/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3221437]

What's with all the philosophy threads recently?

Is it just a few of the same anons over and over, or does /lit/ actually have its fair share of phiggots?

[demiurge No.3221448]

recently? i've noticed an unusual amount of derrida threads but on the whole i haven't noticed an uptick in philosophy threads

[Anonymous No.3221446]

>recently

it's been going on for a while. and it is rarely, if ever, literature-related

[Anonymous No.3221457]

no where else to put it, /sci/ doesn't want it

[Anonymous No.3221464]

We /phi/ now.

[Anonymous No.3221484]

there have been less philosophy threads than normal recently. probably because of finals or something

[Anonymous No.3221487]

>>3221446

I've been away awhile. I remember /lit/ being mostly about who's your favorite author, what should I read, or author X sucks.

Rarely did I see posts talking about some philo-gapple minute point. There were a few, but not much. Now there are more. Most sound like they want to appear intelligent, lots of dick waving with the vocabulary.

I don't know, maybe I'm nostalgian.

[Anonymous No.3221491]

>>3221446
this

saddest part is that they are the most popular threads on /lit/. I mean, actual lengthy discussions take place there.
the only threads about fiction that reach a similar number of replies are namedropping/make lists threads, DFW or Tao Lin threads ._.

>Discussing novels? Huh, that's most /phi/listine of you

[Anonymous No.3221494]

>>3221487
>Most sound like they want to appear intelligent, lots of dick waving with the vocabulary.
yeah that pretty much sums them up.

[Bullkowski !!DDFKjfJhPl/ No.3221501]

>>3221437
>What's with all the philosophy threads recently?
>recently
You mean since /lit/ inception?

[Bullkowski !!DDFKjfJhPl/ No.3221511]

>>3221487
You must have been away for a long, long while.

[Anonymous No.3221534]

Just to be fair, philosophy is totally /lit/ related. Philosophers are writers, that's how they share their ideas. Many of them even write fiction, like Sartre and Nietzsche, so it's not just that there's nowhere else for philosophy threads to go, they do belong on /lit/.

Unless, of course, a philosophy board was created. Nut that would probably be a bad idea because it would be 99.9 ayn rand, self help and pseudo philosophy new age bullshit

[Anonymous No.3221573]

>>3221491
>saddest part is that they are the most popular threads on /lit/.

That's just it. If you look in the threads you don't see a real conversation, it's just shit talking and dick waving. Granted, this is 4chan and I shouldn't expect much. But at the rate these boards pop up on the first page, and how some of the posts sound like the same anon across the different threads. It makes me think it's the same idiots over and over. This has been going on the past few day. Do these people having nothing better to do?

&b4 don't get all butt hurt about it. I'm just venting that's all

[Anonymous No.3221582]

>>3221487

>Most sound like they want to appear intelligent, lots of dick waving with the vocabulary.

The worst part about this is that this is an anonymous board and people still feel this kind of vanity.

[Anonymous No.3221609]

>>3221534
but they don't actually want to discuss any text that a philosopher has written, they just make 'phenomenology general' (or some other philosophical theme) threads and spew theoretical nonsense without ever addressing texts

[Anonymous No.3221618]

>>3221582
>people still feel this kind of vanity
which is the giveaway that none of them possess anything close to expertise in any field of philosophy

[Anonymous No.3221640]

>>3221609

This is true.

I wonder if we can get a rule that if you can't address a text, then you should have your thread deleted or get banned.

[demiurge No.3221647]

>>3221640
>rules

where do you think you are?

also, circlejerking about how cool you are for recognizing philosophy circlejerks is still circlejerking.

[Anonymous No.3221661]

>>3221647
>circlejerking
>circlejerking
>circlejerking

[Anonymous No.3221666]

>>3221609
>>3221640
the board isn't /txt/, it's /lit/.

I'm not necessarily defending what goes on in the philosophy threads, or that there need to be as many of them as there are, or that they're not just circlejerking, but you guys are faggots and this thread is a lot more useless and less interesting than the philosophy threads which do, whether you want to believe it or not, talk about literature.

fuck off

[Anonymous No.3221668]

>>3221647
>circlejerking about how cool you are

who said anything about being cool? pretty sure we were discussing how disappointing it is that this board is so often bogged down by philosophy 'discussions' rather than literature discussions.

how do you infer 'hurr we're super cool' from that?

[Anonymous No.3221664]

>>3221647

https://www.4chan.org/rules#lit

[Anonymous No.3221672]

>>3221666
>philosophy threads which do, whether you want to believe it or not, talk about literature
more often than not this is not the case—do you think we can't read the threads or something?

[Anonymous No.3221677]

>>3221672
no I think you don't know what 'literature' means.

[Anonymous No.3221679]

>>3221666

butt hurt pedo/phi/ detected

[demiurge No.3221680]

>>3221664
even that one isn't enforced consistently. not even when we had number 4 we had a constant stream of ayn rand shit. /lit/ is anarchy and everyone knows it.

>>3221668
>how disappointing it is that this board is so often bogged down by philosophy 'discussions'

because crying about it makes for better content. there's no reason to this other than vanity.

[Anonymous No.3221681]

>>3221677
right, because this >>3221641 is a thread about a literature.

[Anonymous No.3221693]

>>3221680
>because crying about it makes for better content
you've changed the tune of what you said originally

>there's no reason to this other than vanity
concern for the overall quality of a board ≠ vanity, I don't know how you can misconstrue that

[Anonymous No.3221694]

>>3221666
>the board isn't /txt/, it's /lit/.

Literature specifically refers to text. It's not just some general concept which refers to all knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3221701]

>>3221677
another great example of a literature discussion:
>>3220866

[Anonymous No.3221703]

>>3221681
Derrida is an author. That was his occupation.
Philosophers work in the medium of literature (as in, books, as in writing) just like painters work in the medium of visual art, like composers work in the medium of music. How is it not a thread about literature, dipshit?

[Anonymous No.3221712]

>>3221701
ironically that entire thread only mentions one piece of literature in one of its posts. which piece of literature?

the Twilight series

[Anonymous No.3221718]

>>3221712
>Twilight
>literature
Try genre fiction.

[Anonymous No.3221721]

>>3221718

Written fiction is literature, stop being such a faggot.

[demiurge No.3221723]

>>3221693
>you've changed the tune of what you said originally

wow you really are fucking thick. let me rephrase this for you

>since crying about philosophy threads does not make for better content there is no other reason to cry about it other than vanity

child.

>concern for the overall quality of a board

if you were really concerned you'd make better threads. it's simple.


> I don't know how you can misconstrue that

the only reason to cry about these kinds of threads is to establish yourself as someone who does not like them because they're 'inferior', thus asserting yourself as not part of the inferior group of people making those threads.

[Anonymous No.3221731]

>>3221703
please reconcile the fact that none of these threads ever discuss any works of literature with the reality that this is a literature board, not an ideas board

saying 'deconstructionism, go' and then never discussing any texts or citations from authors firstly has nothing to do with literature, and beyond that it makes for a high school-to-undergrad level argument, where everyone is just pontificating without any credible support for what they're saying

[Anonymous No.3221737]

>>3221723
>the only reason to cry about these kinds of threads is to establish yourself as someone who does not like them because they're 'inferior', thus asserting yourself as not part of the inferior group of people making those threads.
no, the reason is to denounce them for what they are.

I could not care less about how I 'group' myself on an anonymous board. It's unsurprising that you would take such a view though being that you're a namefag

[Anonymous No.3221739]

>>3221723
>the only reason to cry about these kinds of threads is to establish yourself as someone who does not like them because they're 'inferior', thus asserting yourself as not part of the inferior group of people making those threads.

Saying that someone is trying to establish themselves when they are posting anonymously is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.3221735]

>>3221721
literature |ˈlJtrəˌtʃʊ(ə)rˈlJdərəˌtʃər|
noun
written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: a great work of literature.
>mfw Anon very possibly considers Twilight of superior or lasting artistic merit

[Anonymous No.3221742]

>>3221718
>>3221735
if anything that further proves the point that the hedonism thread is wholly unrelated to literature

[Anonymous No.3221740]

>>3221731
that's like saying you can't have a discussion about music theory without ever citing a piece of music that exemplifies a concept

[Anonymous No.3221743]

>>3221735

Especially is not the same as exclusively.

[Anonymous No.3221745]

>>3221740
you can't honestly make a comparison between music and philosophy.

do you have any experience with graduate level philosophy? the entire premise of going about any sort of discussion is rooted in citing past philosophers.

[demiurge No.3221747]

>>3221737
> denounce them for what they are.

ahahahahahaah oh wow. yes, why do think you feel like denouncing them?

>I could not care less about how I 'group' myself on an anonymous board.

status-seeking behavior is still present to the anonymous. DYER?

>It's unsurprising that you would take such a view though being that you're a namefag

oh! devastating argument. yes, carry on denouncing these threads. really, i'm amazed no one has ever commented on this before, and i'm really surprised by how effective it is at fixing /lit/'s quality levels.

[Anonymous No.3221757]

>>3221747
>ahahahahahaah oh wow
>DYER?
>oh! devastating argument. yes, carry on denouncing these threads. really, i'm amazed no one has ever commented on this before, and i'm really surprised by how effective it is at fixing /lit/'s quality levels.

are you a teenager or undergrad or something?

[Anonymous No.3221763]

>>3221737
>namefag

He is a namefag from those 'philosophy' threads. There is a reason why he's trolling here

[Anonymous No.3221765]

>>3221747
>ahahahahahaah oh wow. yes, why do think you feel like denouncing them?

Perhaps he wants a mod or something to change the rules so that the board isn't filled with garbage? I mean you can't honestly pretend that shitposting doesn't effect everyone who comes here. When MLP content was flooding /co/, they made demands that /mlp/ ought to be created just because it was shitting up /co/.

Same shit with these "philosophy general" threads. They just don't belong on /lit/ because they rarely aren't literature related. No one is discussing authors or works, it's "IDEAS!"

[demiurge No.3221795]

>>3221757
your rhetorical skills... are too strong... i can't...

>>3221763
i usually don't post in phil threads. i helped a guy out in a camus thread yesterday and made a nietzsche joke in another post. maybe you're thinking of satan or arrogant.

>>3221765
>Perhaps he wants a mod or something to change the rules so that the board isn't filled with garbage?

so, he's an idiot with no understanding how 4chan's janitor/mod system works?

>I mean you can't honestly pretend that shitposting doesn't effect everyone who comes here.

shitposting is the point of this board. brownbear, d&e, et al. it's what people do.

> MLP content was flooding /co/, they made demands that /mlp/ ought to be created just because it was shitting up /co/.

they made mlp because it was flooding /b/. no one really cares about /co/.

>They just don't belong on /lit/ because they rarely aren't literature related

/lit/ has never been literature. it's more or less, books, film, history [sharing that with a few boards], philosophy, etc, etc. 4chan isn't a bbforum, you can't expect it to comform to strict guidelines of on-topic/off-topic, it's silly. there's plenty of places where you can do that.

[Anonymous No.3221820]

>>3221795
>your rhetorical skills... are too strong... i can't...
can't what? answer the question?

[demiurge No.3221826]

>>3221820
i asked a question first.

[LargeMagellanicCloud !NLqByHLcRc No.3221830]

>>3221457
And they damned well shouldn't have it, for the most part.
-

Most philosophy threads I've seen are about texts in about the same manner as anyone on the board CAN talk about texts (fiction or otherwise), in vague and empty critcisms, or unsure generalizations. We're all intellectually shy people, I guess, and the result is vapid conversation. So this criticism of philosophy threads isn't specific to those threads, I'll assume that those critics of philosophy threads haven't thought about philosophy in the same way the thread's participants have, and are consequently far enough from it to see it as a problem. And I'll agree that it's a problem, just not one that's specific to the conversation of philosophy.

A different and simpler case to make might be that every thread necessarily refers to philosophy's texts as every idea anyone talks about has already been expressed in literature. That someone doesn't explicitly refer to the author or text they've taken an idea from can be justified by our agreeing that the ideas themselves should be supported and defended rather than just deferring to an author/philosopher.

Wandering speculation without having any knowledge of traditional philosophy could be a problem, though.

[Anonymous No.3221849]

>>3221830
>That someone doesn't explicitly refer to the author or text they've taken an idea from can be justified by our agreeing that the ideas themselves should be supported and defended rather than just deferring to an author/philosopher.

See that's the thing though. Coming from a literature/philosophy background beyond undergraduate levels, I have a hard time accepting the rationalization from the participants in those threads that they need not bother supporting their claims or citing anything they're talking about.

If they want to have a discussion that way, it's their prerogative, but such a manner of debate—from an academic perspective—would be hard not reduce to a group of dilettantes meandering through broad 'ideas'.

>>3221826
what was the question? why do I feel like denouncing them? I've made that quite clear by now. Even in this post. was it 'DYER?' then? yes, I do.

In any case, would you like to reveal if you're an undergrad or what you are? do you have a specific reason for your apprehension?

[demiurge No.3221860]

>>3221849
>what you are?

a neet, and a namefag.

>do you have a specific reason for your apprehension?

i don't like complaining meta-threads, they're pointless and everyone is too satisfied with themselves for being able to formulate complaints that appear in literally every thread that wanders into philosophy. they always complain about threads sucking in a thread that sucks.

[Anonymous No.3221875]

>>3221795
>i usually don't post in phil threads.

>>3219299
>>3221330
>>3218428
>>3218475
>>3218817
>>3218828
>>3218835
>>3218934
>>3218951
>>3218972
>>3219229
>>3219250
>>3219288
>>3219331
>>3219426
>>3219469
>>3219491
>>3218412
>>3218997
>>3221671

[Anonymous No.3221878]

>>3221860
>a neet
so did you finish undergrad only? not finish? never start? you give the impression of being deliberately unclear

>in a thread that sucks
sorry that you feel that way

[Anonymous No.3221883]

>>3221875
this is rich. he's so eloquent too

[demiurge No.3221889]

>>3221875
hmm this is true. i'd like you to note that actual participation is not that high though, out of 20 posts, less than four are actual contributions. the rest is well, shitposts and jokes.

>>3221878
never started, seemed like too much work. i'd rather hang here with you guys.

[LargeMagellanicCloud !NLqByHLcRc No.3221899]

>>3221849
>but such a manner of debate—from an academic perspective—would be hard not to reduce to a group of dilett𝑎ntes me𝑎ndering t𝑕roug𝑕 bro𝑎d 'ide𝑎s'.

Yup, sounds like /lit/, in all conversation of fiction (where we never expound on and justify the criticisms we make), historiography, and philosophy. It's hard to set conversation of philosophy apart to criticize when it's something the board does. If you're looking at this place from an academic background, you're probably shifting through shit for gallium.

[LargeMagellanicCloud !NLqByHLcRc No.3221907]

>>3221899
the board does universally*

[Anonymous No.3221908]

>>3221889
>never started, seemed like too much work. i'd rather hang here with you guys.
maybe so, the 'work' is relative to your passion really. I've been in academia studying literature and philosophy for years and it scarcely felt cumbersome. had it been a different field of study that wouldn't have been the case

in any case, no one's ever going to be published for pontifications they make on /lit/, fun as it is to carry out lighthearted discussions here

[Anonymous No.3221910]

>>3221889
>hmm this is true. i'd like you to note that actual participation is not that high though, out of 20 posts, less than four are actual contributions. the rest is well, shitposts and jokes.

There is no denying it, your shits been called out. Don't try shrugging it off, everybody on this thread knows now what a sham you are.

[demiurge No.3221915]

>>3221910
okay i've been called out. i honestly thought i didn't post that much in phil threads. guess i had my own unconscious motives. it happens.

>>3221908
i have no passion whatsoever, i don't really jacking off that much.

have you taught any? how did you like that?

>no one's ever going to be published for pontifications they make on /lit/, fun as it is to carry out lighthearted discussions here

actually i happen to think greentext is the next big thing...

[Anonymous No.3221917]

>>3221899
>If you're looking at this place from an academic background, you're probably shifting through shit for gallium.
Essentially, yes. It's largely just sifting though, I never quite expect to find anything profound here. I only find it amusing/irksome/ironic that the philosophy threads are so littered with self-righteousness despite what we've said about the general nature of this board.

[LargeMagellanicCloud !NLqByHLcRc No.3221922]

>>3221889
We already have our critically offensive poster, and he's a lot more constructive than you.

[Anonymous No.3221932]

>>3221915
>have you taught any? how did you like that?
yeah, it's alright. there are usually a handful of bright and passionate students (read: a minority, sometimes as many as half of the class) who make it worth it. it's usually painfully evident that the rest of them either don't care about anything but a grade or haven't done the reading. or haven't grasped it—which I never mind, as long as they're comfortable with asking for help in better understanding the texts. if the teaching aspect of it was all I cared about it would make me more cynical, but I'm more passionate about my own research.

>actually i happen to think greentext is the next big thing...
I wouldn't put anything beyond the realm of possibility in this age

[Anonymous No.3221934]

>>3221932
>>3221915
>i have no passion whatsoever

you probably do—you may not be aware of what it is yet. you likely will not find it posting here though.

[Anonymous No.3221936]

>>3221915
>okay i've been called out. i honestly thought i didn't post that much in phil threads. guess i had my own unconscious motives. it happens.

>>3221448
>>3221647
>>3221680
>>3221723
>>3221747
>>3221795

>implying others are the problem and not you.

You're a hypocrite.

[demiurge No.3221937]

>>3221922
i'll find some other niche to fill. maybe i'll hang around lovecraft threads and make /pol/arizing remarks.

>>3221932
i see, hm. cool.

[demiurge No.3221940]

>>3221936
i already conceded this? you can only win once dude.

[Anonymous No.3221952]

>>3221940

Why are you still here? You been off topic more then any one here practically.

[demiurge No.3221965]

>>3221952
in the thread? mostly because people keep replying to me.

[sage No.3221971]

This is a troll thread, all philosophy threads are nietzsche threads, all nietzsche threads are troll threads.