/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2728346]

>Still taking continental philosophy seriously
>2012

[Anonymous No.2728359]

intersubjectivity is the keyword

[Anonymous No.2728373]

>>2728346
>intellectual laziness

[Anonymous No.2728376]

>2012
>still thinking that it ever tried to be serious
>still thinking it can actually be taken serious

even if you take it serious that would be just to realize it is not possible.

please stop repeating shit you dont understand. if youre gonna criticize, read 1st.

/thread

[Anonymous No.2728379]

>>2728346
mfw analytic philosopher hasn't got a serious thinker in 20 years

[Anonymous No.2728393]

>>2728359
Intersubjectivity is no better. How is it any sort of stronger argument to claim that critics of continental philosophy are wrong subjectively according to a lot of people than to claim that critics of continental philosophy are wrong according to one person?

[Anonymous No.2728407]

>>2728393
Because that's what a text is.
Neither a thing nor the opinion of a person.
But a set of interpretative rules that are upheld by the community and received through a shared history.

That's why the author does not decide the meaning of his writings, because tradition and the community have the upper hand when interpreting it.

And that's why you can be wrong in interpreting it, even though there is no objective interpretation.

[Anonymous No.2728409]

>>2728393
wtf am i reading

go back to the wikipedia article on intersubjectivity, read it, and if you still don't get it read the sources

[Anonymous No.2728411]

When an entire field of study shares a single political ideology, and that ideology has been discredited to the point that its believers have to retreat into pet epistemologies in order to keep the faith, it's a safe bet we aren't talking about a legitimate philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2728418]

>>2728411
>conservatives
>fundamental christians

[Anonymous No.2728421]

>>2728418
Your idiot greentexting might approach a legitimate counter-argument if there were "conservative studies" classes at mainstream universities.

[Anonymous No.2728423]

>>2728411
This is an unjustified generalization. Foucault was called a traitor by Marxists, and nationalists accused him of being a Marxist. He was neither. And that's just Foucault, let alone the "whole field."

[Anonymous No.2728425]

>>2728421
The only reason there are not is because there are no serious conservative intellectuals left after Aaron.

[Anonymous No.2728427]

>>2728407
So is god real because lots of people believe in him?

[Anonymous No.2728431]

>>2728393

Because I don't think that.

My point is that continentals have revised the theory of truth so that proposition 'A' is true by correspondence to shared experience A or collectively defined semantic rule B rather than an a correspondence to event-in-itself A or mind independent semantic rule B.

[Anonymous No.2728433]

"Intersubjectivity" is just argumentum ad populum dressed up in a suit.

[Anonymous No.2728435]

>>2728427
No but your bank account is.

[Anonymous No.2728437]

>>2728427

According to the rules of scientific discourse, substantial evidence for the existence of God has not been provided.

[Anonymous No.2728440]

>>2728431
That's not how language works. Face it.
There is no mind independent semantic rules for natural language.
And there is no event-in-itself when you discuss concepts.

That's why analytic philosophy is fucking up. They want to uphold those standards and yet discuss about ethics and aesthetics. The result is that the only refer to some mysterious "common sense".

At least when you interpret in light of the tradition you have some sort of independent reference.
Saying that it's common sense it's saying "that's the way it is duh".

[Anonymous No.2728441]

>>2728433

Popular opinion is at the center of human existence. That is precisely the key insight.

[Anonymous No.2728448]

>>2728440

I know. I'm defending continentals.

[Anonymous No.2728450]

>>2728441
>Popular opinion is at the center of human existence. That is precisely the key insight.
The key insight is championing a logical fallacy with some verbiage thrown in for good measure?

[Anonymous No.2728457]

>>2728450
The key insight is that a contract exists only if at least two people believe in it.

Language works in the same way. The way we describe and understand the world is through language.

[Anonymous No.2728459]

>>2728457
>The way we describe and understand the world is through math.
Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.2728462]

>>2728459
Which is a language and thus intersubjective.

[Anonymous No.2728464]

>>2728462
>Which is a language and thus intersubjective.
A language? Yes.
Intersubjective? Not beyond arbitrary symbols.

[Anonymous No.2728470]

>>2728450

It isn't quite actually. The ndividual experiences which form collective experience can be analyzed to be true or false, without fail, when objects are viewed as contents of consciousness. Collectively, in discourse, we develop a greater picture of the world, or what might possibly be experienced. What you call objective truth is attained through this process. Propositions exist only in language an discourse.

[Anonymous No.2728472]

>>2728464
It's still intersubjective. Intersubjective does not mean that people decide what it means by voting.
It means that it needs to be upheld by a plurality of people. I cannot do my private math, that's why it's not subjective, but if there are no people there is no math.

Math is a language with very strict transformational rules that guarantee that if you input a true sentence you are going to get a true sentence out.

[Anonymous No.2728478]

/thread

[Anonymous No.2728484]

>>2728472
Structurally, a triangle is the strongest shape. This will not change is society collectively believes otherwise next year.

You have yet to make a case for math being "intersubjective" beyond simply saying that it is.

[Anonymous No.2728487]

>>2728484
That the triangle is the strongest shape structurally is a truth of physics not of math.

[Anonymous No.2728488]

>>2728484
>change is* society
*if

[Anonymous No.2728499]

>>2728487
It's also not true. It is neither overly constrained or under constrained and is useful in situations where joints carry negligable moments (or can be considered to).

[Anonymous No.2728500]

>>2728487
>That the triangle is the strongest shape structurally is a truth of physics not of math.
Alright. A tringle can have no two sides with a sum greater than the third side. This is math, and it similarly is true no matter if people believe it or not.

[Anonymous No.2728505]

>>2728500
This is only true in euclidean geometry which is a socially constructed space base on a set of axioms.

[Anonymous No.2728509]

>>2728500
>A tringle can have no two sides with a sum greater than the third side.
In euclidean space. Assuming you are also referring to length. And assuming I haven't happened to overlook something either.

[Anonymous No.2728512]

>>2728500

math is founded on axioms, though. that ensures its relativity.

[Anonymous No.2728532]

>>2728484

The propositions of mathematics are tautologies. They are so because of the language which has been rigorously defined by a collective of human beings who found the system to be satisfying. That said, the system of mathematics has changed over the years. Euclid's geometry is no longer rigorous enough for mathematicians. When logicism failed and new methods were invented to ground mathematics. Today there is dispute over the proper way to do it because of the many methods, there is no clear superior.

To address your example of the triangle: the particular quality you mention (I don't even know what: structural strength means in mathematics if it means anything) likely only applies in Euclidian geometry. Mathematicians have expanded their study of shape to physically impossible geometries because they are able employ fairly arbitrary rules to create new systems of geometry

Mathematics is possibly the greatest example of a intersubjective discourse. It is actually what made me take the idea seriously.

[Anonymous No.2728539]

>>2728421
There are continental philosophy classes? I really doubt this is a widespread thing.

[Anonymous No.2728543]

>>2728539
lit departments

[Anonymous No.2728546]

>Science Wars bullshit
>2012

God damn it /lit/.

[Anonymous No.2728548]

>>2728539

If your phil department doesn't address continental thought you attend a shit university

[Anonymous No.2728552]

Haven't you heard kid. It's all about the Hegel now.

[Anonymous No.2728559]

>>2728548
Uh huh. So I guess a "conservative studies" class isn't necessary for that other anon's point then.

[Anonymous No.2728562]

>>2728411

>Implying Foucault, Virilio, Kittler, Latour, Heidegger, de Certeau, Glucksmann, Henri-Levy, Brassier, post-Symbolic Exhcange and Death Baudrillard, et. al are/were Marxists

>Taking the whole LOLZIZEKBADIOURANCIERE Verso hype machine at face-value

ISHYDDT

[Anonymous No.2728572]

>>2728548
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0jO8xRn52Xl

[Anonymous No.2728573]

>>2728552
>The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity.

>...a commonplace, inane, loathsome, repulsive and ignorant charlatan, who with unparalleled effrontery compiled a system of crazy nonsense that was trumpeted abroad as immortal wisdom by his mercenary followers...

>...that clumsy and nauseating charlatan, that pernicious person, who completely disorganized and ruined the minds of a whole generation.

[Anonymous No.2728579]

>>2728346

>straw-man image macro

>mfw analytic readings of Derrida, Hegel, and Heidegger have been done and aren't unpopular last I checked

>mfw Foucault told John Searle to his face that he disliked the whole "It must be incomprehensible to be taken seriously" mentality of the French academic establishment and having to pay lip service to it when writing his books, and that he thought Derrida was an obscurantist hack

>mfw Lyotard had a huge goddamn boner for Wittgenstein

>mfw Manuel DeLanda's entire career is based on an analytic, scientistic reading of Deleuze and Guattari

>mfw someone pulled a reverse-Sokal and fooled a physics journal with unintelligible, nonsensical garbage

>mfw Zizek flat-out states that Lacanian psychoanalysis isn't an empirical science and never will be, and that it should be treated as a metaphysical system, and that he never liked the impenetrability of Lacan's style

>mfw Kittler disliked most cultural studies and insisted on incorporating mathematics and information theory

>mfw parallels between Quine's ideas and certain French continental theorists have been noted

>mfw Whitehead ended up reading Hegel down the line and was surprised at how similar Hegel's ideas were to his

>mfw Foucault uses speech-act theory in The Archaeology of Knowledge

>mfw nobody will care about these encounters and parallels because all this science-wars bullshit that now constitutes the analytic-continental divide is fueled by bruised, petty academic egos and the academic media hype they whip up

[Anonymous No.2728580]

>>2728579

>I have no face for it. I can't properly represent the level of facepalming I'm doing

[Anonymous No.2728584]

>>2728579
Let me do the mfw for you

[Anonymous No.2728591]

>>2728579
You are a king among man sir. I applaud you.

[Anonymous No.2728592]

>>2728579

I actually agreed with most of this, but then I read

>>>>mfw Kittler disliked most cultural studies and insisted on incorporating mathematics and information theory

No, just no. Cultural Studies incorporated mathematics & information theory (Stuart Hall's revision of Shannon & Weaver), and point to me one place Kittler used mathematics.

[Anonymous No.2728594]

>>2728579

Also

>Popper's idea of the Three Worlds has a weird, vague similarity to Lacan's notion of the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary

[Anonymous No.2728597]

>>2728592

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsYCac2G1q4

[Anonymous No.2728598]

>>2728594
Kinda of but not really.

The real is not a world. It has no properties and no form. It's the material, the hyle, of aristotle out of which reality (imaginary + symbolic) is cut.

[Anonymous No.2728599]

>>2728598

Good point, but, hence the use of "vague."

[Anonymous No.2728600]

>>2728592

Also, my bad, never read Stuart Hall.

[Anonymous No.2728601]

>>2728592

Also

>Kittler's final, unfinished work was titled "Music and Mathematics"

[Anonymous No.2728602]

>>2728597

So he's discussing an influential model of information theory. That does not mean he's using mathematics, even if that model was developed by two mathematicians. His method is discourse analysis, not quantitative, geometrical, or algebraic anything.

[Anonymous No.2728604]

>>2728602

True enough, I'll give you that one.

[Anonymous No.2728605]

>tfw Kittler is dead and Virilio is off in a secret cave somewhere, rubbing his hands together going "Just as planned"

[Anonymous No.2728615]

For someone who's only just getting into philosophy, this thread terrifies me. I don't have a fucking clue what you guys are talking about. I should give up..

[Anonymous No.2728622]

>>2728615
What's so terrifying about masturbation?