No.19545003]

>>19544968
>we can use words whichever way we please.
jesus no. read derrida

[Anonymous No.19545026]

>>19544958
I like my misery.

How does the mania episode feel?

[Anonymous No.19545244]

>>19545026
How can you claim to be a pessimist if your suffering is self-imposed. You’re just a retard. And it’s like being high and you have sudden enthusiasm for the world like you’re experiencing everything for the first time again. There’s also tunnel vision that keeps you going from one thing to the next like you’re living stream of consciousness. Also lots of synchronicity and people acting weird around you like women peacocking directly at you and talking about what you’re thinking. Idk if you can have a bad high like shrooms.

https://eagle.sbs.arizona.edu/sc/report_poster_detail.php?abs=3253

[Anonymous No.19545265]

Lacan is a huge pseud. But it's probably Jung

[Anonymous No.19545273]

>>19545244
>How can you claim to be a pessimist if your suffering is self-imposed. You’re just a retard
I not too keen on telling my stories. And by philosophy pessimism I mean metaphysics of suffering. It's not just about my personal life or psychology.

>And it’s like being high and you have sudden enthusiasm for the world like you’re experiencing everything for the first time again. There’s also tunnel vision that keeps you going from one thing to the next like you’re living stream of consciousness.
I exactly experience this. Not too sure about synchronicity.

[Anonymous No.19545319]

>>19545273
>It's not just about my personal life or psychology.
Uhh, your mood determines your interests and affects your memory. If you’re mildly depressed all the time you can have trouble concentrating which can fuck your whole life up and you can’t socialize like normal. Thinking you’re into deep philosophy when you actually don’t have fulfilling relationships is max cringe.

[Anonymous No.19545353]

>>19544968
They deleted the criticism section.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Trouble

[Anonymous No.19546266]

>>19543434
Absolute retard

[Anonymous No.19546592]

>>19543353
Feminists abandoned it when migrants started coordinating sexual assaults. The implications would have been too much for them.

[Anonymous No.19547698]

>>19543242
>The world is everything that is the case
it makes sense in German

[Anonymous No.19547709]

>>19546592
stop projecting your creepy interracial fetish /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.19547717]

>>19546592
Not really, liberal white feminists are pretty openly racist

[Anonymous No.19548071]

[Anonymous No.19548112]

>>19543199
literal pedarast and fr*nch also

[Anonymous No.19548251]

>>19545003
I'm not wrong. I'm not saying words themselves have meaning. It's the fact that words and letters have no meaning in themselves but only endlessly defer towards other signs which makes it so it doesn't matter how we use them. I can for example make up a word like Differance.... Our use of words of course will never reveal anything true about things in themselves, following Derrida, but since they are arbitrary well now I can just say whatever. It won't be True, of course, but neither will anything expressed via language. And so one can see how this leads to Butler's formulation. Linguistic binaries, like gender, have no real meaning in themselves and no reference to real nature but obscure the true diversity contained within these linguistic categories. So we're free to change them as we like. Read more Derrida.

[Anonymous No.19548387]

>>19543103
It's gotta be butterfly

[Anonymous No.19548567]

>>19543103
Dr Seuss

[Anonymous No.19548583]

>>19548251
hahah buddy, you're abusing the meaning of 'arbitrary'. words themselves are arbitrary but the interior content is not. derrida points out the functioning of this metaphysics of language - that words are arbitrary because they efface themselves before a fully present and accessible intelligible content (meaning). his argument about presence of meaning being deferred doesn't suddenly permit everyone to make shit up because it still borrows from a shared language. it's just a functional view of that shared system that must remain within that system because there would be no ability for me to even converse with you without it.
for 'differance' it is a fortuitous pun because it combines the two meanings he wants to convey in a single arbitrary signifier. it is complicated by the fact that it functions as a non-concept because it does not immediately restore the presence of an unfolding logic as this exploitation is not proper to Logic but still resembles it in function. it's not just simply a freely changed content.

[Anonymous No.19548724]

>>19543134
A lot of unfortunate damage to 20th century English philosophy. Just his book on the History of Philosophy alone has possibly led loads of people astray.

[Anonymous No.19548862]

>>19548583
Not sure. Derrida's not exactly clear. You may be right. From what I remember it's not clear to me that the interior content, whatever that is, of a word isn't also deferred. You wold acknowledge though that Butler is drawing from Derrida?

[Anonymous No.19549148]

>>19543103
I used to think Foucault was my enemy based on things I had read about him but then I read The Order of Things and understood he's undeniably based and frequently mischaracterized.

[Anonymous No.19549160]

[Anonymous No.19549164]

>>19544931
The suffering is just as illusory (or real, if you prefer) as the mania, both being products of the mind.

[Anonymous No.19549189]

>>19543434
>Yes, human beings evolved to be social animals.
>Evopsych is phrenology tier social Darwinist pseudoscience
>Yes, human beings evolved to be social animals.

WAIT A SECOND

[Anonymous No.19549199]

>>19543468
Why do people think this is an own against Foucalt when it just makes him look incredibly based

[Anonymous No.19549224]

>>19543134
Him and Hume

>>19548071
Her too

[Anonymous No.19549229]

>>19544931
Mania? You mean enjoying life?

[Anonymous No.19549239]

>>19544931
You fell for shrinkoid lies.
Sad, honestly

[Anonymous No.19549247]

Her self-insert was an entitled, uppity cunt and if I knew her in real life I would want to be nowhere near her. I'd rather hang out with Holden Caulfield.
Luckily she couldn't even stand herself and we didn't get a dozen more shitty novels. Although had she lived to be 80, she wouldn't have been famous.

[Anonymous No.19549252]

>>19549247
Fuck forgot the pic

[Anonymous No.19549260]

>>19549247
The worst part about the internet is how easy it is to judge someone without being able to sit at the bar and have a conversation to get to know them first

[Anonymous No.19549268]

>>19549247
Idiot she was already famous before her death. You're stupid.

[Anonymous No.19549290]

>>19549268
You're mean!

[Anonymous No.19549292]

>>19549268
checkem

[Anonymous No.19549293]

>>19549290
You're ugly!

[Anonymous No.19549317]

>>19549260
To be fair, Esther IS Sylvia. It's called an autobiographical novel. Hating the character is akin to hating the author. Of course, Esther was simply an average woman of her time without the Hollywood gloss.
>>19549268
Jesus Christ I hate Friday nights. Go to bed.

[Anonymous No.19549326]

>>19543103
Me

[Anonymous No.19549334]

>>19549317
You're stupid too. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.19549360]

>>19549293
Have banged 100+ chicks nice try

[Anonymous No.19549374]

>>19549360
Aren't you homeless lmao?

[Anonymous No.19549409]

>>19543134

Ultra based. This asshat's evaluation of the History of Western philosophy was more of his opinion piece rather than a compelling narrative over the development of European thought as time progressed.

>Le "medieval don't have a clear concept of Infinity"
His takes on Thomas Aquinas are especially midwit tier.

[Anonymous No.19549692]

>>19549374
Metaphorically or physically?

[Anonymous No.19549724]

>>19549229
BASED

[Anonymous No.19550443]

>>19543691
is the state the ultimate evil?
or is it orthodox anarchist moralism?
your statement is confusing

[Anonymous No.19551839]

>>19543199
would you trust a guy who goes to establishments to have strangers stick their fists up his asshole to change the oil on your car ? i don't think i would

[Anonymous No.19551925]

>>19548862
>Derrida's not exactly clear. You may be right. From what I remember it's not clear to me that the interior content, whatever that is, of a word isn't also deferred

It is deferred, and that's the peril of communication we an never know if our words are gonna be understood. But the fact that we don't know that doesn't legitimize a pretense of intellegibility for anything, the contrary is true we're always at risk of inintellegibility because the're no outside of language to wich we can point to.

[Anonymous No.19551934]

Max Frisch. I hate Homo "how to fuck your own daughter" Faber so much.

[Anonymous No.19553109]

BITCH FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.19553206]

>>19551925
>because the're no outside of language to wich we can point to.
Body language.

[Anonymous No.19553212]

>>19549374
kek

[Anonymous No.19553213]

After careful consideration, it's probably him.

[Anonymous No.19553330]

>>19553109
FUCK GUENON FUCK GUENON
FUCK GUENON FUCK GUENON
FUCK GUENON FUCK GUENON
FUCK GUENON FUCK GUENON

[Anonymous No.19553335]

>>19543468
Was Foucalt a top?

[Anonymous No.19553348]

>>19553206
That's still a language.

[Anonymous No.19553363]

>>19544968
>Since language is regarded as an arbitrary ascription overlaying an absence, there being no real essential self, we can use words whichever way we please.
This is not at all what Butler argues. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. She's basically arguing a very bizarre form of Platonism.

[Anonymous No.19553462]

>>19549334
18+

[Anonymous No.19553490]

>>19553462
kys

[Anonymous No.19553547]

>>19553363
Idk maybe you know better. I haven't read all of Gender Trouble. Only selections and it seemed to me very similar to some postmodern philosophers I've read. I'm interested to hear more about this idea of her theory as a form of platonism. Never heard that before.

[Anonymous No.19553624]

Can't believe I'm the only one who posted this:

This conman, absolute charlatan, disgusting.
>Extremely telling of the human race that he is held in such high esteem.

[Anonymous No.19553630]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mis0O8CZk90&ab_channel=GeographicMappingTechnologies%2CCorp..

>>19553624
>pic VERY related

[Anonymous No.19554984]

>>19544944
Look up Foucault with the search words "biopower" or "biopolitics". He's especially relevant these days.

[Anonymous No.19555033]

>>19553490
>Simping over dead whores
cope

[Anonymous No.19555120]

>>19553335
LMAO NO

[Anonymous No.19555136]

>>19553547
I mean this rather loosely, of course. The problem is that people see Jews like Butler attacking "Western [insert thing here]" and then take it as a philosophical attack rather than a racial one. It's racial. It is fundamentally racial. As a Jew, Butler wants gentiles to be reduce to subhuman slave status. Gentiles are below Jews, and every second that this belief isn't reflected in reality is a grievous offense to them. Thus, as she interprets all of her works through this lens, we shall too. "Masculinity" and "femininity" are very real things. Butler isn't trying to deconstruct them. Rather, she's simply denying the subhumans something that they should not have. "Gender" and "sexuality" are things for humans (re: Jews). They're very real things with a concrete existence (and thus, she reifies a form of idealism, something that you actually point out), it's just a crime that gentiles are involved in them.

Butler, likewise, absolutely does not deny the essential self. She very much does. This is in comparison to, say, Foucault, or Deleuze and Guattari, who reject such a thing, and are proponents of system that CAN be used to justify absolutely heinous degeneracy, but they also CAN be used to justify things like Giga-based National Socialism. Rather, Butler requires an essential self to be present when the Shiksa Goddess is reduced to a mere economic unit. Butler is, fundamentally, attacking gentile women by reducing them from women to mere female laborers.

All things can be deconstructed; all things can be constructed. If you aren't deconstructing and constructing yourself, someone else is. Yes, you are correct, Butler is trying to deconstruct White society. The question is, what does she want to construct in its place?

[Anonymous No.19555165]

>>19555033
>Simping over dead artists
Damn right

[Anonymous No.19555341]

I hated this mental adolescent so goddamn much. I'll always regret not getting the opportunity to beat him with a lead pipe.

[Anonymous No.19555440]

my life improved so much when I gave away all the books in my library that were written by Danish hunchbacks

[Anonymous No.19555443]

>>19547698
It makes sense in English too though