/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20020940]

>Neurotic projection. The book

[Anonymous No.20020941]

>>20020940
my cock

[Anonymous No.20020979]

>Neoliberalism be like uhh... dude 90s movies lmao *downs 30 vicodin*

[Anonymous No.20020990]

>>20020940
>GET OFF YOUR PHON*ACK

[Anonymous No.20021002]

>>20020940
well the book thesis is that "no one can think past eternal capitalist modernity" and implying "mental illness" is a worthy critique of philosophy is probably the most eternal capitalist modernity thing you possibly do could do. Except for maybe:
>>20020979
nihilist irony coping

yeah I'd say Fisher was right and continues to be right if this is the way people are still thinking

[Anonymous No.20021022]

Loved it
As a neurotic person living in dream land floating down a dream stream while reading this Mark Fisher is my man

[Anonymous No.20021041]

>>20021002
>mental illness" is a worthy critique of philosophy is probably the most eternal capitalist modernity thing you possibly do could do. Except for maybe:

You can literally go back to fucking Protagoras and see that critiquing someones philosophy based on someones temperament has been discussed for literally fucking millenia. Wtf are you even talking about

[Anonymous No.20021167]

>>20021041
Incorrect. You simply don't know the meaning of the very words OP has used here. "Neurotic" is a word invented by modern psychology for the personality modeling. These models are used in clinical therapies, papers are published on it, scientific studies are done with it. If OP may have used more classical words such as "sad", or "sensitive", such words would be sympathetic, and we could speculate on why this man have been sad, or what he was sensitive too. Instead, it gets internalized into a "Big 5 personality type", medicalized, scientifical, there's something "wrong with him." OP is just another pseudo-psychologist, trapped in capitalist (post)modernity all the same. The pseudo-psychoanalysis of the word "projection", and your inability to differentiate between the words of scientific psychology and classic affectation is the same.

[Anonymous No.20021229]

>people seething/praising a 60 page blogpost that states the obvious and doesn't elaborate on anything deep or controversial
Faggots all of ye

[Anonymous No.20021265]

>>20021167
Your whole post is gibberish. OP is using the words colloquially. You know exactly what he's communicating.

You deify vague forces and make references to avoid having to actually think.

[Anonymous No.20021291]

>>20021229
Having read it the other day, I also got the feeling of it mostly just stating the obvious. I suppose it was nice to see the ideas laid out clearly in writing, but it's very much preaching to the choir and won't serve to convince anyone not already convinced. It's too pretentious and heady for anyone not already able to see the problems with neoliberalism

[Anonymous No.20021295]

>>20021265
Yes, I know exactly what OP is communicating. And it's very stupid.

[Anonymous No.20021780]

>>20021229
>>20021291
It's partially the obvious because we've only understood it as the obvious recently

[Anonymous No.20022590]

>>20021229
Based

[Anonymous No.20022693]

>>20020990
kek i came for the flippant misrepresentations of this. was not let down

[Anonymous No.20022704]

>>20021022
as a frankenstein's monster shackled in the dungeon of a gothic materialist castle, Fisher is my nigga

[Anonymous No.20022715]

I came away from this feeling that it's clear that what needs to happen, as far as what what's actually possible, is precisely just that which the bourgeoisie would most certainly not, under even the most logical of circumstances, allow to happen. This being contrasted I think pretty illustratively against what Marx calls the "proletariat malaise", which he classifies as "nothing more than that which, not only in Europe, but all over the world, might happen were it not for the fact of it being otherwise", and this too is a new conclusion of mine, that is to say, a revelation accorded by this divine work of incisive genius.

[Anonymous No.20022821]

>>20022715
the indulgence of your run on sentences seem less in accordance with marx's principles and more in line with capitalist greed

[Anonymous No.20022859]

>>20020940
How would he explain that people like tiktokers actively try to have as many mental illnesses as possible?
I thoughts the proliferation of mental illnesses would make people realise that capitalism is not working.

[Anonymous No.20022879]

>>20020940
>capitalism is... LE BAD!
>communism is... LE GOOD!
why do people even bother reading leftoid books?

[Anonymous No.20023063]

>>20022859
Combine it with narcissism and it only has to work for them.

[Anonymous No.20023093]

>>20020940
This book is just Baudrillard’s The Impossible Exchange but with less substance (if that were even possible)

[Anonymous No.20023112]

>>20023093
I thought this one was about epistemology.

[Anonymous No.20023135]

>>20023112
It is, the approach and areas of enquiry are different but the conclusions are basically the same. We can’t exchange the totality of social relations under capitalism for a different totality; just as we can’t imagine an alternative outside of the capitalist system we exist in presently. I will say however that Baudrillard is far less pessimistic about this than Fischer.

[Anonymous No.20023288]

>>20020940
>herr derr im a stupid judgemental pseudo-psychologist slave to CAPITALIST REALISM hurr durr
i hate slimy NPC fucks like you

[Anonymous No.20023442]

>>20023288
>capitalism this capitalism that
how about you capitalize in on some bitches

[Anonymous No.20023477]

>>20022879
>>>20020940 (OP)
>>capitalism is... LE BAD!
>>communism is... LE GOOD!
>why do people even bother reading leftoid books?

this...

[Anonymous No.20023668]

>>20020940

[Anonymous No.20023683]

>>20020940
>capitalist realism
lol wtf does this mean? as opposed to capitalist surrealism?

[Anonymous No.20023814]

>>20020940
>spends the whole book explaining how avenues of social change are captured and subverted
>ends the book saying we should just protest bro

What a fucking waste of time. Ted Kaczynski did it better.

[Anonymous No.20023905]

No, he is correct about most things

[Anonymous No.20023938]

>>20023477
>>20022879
because they are literally trannies

[Anonymous No.20024184]

>>20020940
Capitalism is when bad thing happen.

[Anonymous No.20024463]

>>20020941
Based

[Anonymous No.20024557]

>>20022715
learn to get to the point in your writing you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.20024573]

>>20024557
Kek, he’s clearly a deconstructionist, they always get bogged down in idiotic rhetorical distancing. Just try reading Judith Butler and tell me it’s not the same experience

[Anonymous No.20024609]

>>20021291
when have you ever read a book directly opposed to anything you hold dear

[Anonymous No.20024697]

>>20020940
I seriously don't get this guy. If his thesis was that the establishment hijacked leftist ideas to become stronger, why he thought the solution was to double down on leftism?

[Anonymous No.20024778]

>>20024697
because he's a leftist, he's stubborn and retarded like all of them are

[Anonymous No.20024816]

>>20024778
>rightists yaaaaaaay!
>leftists booooooo!
there really is zero nuance to your thinking, is there?

[Anonymous No.20025292]

>>20024557
>>20024573
Try googling the Marx quote goobers

[Anonymous No.20026466]

>>20020940
Felt the same way. Dude is overly pessimistic and has ZERO solutions.

[Anonymous No.20026690]

>>20024816
never mentioned anything about rightists you weirdo

[Anonymous No.20026697]

>>20024816
Ironically you did what you were accusing him of, you faggot ass hole licker.

[Anonymous No.20026714]

>>20026690
So you identify as one of the retard leftists? Gotcha.

>>20026697
Unironically I don’t think you understand how irony works.

[Anonymous No.20026773]

>>20026466
We must to keep doubling down on leftism until the establishment chokes.

[Anonymous No.20026903]

>>20024697

The state is central to the liberal power process. It cannot be helped.

[Anonymous No.20026923]

>>20026773
of laughter at your expense

[Anonymous No.20026929]

> Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.20026960]

Neoliberalism is the end of history. There is literally nothing beyond it.

[Anonymous No.20026974]

>>20026960
Caesarism is coming.

[Anonymous No.20026990]

>>20020940
I am on a personal tirade to combat his line of thinking.

[Anonymous No.20026994]

>>20022859
>proliferation of mental illness is....LE BAD

read Szasz or something, I dunno

[Anonymous No.20027005]

It's like this retard never read any Rothbard, dontcha know every revolution and government trends anti-liberty and authoritarian in general

[Anonymous No.20027527]

>>20023442
you think you're being clever, hey? you slimy NPC fuck

[Anonymous No.20027561]

>>20027527
What is your opinion on the JQ?

[Anonymous No.20027563]

>>20023683
fucking keked

[Anonymous No.20027567]

>>20023683
>capitalist surrealism
That sounds like a title for a retarded Deleuze book

[Anonymous No.20027569]

>>20027561
>JQ
no clue what that is

[Anonymous No.20027601]

>>20020979
>>20020990
Didn't he hang himself by jumping off a stack of unpublished works?
A guildie in wow told me this, said it was a "badass" way to go.

[Anonymous No.20027626]

>>20021780
>recently
Are you retarded? Marx was pretty explicit, as was Babeuf. This theme isn't unique and can be traced linearly.

[Anonymous No.20027669]

>>20027601
>A guildie in wow told me this, said it was a "badass" way to go.
Why are leftists like this? And why didn't he just uploaded them as PDFs if he was dying anyway?

[Anonymous No.20027816]

>>20020940
lemme jus kms real quick ok as i was saying

[Anonymous No.20027819]

>>20023938
ew

[Anonymous No.20027923]

>>20027567
No it doesn’t. Surrealism is an art movement that has nothing to do with deleuze’s thought. You’re just saying that because they’re both “zomg weird and quirky”! on a surface level and because you don’t understand either.

[Anonymous No.20027937]

>>20021002
thats probably why he an heroed. oh well, not my problem.

[Anonymous No.20027939]

>>20026960
current events tell a different story. at least in the east, that is.

[Anonymous No.20027954]

He's a good socialist now because he's dead

[Anonymous No.20027964]

>>20026773
you gonna double down on dis dik

[Anonymous No.20028277]

>>20027669
Because he's massively pretentious and definitely a homosexual (lipsy, drawn out gay voice). He got in a right shitty with Russell Brand once cos Russell used the term "bird" to refer to a woman (common UK working class vernacular).
Guy was up his own ass and QQ'd we didn't get to see communism play out enough, which is all they ever say instead of admitting it sucked and collapsed.

[Anonymous No.20028281]

>>20028277
What does QQ mean?

[Anonymous No.20028285]

>>20027923
Surreal is how people take Deleuze's gibberish for real philosophy

[Anonymous No.20028288]

>>20020940
>everything is capitalism
>everything is fascism
Its getting really old already.

[Anonymous No.20028320]

>>20028285
It's not gibberish, it's schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.20028551]

>>20020940
Read Ellul

[Anonymous No.20028574]

>>20028285
>I don’t understand it, therefore it’s not real philosophy!
Thank you for publicly airing out your double digit IQ reading comprehension, it makes it so much easier to disregard everything you say.

[Anonymous No.20028586]

>>20028277
sounds like you need new friends

[Anonymous No.20028832]

>>20028586
What do you mean?
>>20028281
It's a emoticon crying eyes you zoomer.

[Anonymous No.20028841]

>>20027923
>>20028574
Buttmad commie lol keep touching yourself to the "metaphysical" pseud.

[Anonymous No.20028915]

>>20027954
who hurt you sweetie

[Anonymous No.20029599]

>>20026960
trip on, fukuyama

[Anonymous No.20030018]

>>20027601
no that was phillip mainlander

[Anonymous No.20030052]

>>20028841
Why would I be mad? It’s not your fault you’re retarded, I have nothing but pity for the mentally ill. Also:

>Deleuze
>”metaphysical”
It’s genuinely hilarious that you’re too stupid to realise how wrong this association is. Just another case of you making connections between ideas you don’t understand to thinkers you’ve never even read.

[Anonymous No.20030057]

>>20026960
You will wish that was the case

[Anonymous No.20030155]

>>20020940
Capitalist realism is real, but the book might as well just be the first chapter. The rest is just a bunch of shallow and barely relevant pop culture analysis and finger wagging at today's youth.

[Anonymous No.20030275]

>>20030057
Finally, a worse opinion than "Neoliberalism is the end of history. There is literally nothing beyond it"

[Anonymous No.20030352]

>>20026960
Our societies will soon collapse due to the catastrophic effects of climate change that couldn't be resolved within the framework of neoliberalism. Perhaps that will be the end of historians, but if humanity survives they won't be practising neoliberalism.