/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20987830]

Why does /lit/ hate this book?

[Anonymous No.20988182]

The right-wingers and the left-wingers both cannot stand the shitlibs

[Anonymous No.20988263]

>>20987830
Yes. From the guy who wants to kill the elderly and disabled.

[Anonymous No.20988282]

>>20987830
>The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress
At least 2 of these 4 things are complete and utter spooks, and not just with the Stirnerian meaning either.

[Anonymous No.20988310]

>>20987830
The reason begins with a "k" and ends in "ikery."

[Anonymous No.20988350]

You'll find plently intelligent and well-thought justifications to push back against some of the grandiose claims of this book online, but probably none of them on this board. In brief, the fundamental problem lies in Pinker's histronic writing style which leads to pronouncement's making inductive leaps far beyond the evidence he displays in the book, and his shody uniarticulate thoughts on anything related to philosophy, hence his subsequent conceptual stretching of the term enlightenment beyond beggars belief.

[Anonymous No.20988368]

>>20988350
Well-formulated sentences with correct punctuation and grammar? And no racial slurs? Sir, do you know where you are?

[Anonymous No.20988388]

>>20987830
Because I'm an antisemite

[Anonymous No.20988395]

>>20988388
Nice digits.

[Anonymous No.20988438]

"He thinks many people are very unreasonable, and makes sweeping claims about their irrationality and moral imbecility, but often doesn’t bother to listen to what they actually say. While insisting for page upon page on the necessity of rationality, he irrationally caricatures and mocks ideas he hasn’t tried to understand. Then, when the people who believe those ideas become upset, he sees this as further proof of their emotion-driven thinking, and becomes even more convinced that he is right. It is a pattern displayed by many of those who are critics of “social justice” and the political left. Pinker, however, takes it to an extreme: Nobody has ever tried to look more Reasonable while being so ignorant and condescending."

from "THE WORLD’S MOST ANNOYING MAN" in Current Affairs dot com

[Anonymous No.20988449]

>>20988282
Which ones of the 2 you consider spooks determines whether you are a gigapleb or a patrician.
So go ahead, which ones?

[Anonymous No.20988478]

>>20988438
>Nobody has ever tried to look more Reasonable while being so ignorant and condescending.
thought the book Rationality was a very good primer on biases and how humans are inefficient in a number of logical progressions. Then he goes off on how cheeto hitler instructed everyone to inject bleach, proving his own point. Taught me that logic doesn't sway anyone and narrative control is the only power.

[Anonymous No.20988483]

>>20988263

[Anonymous No.20988493]

>>20988263

what's wrong with that if it's done with the person's consent?
when i am old i should be able to die when i want to die

[Anonymous No.20988508]

>>20988438
Thanks Nate, but you're still a homo

[Anonymous No.20988654]

>>20987830
Because we don’t read.

[Anonymous No.20988855]

>>20987830
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/enlightenment-how-pinkers-tutelary-natures/
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/enlightenment-how-omens-of-the-semantic-apocalypse/

"Granted, he’s a psychologist: operationalizations of information, computation, and control are his empirical bread and butter. But operationalizing intentional concepts in experimental contexts is a far cry from naturalizing intentional concepts. He entirely neglects to mention that his ‘bridge’ is merely a pragmatic, institutional one, that cognitive science remains, despite decades of research and billions of dollars in resources, unable to formulate its explananda, let alone explain them. He mentions a great number of philosophers, but he fails to mention what the presence of those philosophers in his thetic wheelhouse means."

"Although it’s true that Nietzsche (like Pinker) lacked any scientifically compelling theory of cognition, what he did understand was its relation to power, the fact that “when you face an adversary alone, your best weapon may be an ax, but when you face an adversary in front of a throng of bystanders, your best weapon may be an argument” (415). To argue that all knowledge is contextual isn’t to argue that all knowledge is fundamentally equal (and therefore not knowledge at all), only that it is bound to its time and place, a creature possessing its own ecology, its own conditions of failure and flourishing. The Nietzschean thought experiment is actually quite a simple one: What happens when we turn Enlightenment skepticism loose upon Enlightenment values?"

"The Death of Progress (at the Hand of Progress)
The formula is simple. Enlightenment reason solves natures, allowing the development of technology, generally relieving humanity of countless ancestral afflictions. But Enlightenment reason is *only now solving its own nature*. Pinker, in the absence of that solution, is arguing that the formula remains reliable if not quite as simple. And if all things were equal, his optimistic induction would carry the day—at least for me. As it stands, I’m with Nietzsche and Adorno. *All things are not equal*… and we would see this clearly, I think, were it not for the intentional obscurities comprising humanism. Far from the latest, greatest hope that Pinker makes it out to be, I fear humanism constitutes yet another nexus of traditional intuitions that must be overcome. The last stand of ancestral authority."

[Anonymous No.20989242]

>>20987830
Steven Pinker is probably a spook. Spooks are the only ones that can get away publishing rubbish on the level of retard tier for this amount of time.

[Anonymous No.20989261]

>>20987830
Pinker is a self-serving, egotistical cunt with only his own best interests in mind, I refuse to read anything written by him.

[Anonymous No.20989277]

>>20988449
Humanism and progress naturally

[Anonymous No.20989511]

>>20988182
Go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.20989524]

>>20989511
>seethes about /pol/ all day because

[Anonymous No.20989574]

>>20987830
Because he believes in humanism and progress which /lit/, as a traditionalist board, regards as fantasies.

[Anonymous No.20989592]

>>20989524
He's right. Go back

[Anonymous No.20989617]

'reason, science, humanism and progress' really just means putting blacks in lord of the rings and not prosecuting rapists and murderers
see south africa, sweden, immigrant ghettos of paris, london, entire san francisco etc

im sorry to say it but all you need for utopian society is a 120 iq white breeding stock, it really is that simple, and this is the most forbidden idea today for a reason

[Anonymous No.20989682]

>>20989617
I use to believe this but now I believe the Cantonese are the master race

[Anonymous No.20989705]

Progress towards what

[Anonymous No.20989709]

>>20989511
>>20989592
I gave the right answer. We don’t like Pinker, he’s ass.

[Anonymous No.20989730]