[ 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: 521 KB, 1071x576, whowouldlwin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19720476 No.19720476[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Which team would win an Intellectual Debate?

>> No.19720488

The ones who don't make low-effort threads like this.

>> No.19720499

UH..... bertrand russel is NOT a commie... unlike Slave-Goy Cringe-check

>> No.19720508

Chomsky
Foucault
Derrida (by stupefaction)
Buckley
Russell

I can't see it going any other way, sorry I tried.

>> No.19720517
File: 65 KB, 960x243, TheATeam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19720517

The A team

>> No.19720524

>>19720508
Foucault and derrida are fucking morons what are you on about

>> No.19720526
File: 20 KB, 220x277, Fichte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19720526

>>19720517
and also the heavy hitter

>> No.19720563

>>19720524
Let's be honest, they might be sophists (especially Derrida) but the people they're going up against aren't all that much better (and I think they're genuinely intelligent, especially Sam Harris).
Foucault's work is definitely more meaningful than J.B. Peterson's, whose work just leans way to much into meaningless sophistry. I'm sure that he'll be stumped by Foucault.
Derrida is a different case. He is a sophist, but extremely well read and very adept at pilpul; his raw intelligence and use of words, I believe, will confound Harris' attempts at debating him.
How can it go otherwise?

>> No.19720571

>>19720517
Who are they? I only recognize Schopenhauer and Kant.

Also how would it be to debate Schopenhauer? Basically life sucks?

>> No.19720599

>>19720571
You have a cartoonishly simplified view of Schopenhauer. Debating with him would only happen in one of the three ways: either, he calls you a pleb not worth engaging with, or he keeps calling you a clumsy sophostic hack (in exceedingly clever variations of the terms), or he would find you respectable enough to actually have discussion with you, in which case it would look like one of Plato's dialogues.

>> No.19720610

>>19720563
Are you playing opposite day numbnuts?

>> No.19720631

>>19720563
An intelligent observer appears!

>> No.19720673
File: 522 KB, 490x265, Zizek lips.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19720673

>>19720476
>Russel and Zizek
lmao

>> No.19720692

>>19720673
What would they even fucking debate about?

>> No.19720701

>>19720599
>yes Socrates i Suppose that would follow
So thats what I would be doing the whole time?

>> No.19720734
File: 200 KB, 1920x1080, 8911b7a0-1693-45e8-91ed-b0b4a74c3215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19720734

>>19720673
>Ze kung-fu panda ish goink to ze toilet orrr in ze eyesh of Hegel, ze toilet ish goink to ze kung-fu panda
And then everyone nodded thoughtfully and clapped.

>> No.19720745

>>19720517
kind of cringe for putting hobbes in there, but I haven't actually read much of what he said. After I learn more about him I'm sure I'll still see you as a cringy little dyke though

>> No.19720791

>>19720745
Holy fuck you're a retard. There is no Hobbes there. Lower your head and walk away in shame.

>> No.19720796

>>19720517
"A" for autistic faggots?

>> No.19720801

>>19720796
No. Stop being a fag.

>> No.19720827

>>19720517
Schoppy and Kant are the only ones there really worth anything. The rest are skippable or best left unread.

>> No.19720829
File: 6 KB, 200x202, 603EC133-CA2B-427E-9355-5C0F2127BA94.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19720829

>>19720734
>Imagining him actually saying this with his cracked voice
I AM KEKING SO HARD RIGHT NOW

>> No.19720835

>>19720476
Peterson would actually win against that pedo, that’s for sure. He’d reconstruct that shit out of Pedo’s STD’d ass

>> No.19720842

>>19720827
Lol. Stop being a retard.

>> No.19720862

>>19720827
>Schelling
>best left unread
How about you actually read them before commenting such stupidities?