/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3935470]

Who is the most overrated public intellectual? Pic related.

[Anonymous No.3935472]

OP, could I get a picture of you/
>Absence of pic related

[Anonymous No.3935474]

>>3935470
He is not REALLY overrated. He revolutionized linguistics. His political philosophy is a bit "off" but he is not overrated. He has done a lot as a public academic. Now, if you really are interested in overrated public intellectuals, google my nigga Cornel West. Took a class by him, worst class in my life.

[Anonymous No.3935478]

>>3935470
Slavoj Zizek

jk lol

[Anonymous No.3935483]

If we're being serious here, it's Thomas Friedman

[Anonymous No.3935484]

hi there

[Anonymous No.3935491]

>>3935483
While I was on a visit in Damascus I was talking to some of the top internet ceos while surfing on my ipad thanks to the wi-fi network in a local starbucks and telling them about my period of studies at the american university of lebanon. They all agree that if a most overrated public intellectual must be defined, and it must if we want to meet the complex challenges of the future, such overrated intellectual would be Thomas Friedman.

[Anonymous No.3935493]

>>3935483
>Thomas Friedman
Yep. Basically any economist that is interviewed by the media who's political opinions they also respect.

[Anonymous No.3935499]

>>3935493
I nominate Paul Krugman.

[Anonymous No.3935502]

>>3935499
Better writer than Thomas Friedman

(this is not hard)

[Anonymous No.3935505]

>Paul Krugman
>Thomas Friedman

/thread

[Anonymous No.3935508]

Also Krugman's academic credentials are much more legitimate than Friedman's

[Anonymous No.3935569]

Sam Harris, by far.

[Anonymous No.3935571]

>>3935470
/thread

[Anonymous No.3935577]

Zizek

[Anonymous No.3935590]

Eliezer Yudkowsky.

[Anonymous No.3935596]

Michio Kaku

[Anonymous No.3935601]

George Carlin
Albert Einstein
Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.3935603]

>>3935601
6/10

[Anonymous No.3935607]

Jason Silva

[Anonymous No.3935611]

>>3935603
Where's the joke?

[Anonymous No.3935616]

>>3935611
>Citing a comedian and performance artist as an intellectual next to Einstein.
>Citing Einstein as an 'overrated intellectual'.
>Putting Dawkins anywhere near either of them.

[Anonymous No.3935617]

>>3935616
Sorry, though you were a Dawkins/Carlin fan.

[Anonymous No.3935618]

>>3935616
>implying einstein wasn't an intellectual
>implying he wasn't overrated

[Anonymous No.3935626]

>>3935601
>George Carlin

You'd be right if this thread was about the most overrated comedian.

[Anonymous No.3935629]

Krugman, Friedman, Rand, Chomsky, Harris - hi I'm from /pol/ and I love this thread.

[Anonymous No.3935635]

>>3935626
carlin tries to rant and sound intellectual more than tell jokes though

[Anonymous No.3935638]

>>3935626
>>3935635
Carlin is right most of the time, he can just be a little irritating.

If you were to say Bill Hicks, however...

[Anonymous No.3935639]

>>3935618
>redefined modern physics as we know it
>helped develop quantum mechanics
>launched the nuclear age
>over rated

pls

his accomplishments aren;t some fad you go against to be a hip outsider, you massive tool.

[Anonymous No.3935642]

>>3935639
>>>his accomplishments aren;t some fad you go against to be a hip outsider, you massive tool.
>stole all his ideas
>invented a pseudo-religion
I will not fall for this trickery again, wizard.

[Anonymous No.3935643]

>>3935474
He ruined linguistics you mean

[Anonymous No.3935645]

Zizek, because a lot of idiots treat him as a philosopher and not a performance artist.

[Anonymous No.3935646]

>>3935569
NOt as bad as Friedman or Krugman

[Anonymous No.3935647]

>>3935646
>NOt as bad as Friedman or Krugman
What's so bad about Krugman? I'm not really familiar with him.

[Anonymous No.3935649]

>>3935642
pls

[Anonymous No.3935656]

>>3935626
>>3935635
>>3935638
>Carlin
>Hicks
>Most overrated comedians of all time

It's astonishing how you faggots can come to that conclusion when people like Carrottop, Larry the Cable guy, Alan Carr, and Russell Brand still draw huge audiences.

[Anonymous No.3935657]

>>3935656

In my opinion, it's Louis CK. People quote him like he's Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.3935659]

>>3935639
>MUH GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE

[Anonymous No.3935660]

>>3935656
It's rejectionism. It's the new default position for the edgy teen. You take something respected or held by consensus to be good, and say 'that's shit, lol'. It's as easy as that. Not justification, no reasoning, just a basic low-grade contradictory remark.

No longer are you allowed to like something, you must instead express loathing for it's opposite. What you dislike is now what defines you. Now go and find the nearest Joyce thread, because Joyce is shit, lol.

[Anonymous No.3935661]

>>3935656
>It's astonishing how you faggots can come to that conclusion when people like Carrottop, Larry the Cable guy, Alan Carr, and Russell Brand still draw huge audiences.
YOu're quoting me, but I didn't say Carlin was a comedian. I said he was a professional ranter and pseudo-intellectual.

Most overrated comedian, right now, in terms of annoying media coverage, would have to be Amy Schumer.

[Anonymous No.3935662]

One of the most cited scholars the last 50 years is overrated? Get yours shit together, OP.

As for actually overrated: Zizek. There's no substance in what he says and he's largely unimportant.

[Anonymous No.3935666]

>>3935662
>One of the most cited scholars the last 50 years is overrated? Get yours shit together, OP.
The last 50 years sucked, and I like Chomsky when he isn't completely making up things. Funny so many source a man who never sources anything clearly.

>>3935662
>As for actually overrated: Zizek. There's no substance in what he says and he's largely unimportant.
There's also something today about being a really ugly fat guy with a more attractive wife that seems to attract media attention and social status. He's the King of Queens of intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.3935667]

Harold Bloom.

[Anonymous No.3935668]

>>3935660

Please.

You rant about "rejectionism" yet are unable to even consider that people would ever have a difference in opinion on the matter. Completely missing the irony behind this flippant dismissal.

Are you aware of how full of shit you are or is this still something you've yet to catch up on?

[Anonymous No.3935670]

>>3935618
Known for
General relativity and special relativity
Photoelectric effect
Mass-energy equivalence
Theory of Brownian Motion
Einstein field equations
Bose–Einstein statistics
Bose-Einstein condensate
Bose–Einstein correlations
Unified Field Theory
EPR paradoxKnown for
General relativity and special relativity
Photoelectric effect
Mass-energy equivalence
Theory of Brownian Motion
Einstein field equations
Bose–Einstein statistics
Bose-Einstein condensate
Bose–Einstein correlations
Unified Field Theory
EPR paradox


>overrated

Go fuck yourself. You don't understand any of this shit, and not how influential it was and not what it helped foster. Retards like you piss me off. "I don't understand a person therefore he is overrated." Fuck off and die in a fire you piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.3935673]

>>3935668
"This post is shit, lol."

[Anonymous No.3935675]

>>3935670
>General relativity and special relativity
>Photoelectric effect
>Mass-energy equivalence
>Theory of Brownian Motion
>Einstein field equations
>Bose–Einstein statistics
>Bose-Einstein condensate
>Bose–Einstein correlations
>Unified Field Theory
>EPR paradoxKnown for
>General relativity and special relativity
>Photoelectric effect
>Mass-energy equivalence
>Theory of Brownian Motion
>Einstein field equations
>Bose–Einstein statistics
>Bose-Einstein condensate
>Bose–Einstein correlations
>Unified Field Theory
>EPR paradox
Do you know what 80% of those are? Just wondering.

[Anonymous No.3935676]

>>3935675

As a physics major I'm familiar with most of it.

[Anonymous No.3935677]

>>3935670
>GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE, GUISE, SERIOUSLY GUISE

[Anonymous No.3935680]

>>3935676
Isn't unified field theory obvious BS? It's also mentioned twice.

[Anonymous No.3935681]

>>3935677
>>GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE, GUISE, SERIOUSLY GUISE
2edgy4him

[Anonymous No.3935682]

>>3935668
>You rant about "rejectionism" yet are unable to even consider that people would ever have a difference in opinion on the matter.
I don't know how you managed to deduce that. Of course people have differences of opinion. I'm talking about the tendency to focus on what you hate instead of what you like, and dismiss what you hate in a childish, inane way. This thread is a perfect example, as is this (3935650), as are the majority of snide, obnoxious posts that get posted here.

Hating is the default stance, because it's so much easier to berate something that someone else appreciates, than to express appreciation for something you like and have to fend off a thousand 'rejectionists'.

[Anonymous No.3935683]

>>3935660
You say that like rejectionism is a bad approach to things. In general things that are respected or held by consensus to be good are the exact opposite, so what's wrong with rejectionism?

[Anonymous No.3935684]

>>3935676
Honest to god. If you were a physics major you'd know that Einstein wasn't all that.

Also, helped develop quantum mechanics. My ass

[Anonymous No.3935687]

>>3935675
Even a highschooler should (or could) know half of these ideas and their implications.

[Anonymous No.3935691]

>>3935683
>In general things that are respected or held by consensus to be good are the exact opposite, so what's wrong with rejectionism?
Because it's a negative attitude that seldom produces anything worthwhile. Just look at any thread at random. Even if you pick a GRRM thread, what are the 'Fantasy sucks, 'manchild detected' comments achieving? Or a thread about Nabokov with people insisting he was an overrated hack?

Why is it that every positive opinion is instantly met with with these types of comments? They never offer anything productive, they just take snide pot-shots in a single short sentence.

What we end up with is a festering community where everything is attacked and praise is very infrequent. And when something does get praised, that praise is instantly attacked. I just don't see why attacking something should be far more common than praising somethings merits.

It seems like having a positive opinion is feared because it will be attacked, so the easy road is just to criticise and ridicule.

[Anonymous No.3935696]

>>3935659
>reference to spinoza's god
>personal comment om the implications of QD
>'hurrdurr what is context'

[Anonymous No.3935702]

>>3935691
Do comments on 4chan have to produce something worthwhile?

Does "I like GRRM" produce something that "GRRM sucks" does not? You're presenting a false dilemma here.

Praise should be infrequent, otherwise it's meaningless. If praise became frequent we'd just be plebbit 2.0, where everything is fantastic and nothing is ever bad or even mediocre. Not only is that kind of environment fucking annoying, it also attracts the wrong kind of people.

Opinions should be attacked, and if they don't hold up to those attacks, they should be discarded. It's easy to criticize only because people hold a lot of easily criticizable opinions. Of course this being 4chan, winning the argument is not enough: you also have denigrate your opponent while doing it. But that's just how things are, and I find it enjoyable.

You sound like you're butthurt because someone destroyed your shitty arguments and instead of changing your mind, you're feeling the dysphoria of cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.3935708]

>>3935639
Except he stole all his ideas and had no part in defining the nuclear age apart from telling Roosevelt to 'fund these guys'. Literally.

L2history faggot.

[Anonymous No.3935717]

>>3935702
See, this is much better. You feel compelled to mindlessly contradict, but at least you're putting a little effort in. Even though you don't believe your arguments, at least you are taking the time to construct one instead of posting a three word quip, or greentext insult. I guess I can advocate this. I mean it's still negative, but it's not totally useless.

If only the rest of the board could move in that direction instead of accepting '>Implying x is good' as a valid, well-thought out response.

[Anonymous No.3935730]

>>3935717
You're using "negative" in a negative manner. There's nothing wrong with negativity. Negativity is Progress. Negativity is the scientific method. Negativity is the rejection of failed philosophies.

Negativity is what propels us. Negativity makes us re-evaluate the status quo, negativity is what induces us to change the world.

A content man, a positive man is nothing but a vegetable. Positivity means things happen to you, not by you. Positive is passive, decaying, backwards.

You yourself are displaying negativity toward your perception of the culture of this board in an attempt to change it, which (while ignorant) is at least somewhat admirable. So go forth and be negative my anonymous friend.

[Anonymous No.3935738]

>>3935730
I just scrolled down the front page and clicked these. Have a little hover over them.
>>3935722
>>3935720
>>3933263
>>3934473
>>3935532
>>3935621
>>3935532

The number of these useless posts is far greater than their positive counterparts, which are usually rather well-thought out by comparison. Why is there a tendency to make these kind of posts that offer nothing but a juvenile attack? That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure if you are denying that these posts exist or promoting them, but I think they are useless, and the posters of them would be better off structuring a valid criticism, or focusing their energy on the merits of something.

It just seems that basking in this kind of hatred is counter-productive to decent discussion.

[Anonymous No.3935745]

>>3935738
Did you not work out that a few of those were memes? In other words, you're not only so uncultured you fail to see a reference, you're also too dumb to realise that there is referencing there when it's most obvious.

[Anonymous No.3935747]

>>3935745
lol. How many of those posts were yours?

[Anonymous No.3935749]

>>3935747
This post here is my second post today. See if you can solve this riddle.

[sMk !ArcH9WpopA No.3935750]

>>3935680
It's the same list posted twice. pop kek.

[Anonymous No.3935751]

>>3935749
You live in New Zealand

[Anonymous No.3935754]

>>3935751
Ooh, good try but I'm afraid not.

[Anonymous No.3935762]

>>3935738
[x]God, you are pretentious.
[x]Ha Ha Oh Wow
[x]Fedora detected
[x]>implying
[x]You're a faggot.
[x]You insufferable cunt
[x]Dunning–Kruger.jpg
[x]The edgiest edge
[x]u mad
[x]Ad Hominem, dipshit.
[x]Libtard detected
[x]You're a Pleb
[x]You're an absolute faggot.
[x]Thirteen year old detected
[x]If you're X, you are deluded/retarded
[x]/sci/tard pls go
[x]If you're Y, you are autistic
[x]If you're Z, you are a moron
[x]Go back to /pol/
[x]This is what X actually believes
[x]Master race Patrician
[x]Everyone above this line was trolled.jpg
[x]Cultural Marxist
[x]Militant agnostic
[x]Teenage r/atheist
[x]Butthurt feminist detected.

[Anonymous No.3935791]

Hands down it has to be Lawrence Krauss.

[Spider Jerusalem No.3937595]

>>3935657
THIS.
>>3935660
Pretty much, especially with Hicks.

[Anonymous No.3937602]

>>3935660

so you think anything popular is by default good? ad populum

also Hicks is mainly liked by edgy teens.

[Anonymous No.3937615]

>>3935684
>hur durr i don't know what a photon is hur durr

Seriously, go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.3937646]

>>3935702
>4chan
>winning the argument

Something is wrong here.

[Anonymous No.3937661]

Krauss, Dawkins, Carlin and Hicks (if they even qualify as intellectuals, but they are certainly overrated) and GRR Martin deserves some derision for how overrated he is. Seriously, when people talk in reverential praise of that author I lose significant respect for them.

[Anonymous No.3937680]

>>3935662
Zizek has substance.
You can notice that because if before not seeing the emperor clothes meant that you are an idiot, now claiming that emperor is naked is the new way to appear smart.
So people say that he is naked even when he is wearing an old tshirt and cheap jeans.

[Anonymous No.3937683]

>>3935470
>>>/pol/

[Shitposter !R27OVsYMYs No.3937684]

>>3935667
No discernible talent.

[Anonymous No.3937709]

Yes, you can pick a person that is well known and well regarded as an intellectual and then simply accuse that person of lacking substance, but who are you fooling? Yourself? I hope not.

[Anonymous No.3937724]

itt /lit/ reveals that their knowledge of science is particularly lacking while parroting cool things (unsourced) that they heard that go against popular opinion

you faggots are almost as bad as /pol/

[Anonymous No.3937726]

>>3935702
>Opinions should be attacked,

On what basis do you make this statement?

[Anonymous No.3937741]

>>3935708
>>3935642
>>3935618
>>3935684

>showering on dispair

[Anonymous No.3937749]

>>3937741
I'm fairly certain the marginalization of Einstein is the work of stormfront's invasion of 4chan.

Does anyone else remember when stormfront was aped ironically and not seriously?

[Anonymous No.3937775]

>>3937749
Its seriously frustrating. Occasionally /pol/ has glimmers of hope, but the dominance of white supremacism stifles nearly everything.

[Anonymous No.3937805]

>>3937775
>>3937749

I' consider myself a white supremacist but I in no way feel that we should be mashed with neo nazis. I just consider us a reaction to the curent (edgy and white) black supremasists that keep pushing obamas and their like through 2 terms even with many terrible terrible acts and failures. now putting Einstein down or complaining about Israel? don't look at me. It sound like shit.

[Anonymous No.3937815]

>>3937805
That's a very moderate articulation of what the stormfront and white supremacist crowd pushes.

[Anonymous No.3937843]

>>3937805
>black supremasists that keep pushing obamas
>obamas
>obamas

[Anonymous No.3937860]

>>3937843
can you hold all these straws with these ape undeveloped hands?

[Anonymous No.3937862]

ITT: people confusing pop scientists with public intellectuals

Michio Kaku is apop scientist, Zizek is a public intellectual who is popular as a result of his lisp

[Anonymous No.3937869]

>>3937815
no, they are a group focused on protecting the the pure white race, the global minority and common target of many. I may agree with many harsh choices for this goal. But this pointless other stuff is excly this: other stuff. go find onother scapegoat.

[Anonymous No.3937872]

>>3937869
exacly* inb4 undeveloped tears.

[Anonymous No.3938197]

I would most likely have to say the Neo-Liberal economists. Friedman, Mises, Rothbard.

Their ideology dominates the global economy, yet is completely batshit insane, unsustainable and devoid of any real connection or substance between economics, society and the wider world in general.

Friedman, Mises and Rothbard are largely the reason the world is the way it is today in terms of economics. No one else can possibly reach the sheer heights of over-ratedness that they have achieved, especially when their ideology can be easily picked apart by anyone with any basic understanding of history, anthropology, philosophy or sociology.

It's basically a utopian vision for the capitalist elite.

[Anonymous No.3938369]

>>3938197
as much as I disagree with libertarianism... just show me one debate where friedman didn't emerge as winner... just look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3D7JXggLOY there he defends his point of view against three economic professors (one of them is the future president of iceland)... they try, but he picks them apart argument by argument

[Namefagging because anonymous (...) No.3938406]

>>3938197
>Friedman, Mises, Rothbard
>Their ideology dominates the global economy
Incredibly wrong.
Rothbard and Mises were Austrian schoolers, and the Austrian school is HETERODOX.
Friedman was a Chicagoite, which is also not very popular

Look at the US federal government and the ideologies of the major players.

How many of them actually enact policies that are in line with the Chicago school? Quite few. How many of them actually enact policies that are in lien with the Austrian school? Almost none.

The dominant economic ideology is Keynesianism, and the people in the Federal Reserve are Keynesians who enact Keynesian policies.

[Anonymous No.3938418]

No Richard Feynman. Read Hammered and you'll know why.

[Anonymous No.3938428]

>>3935656
My favorite comedian is Doug Stanhope. He's so outlandish and gross in such a way that no comedian has ever even attempted. Plus, he's a balding, chubby alcoholic with weird sexual desires and a bluntness and forceful manner the likes of which I'd never seen before.

Also, the drunker he gets, the more amusing he is to watch on stage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4

[Anonymous No.3938437]

>>3935474
His figure as a public intellectual doesn't have much to do with linguistics though. It has more to do with his hamfisted politics.

My vote would be for Dawkins though. Or maybe Naomi Klein.

[Anonymous No.3938439]

>>3935484
Intellectual, not cult leader

[Anonymous No.3938442]

>>3935642
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.3938522]

>>3938418
Uhhh

Dirac, Feynman, Schwinger and Witten have been the greatest physicists since Einstein.

There's been many charlatans, but when you essentially author a brand new field of science, then, well, you're in good company.

Einstein would have been set in stone for general relativity, but he just had a fine intuition for matters in life. He didn't run the experiments, hell he didn't derive the equations for many of his known achievements like for special relativity, or photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, he was just able to "connect the dots" and apply the right sort of interpretation.

For example
General Relativity, is from Special relativity; and General Relativity is a pure brute theoretical physics. I give him full credit for that.

Special relativity. The equations were actually from Lorenz

Photoelectric effect. Hertz ran the experiment. Einstein was the one to explain it, based off of Plank's quantization.

Brownian motion. JJ Thompson found the (differential) equation earlier. Nernst calculated a constant relevant for the equation. The whole thing was best explained through Einstein. Actually the whole thing wasn't more fully explained in detail by Wiener.

Bose-Einstein everything. Bose was the one to discover the relevation. Einstein realized what importance the discovery was and applied it to the statistics, condensate, correlations

Mass Energy Equivalence. Actually maxwell found out that mass and momentum had been related years before. It was Einstein was the one to apply mass to energy.

[Anonymous No.3938532]

>>3938442
>>>/r/srs/
>>>/r/atheism
>>>/t/umblr/
>>>/b/
>>>/lgbt/
>>>/mlp/
>>>/out/

[Anonymous No.3938535]

>>3938442
Using this as an argument. /sci/ would mostly agree that Einstein is overrated. Heck most of the science community does that. Just google Einstein overrated.

[Anonymous No.3938542]

>>3935656
>It's astonishing how you faggots can come to that conclusion when people like Carrottop... still draw huge audiences.

Does he?

[Anonymous No.3938546]

>>3935470
pic related indeed

[Anonymous No.3938556]

>>3938406
The issues is that Friedman and the Austrians have created this overreaching ideology that now dominates politics and economics where Markets and Profit = everything. While the Governments still enact Keynesian policies, the words coming out of their mouths are usually that of "Free markets" and other Chicago and Austrian nonsense.
If Chicago/Austrian economics was in any way feasible even if they were to the detriment to most of the population, they would be implemented instantly.

[Anonymous No.3938557]

>>3938442
the >>/pol/ command is for when there's problems
not just whenever

[Anonymous No.3938636]

>>3938556
>enacting keynesian policies
>chicago/austrian
pick one.
majority of countries look down upon free market solutions and are constantly intervening more.


also you dont understand basic economic goal(whether classical, keynesian,etc). utility and dealing with scarcity=everything.

[Anonymous No.3938649]

>>3938522
One more thing. It's hard to say Einstein was a major founder to QM, because it's very likely his achievement would have been found by someone else at that time (just a bit later). Secondly beyond the photoelectric effect (which is all explaining a phenomena) that scratches the surface of QM, Einstein didn't "flesh-out" the brute physics of QM, which his other peers did at the time. "Fleshing out" QM sounds as rigorous and mathematical as you can imagine, which is why Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Neumann, Hibert, and Dirac deserve all the credit.

tfw people discuss dismal economics

[Anonymous No.3938669]

>>3937805
I'm not a white supremacist but I feel what you feel.

Such attitudes are necessary a this time to serve as a counter balance.

[Anonymous No.3938673]

>>3938649
>it's very likely his achievement would have been found by someone else at that time (just a bit later)

One could put that speculation forth in regards to a lot of scientists important discoveries.

[Anonymous No.3938675]

>>3938669
no they are fucking not.
white supremacism is an extreme philosophy, national socialism is an extreme philosophy, the fact that they seem common on this website is mind-boggling

[Anonymous No.3938695]

>>3938675
>>3938675

>white supremacism is an extreme philosophy, national socialism is an extreme philosophy, the fact that they seem common on this website is mind-boggling

Extreme by arbitrary cultural conceptions of what the median exactly is.

I do believe in a human nature (i.e. biologically inherited behavioral tendencies), but there has been enough historical variance in what is the "norm" for an appeal to centrism to be pretty erroneous.

I doubt the common man has the mental capacity to reject such "extremism", they merely parrot cultural memes. White supremacy and/or nationalism at least provides us with some positive claims and logical axioms - it provides proofs. How many common beliefs lack even that? I'm not advocating it, just asserting the absurdity surrounding it is a product of dogma and groupthink. "Disgust" or broad conditioned reaction ought to play no role at all in political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3938711]

>>3938675
I am not an extremist. I believe in balance.

I believe that, right now, more right wing extremists are needed as a means to break up the status quo, although not to the point where their influence leads to authoritarianism like the current left.

If I were born 100 year ago I would have probably supported left wing extremists of the time.

[Anonymous No.3938716]

>>3938695
>Extreme by arbitrary cultural conceptions of what the median exactly is.
"disgust" is the proper reaction.
recind appeal to center i can't claim it anyways

[Anonymous No.3938721]

>>3938673
Considering his own work was a matter of half intuition (fully appreciating Plank's work and solve an unsolved problem), without formal proof, without the need to experiment, and the overall relevance of the photoelectric effect to QM; his contribution is not as fundamental or as necessarily as you'd wish.

Plank realized electromagnetic radiation was quantized. Specifically he was trying to figure reconcile the color differences when an object was heated. It's been since Newton's time that color was inherently related to light.

The light-matter interaction wasn't understood at that time, but Einstein was the one just fresh off of understanding the mass-energy equivalence from his work on special relativity, so when he applied his background, the whole thing worked, and he could speak with authority on the results. That whole thing would go on to spawn QM, and Einstein was partly responsible for it, but it was a minor plug and chug -- he wasn't interested in it enough to lead the experimentation of his results -- his focus was on relativity...

read on how close maxwell got it...
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath601/kmath601.htm

[Anonymous No.3939781]

>>3938522
I wasn't saying anything bad about Feynman. I missed a "t" in there. I meant NOT Feynman. Feynman was great.

[Anonymous No.3939843]

>>3938711
>I believe that, right now, more right wing extremists are needed as a means to break up the status quo, although not to the point where their influence leads to authoritarianism like the current left.

[Anonymous No.3939851]

>>3939843
>spiderman j'accuse
Oh my sides, anon, my sides. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.3939860]

>>3935596
>michio kaku
>intellectual

[Anonymous No.3939886]

William F Buckley.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3939887]

Anyone I disagree with.

[Anonymous No.3939917]

>>3939843
But he's right. The current left of the West has developed its own rigid dogma (grotesque obsession with race, automatic hatred of most things traditional, etc.) and has pummeled societies into submission with its ideological hammer.

Universities have been paralyzed with propaganda and such absurdities as speech codes. There's also the masochistic tolerance of intolerance and barbarism, as long as these issue from a designated minority group.

The left has induced a massive inferiority complex in the West. But this isn't even so much about left vs. right as about common sense, which simply cannot prevail in such a stiflingly dogmatic atmosphere; and this state can only be broken by the rise of antagonistic ideas and opinions, no matter how crude or vulgar.

[Anonymous No.3939932]

>>3939917
I find your post incredibly offensive. Either you check your privilege immediately and remove your tripe, or I will tell my equality councillor.

[Hitler No.3939933]

>>3938711
>I'm not an extremist
>I just support them and would support them 100 years ago.
You're probably an extremist.
Buddy, the amount of knowledge you have on the political spectrum is literally zero. You's retarded, son. But, look, this can be fixed.

The extreme right wing are racist, pro-choice, anti-fed, anti-science, fundamentalist, isolationist, fraudulent, corporate fascists, peddling most despicable demagoguery out to a mass of fatuous hill-billies who purposefully reject rationality.

The not so extreme right wing (or if I'm feeling lenient, the middling center) is Obama. Surprise, motherfucker.

The left wing would reject most of Obama's foreign policy, remembers that the southern hemisphere exists, remembers that climate change could be real, and claims the US is imperialistic.

A proper Independent is usually so left of what we consider 'the center' in this country that there are no candidates for them to vote for.

the political spectrum is way different than you seem to think it is, unless you are a racist, corporate fascist, etc...

[Hitler No.3939940]

>>3939917
please see>>3939933
What you call the left, I call the center, on a good day.

[Anonymous No.3939956]

>>3939933

>what is poisoning the well
>logical fallacies and character assassination 101

This is why no one has legitimate discussions about politics, because it devolves into "if you're x, then you MUST be y", with x being a particular political stance and y being something negative.

Which, perhaps somewhat sadly, mirrors exactly what we see on TV as par the course for American political discourse. Wanna debate politics? Better not bother with trying to actually understand the opposing viewpoint and hold on to your dick because it's about to get ad hominem in this motherfucker.

[Catholic !FNsgkqHXn2 No.3939982]

>>3939886
I hope you burn in hell, you bastard. (Forgive me, Jesus.)

'Waaahhh, he wanted AIDS-enriched people to get tattoos on their buttock, waahhh he didn't agree with the Civil Rights Act, waahh he was a big old meany conservative.'

You have no idea what what you're talking about, you vile little goblin. You're no more than a pimple on the the left buttock of society, and I hope you get popped. You damn anti-intellectual, Buckley had more talent in one curled ass hair than you have in your whole being.

I hope you starve to death lying in a gutter. I hope in your final moments of agony Harold Bloom falls like a piano on your face; and then, amidst the rancid, torrential farts and his recitation of Whitman and his peroration on how we must interpret Freud through Shakespeare, not the other way around, you'll think on your mistakes.

[Anonymous No.3939989]

>>3939982
>Catholic
>Forgive me, Jesus.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.3940008]

>most overrated
Easy.

[Hitler No.3940009]

>>3939956
Hello there. Lesson time! Ad Hominem can only happen when I am making an argument. Here is what an argument looks like:
Jews steal money
I don't like thieves
Therefore, I don't like Jews

Here is what an ad hominem fallacy looks like:
The jew steals money
Therefore his positions on abortion are wrong.

Despite your drivel, I did not commit the latter.

Now, I'm sorry you don't think that trying to define a political spectrum, and point out that our country has drifted to the right (which conservatives are usually so proud of! Kudos to you, sir) is a legitimate discussion about politics. I'll be happy to have a proper debate with you on any subject you wish: name it, link it, give me the address. I am willing to defend my political posturing as well. How about you, good sir?

As for > "if you're x, then you MUST be y"
The only real place i can even vaguely see where you might get this is from my cataloging of Extreme right, mid right, left, etc...

But you, sir, commit me to the fallacy through your strange and jaded interpretation. Because you 'identify' as far right, you think that I am calling you a racist, however I am saying the opposite. I am say that if you are a racist, then you are FAR right, otherwise you are more centered. See? you maybe aren't a racist pig, but then you aren't as far right as you think. Take a look at republican politics, no really look, and see how much further you could go. I Did not mean to assume any political stance from you, I only mean to say that I don't think you understand how your stance fits into the larger picture.
(This is not to say that I don't recognize the breakdown of the right-lift dichotomy, especially prevalent at the extremes)

That being said, lets debate anything you want. There are plenty of websites much better for debating, btw, so if you are actually striving for a proper debate, then prove it.

[Anonymous No.3940012]

>>3937805
>I feel we shouldn't be mashed with neonazis
>I feel we shouldn't be mashed with a group that is virtually identical in its core views

Yeah nah, you're a cunt.

[Anonymous No.3940017]

>>3939982
Enjoy worshiping another Skull and
Bones, CIA front man.

The Jesus stuff sure is funny though.

[Anonymous No.3940029]

>>3939982

[Anonymous No.3940031]

chomsky's criticisms of us foreign policy are pretty lucid and always well referenced. don't get the hate.

[Anonymous No.3940037]

>>3935643
I second this statement. I mean all this wired into 'human nature' bullshit. :D

[Hitler No.3940039]

>>3940031
His starting position of anti-americanism commits him to a stance that assumes America is incapable of good in the world. And although the kissinger era may have proved him right, his stance always seems a bit contrived.
That being said, I really like Chomsky.

[Anonymous No.3940041]

>>3939933

>dat hubris

i will bet $1million that you identify as an atheist

[Hitler No.3940042]

>>3940039
>>3940009
>>3939940
>>3939933
Why did I choose Hitler as my poster id? Am I deranged?

[Catholic !FNsgkqHXn2 No.3940043]

>>3939989
Le degeneracy face

>>3939940
>What you call the left, I call the center, on a good day.

Good for you. But the monopoly you assume for yourself on the definition of the left is invalid. Classical Liberals differ greatly from modern American Liberals, this doesn't change the fact that the latter call and think of themselves as liberals.

Moreover, you know full well that the flagrantly left-wing forces (most of whom have usurped colleges) in the US support Obama and many of his policies; that they're inconsistent isn't my problem. The modern dichotomy of left and right, at least in the heads of the majority of people, has been redefined and this has to be borne in mind. Or to put it another way still, the extreme left has more in common with the moderates/center (i.e. Obama's administration) than does the extreme right.

[Anonymous No.3940047]

I don't know much about Cornel West, but I have a feeling in my gut that he's pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.3940050]

>political spectrum classifications of "left" and "right"
>at all relevant

[Anonymous No.3940052]

>>3940047
hah

[Anonymous No.3940054]

>>3935626
Naw Carlin's a brilliant guy.

[Anonymous No.3940055]

>>3940039
>assumes America is incapable of good in the world
pretty valid assumption. and that doesn't really invalidate anything he says or makes him a bad public figure unless mindless patriotism somehow figures into what a good public figure is.

[Anonymous No.3940070]

>>3938711
>I believe in balance

You just sound like a two-bit contrarian with no honest views of your own.

[Hitler No.3940072]

>>3940055
Thats illogical. First off, I said that I like Chomsky, so leave me the hell alone; we agree. Second, how is assuming that a country is literally incapable of doing good a 'pretty valid assumption?' Based off that assumption, no matter what is done, it is bad because it is American. So helping cripples is bad, and so is hurting them, and so is leaving them to die in the ditch... looks like America is evil by definition, instead of through argument. As I fucking said, America hasn't done too much to usurp that assumption, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that once you commit yourself to your conclusion, before you start arguing, you fit the facts to collude with you presumptions. It is actually a logical fallacy: begging the question--America is evil because of how evil America is and it isn't even possible for it to not be evil because of its very definition.

That being said, again again and again, i am a fan of Chomsky because he is right so much of the time. Just be careful, he assumes the answer before he argues. (although usually he ends up right nonetheless).

Should I also mention that mindless patriotism doesn't determine whether someone is a 'good' public figure (shit on you for suggesting thats what I said) but it will determine who gets 'the hate'

[Catholic !FNsgkqHXn2 No.3940074]

>>3940017
Yes, Buckley was a CIA agent in Mexico (for a short while) and SB member. So? Adding a conspiratorial layer to this (without any proof) doesn't mean anything. Unlike Jesus, you can't turn the banal and monotonous waters of reality into the sweet wine of conspiracy merely by willing and wishing for it.

>>3940029
You simply don't have enough faith in my being real. Believe.

>>3940047
He's a charlatan. I mean, he judged Invader Zim to be guilty because he'd committed 'soul-murder', whatever that is, by making the parents cry (by which logic no criminal has ever been guilty because some of their relatives have cried). He completely ignored the fact that Martin got Zim-Zammed in self-defense.

[Anonymous No.3940085]

>>3940074
Right, its all just conspiracy theories.
All of the connections mean nothing, all of the money and the careers that have been made are merely a result of these great men working for freedom and democracy.

Joseph McCarthy and Hoover were great men and Vietnam was necessary to prevent the spread of communism.

[Hitler No.3940091]

>>3940043
>>3940050
I acknowledged that if you deviate from the center then " the breakdown of the right-lift dichotomy, especially prevalent at the extremes" becomes so blatant that the whole spectrum becomes irrelevant. However, I am not the one who suggested we need more 'Extreme rights' in government. I merely pointed out that, if you are to place people on a spectrum, then the extreme right are secessionist confederates, roving the backroads of America in their giant four wheelers, hunting deer and wetbacks.

[Catholic !FNsgkqHXn2 No.3940108]

>>3940055
>mindless patriotism

But mindless adherence to an unproven assumption (that America is all genocides, can't do no good) is ok? The US is an imperfect country, but its imperfection comes nearer to perfection than that of any other country.

And its so-called 'imperialism' is much less rapacious than those of many Middle-Eastern countries run by psychopaths, the many Islamic groups that wish to reestablish a global caliphate, or the one practiced by the Soviet Union (or are these somehow better?). And if you're gonna bring up the 18th and 19th centuries, then you better not get ahistorical and forget that pretty much every single country of power attempted to expand its territory. Plus, European countries were the greatest colonialists. Just because the CIA has meddled, and deplorably so, in many countries illegally does not make it an imperialist project.

Nor were the wars in the Middle-East imperialistic in nature (allowing the Iraqis to hold a democratic election which yielded a Kurdish president is much less imperialistic than, say, some crackpot muhammedan group trying to establish its theocratic government).

Also, Indians were simply culturally enriched. It's their fault that they couldn't handle all the cultural richness.

[Anonymous No.3940110]

>>3940085
McCarthy was a silly man, but he was also right. The commies had spies at the very top echelons of the US government at the time.

Many people mistakenly equate McCarthy with the HUAC, which he obviously had nothing to do with.

[Anonymous No.3940117]

>>3940108
>The US is an imperfect country, but its imperfection comes nearer to perfection than that of any other country.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.3940118]

>>3940108
>muhammedan

confirmed for troll account. brilliantly executed nonetheless

[Anonymous No.3940119]

>>3940085
You can talk about connections without talking about conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous No.3940170]

>>3940119
>>3940119

That just blew my mind.
Thank you .

[Hitler No.3940174]

>>3940108

American Imperialism: I'm afraid you might be surprised to find that I agree with you, and support Chomsky. If you really are a catholic, then you may be surprised to find that your post reminds me a bit of Hitchens. I, myself, am very pleased with the new democracy in Iraq, although I fear for it in light of all the recent bombings, amongst other concerns. However, it is important to recall the support of the Baath party, pre-gulf war, and the great blunder of the first Gulf War, leaving Saddam in power, in order to 'maintain stability' was despicable. Noam, I believe, didn't support removing the Hussein regime then either, which is a result of his disgusting presumption.

That being said, you may wonder where my support of the Gnome comes from. Well, first off, i treat him a bit like an encyclopedia. I let him challenge my beliefs and I am open to argument from him. Second: Palestine, 'nough said. Third, the gross denial of the southern hemisphere even existing by mainstream politics is remedied, somewhat, by Noam and the rest of the lefties (specifically, see Galeano). Fourth, Iraq is not the only example of American Imperialism, nor is it the only example of America disregarding international law. Whether or not you think that everything America does internationally is correct or not, the utter contempt with which we treat int. law makes is appalling counter to western thought, in general.

[Catholic !FNsgkqHXn2 No.3940202]

>>3940085
What 'connections'. Again, these words do not possess magical powers; just because you can invoke them doesn't mean you've stumbled upon a great white conspiracy. Ivy League educated people make connections to further their careers by expanding their chances; so? You haven't even articulated which conspiracy you're referring to. The Great Conspiracy of why Highly Educated People Tend To Do Better In Life? The Odd Coincidence of Graduates of Prestigious Schools Having More Opportunities Because They Get a Better Education and Meet Other Likewise Successful People There?

>>3940118
But that's what it is. They believe in the word of Prophet Muhammad. I mean, God deigned to entrust his word to an illiterate 7th century spastic in the desert, and did so in highly idiosyncratic Arabic the beauty and thus truth of which cannot be translated? Get real.

>>3940117
America has the absolute separation of Church and State in its Constitution, Freedom of Speech, Freedom from Religion, the 2nd amendment, and is one of the truly multicultural countries in the world (if you go for that kind of thing). Even as a Catholic I can see the necessity of the decrees regarding religion; and as regards multiculturalism, are you gonna tell me that Iran, say, is more open to differing religions and races? France or Britain or Japan? For a country which has such a great difference of ethnicities and religions it has done remarkably well keeping afloat. Moreover, it is the only country which, lacking religious or ethnic unity, has as its esemplastic force ideals and principles. The moment you become a citizen, you're considered to be an American.

[Anonymous No.3940230]

Paul Krugman.
A Nobel prize in economics? For a guy who believes in the broken window fallacy? I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's simply dishonest.
Tied for second place are Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.
It gets harder every day to skim the first paragraph of their editorials. I expect to disagree with them but hope in vain for something engaging, not just preaching to the choir.

[Catholic !FNsgkqHXn2 No.3940276]

>>3940174
I respect Hitchens very much. His wit, bravery and, perhaps above all else, unquenchable curiosity were truly admirable. This was a man who, while the majority of anti-war people were exchanging corny catchphrases and pats on each others' backs, actually traveled to the countries of conflict and violence.

I agree with you absolutely that the general sloth, carelessness and often sheer mercantile invidiousness with which the US behaved as regarded Saddam and the Baath party was despicable.

But I can't agree with your classification of the Iraq War as an Imperialist project. Even the Bush administration's often confused justification of the war wasn't shaded by Imperialism. We didn't erect our own government there. And if anything, this was pointed out by Hitchens too, we acted in accordance with International Law, i.e. the Geneva Convention. The torture used, however, was abhorrent, as were the tactical mistakes made. The democracy of Iraq, fragile though it may be, does inspire optimism; and I believe it'll make through the attacks of the muslim radicals.

The Palestinian conflict only has the two-state solution. But I favor Israel, since Palestine, having suffered all this damage, has become ripe for demagogues to exploit. They very often deflect any criticism of themselves by simply referring to Israel. And again, Israel is much more sane in its domestic and foreign policy than Palestine probably would be (there seem to be no major signs of an enthusiasm for democracy, with those muslim scumbags having gained too much influence once more). You can't cite the misdeeds of Israel in order to justify those of Palestine. Both sides need to adopt a responsible and sane vision, which would guarantee a more irenic coexistence, rather than sink lower and lower to the depths of extremism and fanaticism.

Oh, and I applaud you for actually testing yourself against antagonistic views. As Hitchens said, light can only come from heat.

[Hitler No.3940495]

>>3940276
I should have written better. When I said "Iraq is not the only example of American Imperialism" I did not mean to imply that the recent Iraq war was imperialist, although it can VERY easily be read that way, and I do not blame you one bit.What I was thinking was that the pre-gulf war era was imperialist, and keeping Saddam in power after the genocide of Kurds was, perhaps, along those same lines. I must agree that, the perhaps all liberal's chagrin, the recent Iraq war was not imperialist.

Palestine: My opinions on this are meek, at best, as I have no motivation to pick sides in a holy war. However, that being said, the slow attrition of the Palestinian, perpetrated by the Isrealis is contemptible, and American support, or shall I say propping up, of Israel has lead many Pro-caliphate muslims to hate America even more, and perhaps with good reason. I do not intend to take the stance the 9-11 was our own fault, or that the radicalization of muslims is a justified rebellion against foreign intervention, but even Obama recognizes that the current situation isn't working, at all, yet the military aid keeps pouring in, to 'maintain stability.'
I suppose I wish (and I can wish all day) that secularism could take root.
Speaking of which, I'm not sure I understood your comments of India, earlier. Do you think India has failed, in some respect? IMO, if there is one state worthy of America's support and defense, it is India: the worlds largest secular multi-cultural democracy.

Since this is lit allow me to refer y'all to:
C. Hitchens, Arguably; Love, Poverty, War
Ramachandra Guha, History of India
VS Naipaul's Travelogues from India (A million mutinies now, etc.)

[Anonymous No.3940532]

>>3940202
>America has the absolute separation of Church and State in its Constitution,
And a lot of good that does. Pic related.

>Freedom of Speech
Purely in theory.

>Freedom from Religion
Again, Pic related

>the 2nd amendment,
Antiquated law that should be removed.

>and is one of the truly multicultural countries in the world
Second only to the majority of European countries.

>Moreover, it is the only country which, lacking religious or ethnic unity, has as its esemplastic force ideals and principles.
Consuming fast food, materialism, and celebrity worship. America has some of the worst ideals in the world.

[Hitler No.3940553]

>>3940532
Freedom of Religion: You don't understand how the legal system works, bub. Those 7 states do have bans on atheist being in public office on the books, but the supreme court has ruled them all null and void. The writing is there, but it is illegal to defend it.

Freedom of Speech: Purely in theory has no meaning. Back that shit up, then compare to other countries. (Also, America fucks this up all the time. I am not a blind patriot.)
Multiculturalism:
Well, the European countries aren't all that multi-ethnic or mulit-cultural. The EU, as a whole, certainly is. European countries are mostly secular, but they're not really all that multi-ethnic, not like India or America.

American Ideals: Yup. You're pretty spot on here. Except to say that the constitution is a secular document based of principles and ideals, but I don't know where the other posters gets off saying it is the 'only country' like this...

[Hitler No.3940557]

>>3940553
Well, I should say, it isn't illegal to DEFEND the written law against atheists, but it is illegal to enforce it, and the US feds will stop the state if they try.

[Anonymous No.3940571]

>>3940532
>image

To be fair, Mississippi didn't 'officially' abolish slavery until this year. That doesn't mean human trafficking laws weren't enforced in the state. It just means the legislature never got around to filling the necessary paperwork needed to amend the state constitution.

[Anonymous No.3940585]

>>3939982
A hearty 7,5/10. This is my genuinely non sarcastic appreciation.

[Anonymous No.3940606]

>>3940118
This. I call this tripguy for best troll currently available on /lit. Wish I could challenge him.

[Anonymous No.3940900]

>>3940047
Cornel West is only really overrated by the white-guilt addled liberals.

[Anonymous No.3942475]

ZIZZZZZZEKKKKKK

[Anonymous No.3942498]

asshole coming through

[Anonymous No.3942508]

if you take every name in this thread and study their work, you'll become a better person and with more to give to the world. if you take the /lit/ way, 10 years from now you will be posting on 4chan about "overrated" books and authors.

[Anonymous No.3942509]

>>3940900
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.3942510]

What a useless thread

[Anonymous No.3942513]

>>3942510
Agreed. A better question would be: Who is the most underrated public intellectual?

[Anonymous No.3942559]

>>3938522
> "connect the dots" apply the right sort of interpretation
I hope /lit/ knows that the "right sort of interpretation" means doing the killer math rather than interpreting a shoddy obscurantist work

[Anonymous No.3942581]

>this thread

And that is why I stay clear of philosophy just as much as I do for politics. Sides are taken, beliefs change, damage and banter are done, but does anything ever really change? I'm not saying philosophy should be done with, just that maybe it should be treated more as a tool for problem solving. I mean that's pretty much what Socrates did with the way he asked questions and cornered people.

[Anonymous No.3942595]

>>3939933
>puts social issues and economic issues on the same graph.

[Anonymous No.3942606]

>>3942581
slicing off a small part (logic) of a huge subject area (philosophy) and applying it practically (in debating or arguing or whatever) is absolutely not the way to treat it.

It may be seem ridiculously abstract and inconsequential, but the field is not meant to be applied in-and-of-itself. it's meant to be applied to everything around it- it seeps through and affects not only every academic field of study, but also the minds, the thought processes, the motivations and influences of common people. analyzing philosophy by itself, sure, it appears vague and intangible and worthless, but that's because philosophy is so wide-ranging and manifests itself in so many different arenas.

[Anonymous No.3942609]

>>3942581
(cont)
The questions philosophy poses aren't meant to be answered for the sake of furthering philosophy itself.

[Anonymous No.3942611]

>>3939933
>the white-wing
>pro-choice

[Catholic !FNsgkqHXn2 No.3942631]

>>3940532
I know I'm late, but still.

>And a lot of good that does. Pic related.

The supreme court has ruled these requirements null and void.

>Freedom of Speech. Purely in theory.

No, you are not living in a theocracy because Bush gave up booze for Jesus, le edgeman, nor are you a brave freedom fighter because you defy your mother's admonition to speak with more sophistication. The only damnation received for the ventilation of unpopular opinions is from other people, i.e. social condemnation, not from the law. The tyranny of the majority can suffocate the impulse to exercise freedom of speech but not it cannot do so legally. Put differently, in America you have only the opinions and rare illegal violent acts of other civilians to worry about in response to your opinions, not the vicious mace of the government.

>the 2nd amendment

Scared child detected. Go cry yourself to sleep in your pajamas.

>Consuming fast food, materialism, and celebrity worship. America has some of the worst ideals in the world.

Oh for God's sake, man! That you haven't acquainted yourself with the cultural gems and vibrant history of America isn't my problem. You're a myopic little goblin who probably thinks France is composed of baguette-gobbling cowards who have sex with each other 24/7 and Germany of sexually aberrant Nazis who prefer cucumbers over phalli. Someone should've told you this long ago, but Team America wasn't a documentary movie and caricatures aren't accurate representations of whole nations. But please, remain ignorant.

>Second only to the majority of European countries.

You would've had a better case if you had tried India, one of the other nominees for a truly multicultural society, though as of now still suffering much more acutely from it than America.

>>3940606
Try me. I was born ready, degenerate.

>>3942498
He's a homosexual, otherwise he's okay. He was breddy gud in the Jeeves and Wooster series.

>>3942510
Thread quality does tend to diminish dramatically whenever you enter them.

[Anonymous No.3942667]

>>3942609

I get that, man, but a lot of philosophical talk I've heard revolves around dick-waving between two different beliefs and then the effect of that is having philosophy appear so abstract that it's inaccessible to those outside trying to look in, or so they think since everyone is technically a philosopher already, regardless of their skills.

[Anonymous No.3942679]

>>3942667
Why should philosophers need to dumb down their product? You don't see astro-physicists doing that. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps their language is necessary to convey their ideas? You're an anti-intellectual.

And no, not everyone is "technically" a Philosopher, just like not everyone who looks at the moon is an Astronomer. Get that fucking idiotic notion out of your mind.

[Anonymous No.3942692]

>>3942679
oh, so learning some fancy fucking terminology separates you from the swathes of ignorant masses.

everyone is a philosopher in the sense that they individually pursue and rank values, pursuing them as they live. some care to consciously justify these choices and pursuits- some do this more clearly and strongly, and these people become the "philosophers" and they write a few papers before dying like everyone else.

academic philosophy is a philosophy itself, isn't that interesting

[Anonymous No.3942697]

>>3942692
>hurr durr I want to bring everyone down to my level.

Not everyone is a Philosopher just like not everyone is an Astronomer. End of story. You're not convincing anyone with your pseudo-deconstruction.

[Anonymous No.3942769]

>>3942697

>pseudo-deconstruction

Just say "made-up breakdown"

[Anonymous No.3942812]

>>3942697
>implying anyone can't call themselves a philosopher for having an opinion about value or life and spreading it, when plenty do

>"pseudo-deconstruction"
Try actually refuting something instead of using bullshit criticism-by-categorization.

[Anonymous No.3942835]

>>3942812
>calls something "criticism-by-categorization"
nice criticism-by-categorization there bro

[Anonymous No.3942857]

>>3940072
Isn't this kinda a strawman. When has Chomsky said he hates America or are you simply using that to refer to the us government? He's an anarchist anyway, so thinks any state or government is unjustified and inefficient anyway (whenever this is true or false) but I don't think he flat out hates it, just that it's less desirable then anarchism. I'm not sure if he ever said if America is ' incapable of doing good' but what i'd assume from reading is that basically the us government’s actions are not determined by altruism but by self-intrest.

[Anonymous No.3943032]

foucault

why does every intellectual kid my age love that jerk

[Anonymous No.3943048]

>>3943032
The sexy baldness.

[Anonymous No.3943082]

>>3943032
considering that (a) you probably haven't read any foucault yourself, (b) are insulting not only foucault but (c) anyone who reads foucault, only indicates to your ugly habit of crippled and intellectually dishonest judgement and anti-intellectualism in general.

slap yourself. infinite number of times.

[Anonymous No.3943100]

>>3943082
ive tried to read him.

he seemed intellectually dishonest to me.
captcha: PUBLISHERS asteogin

[Anonymous No.3943913]

>>3935626

I hate how you get Facebook anarchists and other idiots quoting Carlin about not trusting the government and whatever as if he's some kind of prescient sage. He's not. He's a comedian doing a bit. He doesn't expect you to take him seriously up there. He expects you to laugh.

[Anonymous No.3943919]

>>3942812

You are not a philosopher for having an opinion any more than you are a major league baseball player for owning a bat.

[Anonymous No.3943926]

>>3942679

As a philosophy major, I can tell you straight up: a lot of philosophy terminology is bullshit jargon that only exists because most philosophers are TERRIBLE writers and can't explain anything clearly. Nearly everything could be explained more easily or intuitively.

[Anonymous No.3943965]

>>3942611
Shit. Pro-LIFE*. Fuck my life. I was deliberating between saying Pro-life or anti-choice and, because of my debilitating Down-syndrome, I took a little from both...

[Anonymous No.3943971]

>>3942595
Can I just say that I think the right-left spectrum is not only flawed, but illusory. But, as a loose(!) approximation of the political spectrum, I think my assessment still stands.

[Anonymous No.3943973]

>>3943926
As a *shitty* philosphy major...

[Anonymous No.3944238]

>>3935702

Constant baseless criticism is as bad as constant baseless praise. Any positive remarks on 4chan are usually attacked, but not in a form of an argument or deconstructive criticism.

[Anonymous No.3944315]

>>3942679
>You don't see astro-physicists doing that

Yes they do. Popscience is one of the most popular genres, and especially physics.

[Anonymous No.3946364]

>>3942498

I seriously hope that .jpg isn't your evidence
I keep hearing this, but I don't know where Fry got this reputation as a cunt. Never paid much attention.

[Anonymous No.3946398]

>>3935483

people respect thomas friedman? everyone i know and most things i read regard him as a joke with a funny mustache

[Anonymous No.3946400]

>>3935499

WRONG AGAIN /LIT/

[Anonymous No.3946411]

>>3943913

i always thought he expected you to laugh and then think about why you're laughing.

don't short carlin

[Anonymous No.3946413]

>>3946398
Still you don't want to know the ludicrous amount of money he does at the nytimes.

Even though, all commentators at the nytimes are ridiculous people.

[Sunhawk's Gay Nephew No.3946579]

I'd also say Dinesh D'Souza but I think that's stretching the word 'intellectual'

[Anonymous No.3946605]

[Anonymous No.3946617]

>>3946579
are there even any conservative intellectuals that aren't complete idiots?

[Anonymous No.3946635]

>>3946605
Is her book actually popular or just on 4chan? I can't tell. I've never seen it discussed anywhere else.

[Anonymous No.3949224]

>public intellectual
>public
>intellectual
Absolutely disgusting.

[Anonymous No.3949262]

>/lit/ still falls for useless critiques like 'overrated'

Overrated means, just like the words says, that something is rated, or valued, higher than it deserves. Deserves, huh? This should throw up a flag right away, because how are you supposed to measure how much praise something deserves? To do this, you would have to objectively quantify how good an artist or a piece of art is, which is already impossible. You can argue that there are many qualities that could be quantified objectively, but it still falls apart because everyone values these qualities differently. Someone might agree with Schenkerian analysis that harmony is the most important thing in music, while someone else will definitely argue that innovation is.

You can't measure how 'good' a piece of art or an artist is, and as such it's impossible to measure how much praise it deserves, and how highly it deserves to be valued. Therefore it's idiotic to use a phrase such as "They are overrated". You are still free to say something like "I believe the critics overrated the historical importance of X", because not only are you specifying which aspect you think has been overrated, but you're also specifying who you think is overrating it, and that there's no objectivism at play here - you're simply stating that it is your subjective evaluation that differs from that of someone else's.

What you're actually saying when you use a term like "X are overrated" is really nothing other than "Others like X more than I do".

[return of the son of zoid !2UbXcE9jpQ No.3949274]

>>3949262

This post would be worth something if this thread was actually about art/artists.

Learn to read, fucktard.

[Anonymous No.3949292]

>>3949274
It's a pasta from /mu/ but the essence still stands

[Anonymous No.3949295]

>>3946635
I think you just answered your own question. It probably has something to do with her porn career, but it's largely ignored. Or maybe it has to do with it not being any good, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.3949483]

Hitchens and Harris. Fucking new atheists. Calling for the nuking of innocent people. I bet every fedora atheist has the name Hitchens stiched under the brim.