[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 240x320, zizek[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108311 No.4108311[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>people from other generations had Foucault, Hegel, Nietzsche and many other greant philosophers
>we are stuck with this fat fucker

Indeed, we live in a shitty generation.

>> No.4108314

>>4108311
it's cute you think he is the only philosopher

>> No.4108318

>>4108314
he is only one that matters though

>> No.4108319

>>4108318
not really

>> No.4108321

>>4108319
yeah he is
no one is as quoted or famous as zizek right now

>> No.4108322

You don't like him because he's fat?

Also, yeah, we're kind of fucked right now, but that's because there's literally only one way things can be without flying apart.

>> No.4108325

>>4108321
kripke is still the most important philosopher alive and habermas is a greater philosopher as well

get out of the /lit/ echochamber

>> No.4108326

But anon, continental philosophy is for jerks.

>> No.4108327

>>4108322
what way?
>>4108325
others can be good, but zizek is the famous and the one who will be remembered in history
never heard of kripke and most people (even in college) never did

>> No.4108328

>>4108327
>never heard of kripke
>most people in college haven't either

oh /lit/

>> No.4108331

>>4108311
him and alain de fucking bottom

>> No.4108333

Zizek is a clever guy. Not necessarily correct but an interesting perspective none the less.

>> No.4108334

>>4108328
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kripke&oq=kripke&gs_l=youtube.3..0l2.677337.683689.0.691876.12.7.4.1.1.0.257.1109.2j3j2.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.N7H-SM_IEjA

you know he is not famous when a guest character in a tv show appears first in the search

>> No.4108335

>>4108334
saul kripke... and that character is named after him

>> No.4108337

>>4108333
he's a fucking personality... a lounge-act

>> No.4108338

>>4108335
>>4108334
>>4108328
>>4108327
"Considerations on Modal Logic, the former written while he was still a teenager, were on the subject of modal logic. The most familiar logics in the modal family are constructed from a weak logic called K, named after Kripke for his contributions to modal logic. Kripke introduced the now-standard Kripke semantics (also known as relational semantics or frame semantics) for modal logics. Kripke semantics is a formal semantics for non-classical logic systems. It was first made for modal logics, and later adapted to intuitionistic logic and other non-classical systems. The discovery of Kripke semantics was a breakthrough in the making of non-classical logics, because the model theory of such logics was absent prior to Kripke."

>why-can't-i-hold-all-this-logic.tiff

>> No.4108340

>>4108338
>analytic speculators thinking they're relevant

>> No.4108341

>>4108338
yeah he did some great work in logic. he's probably one of the smartest people in the world also, if you read his bio his life story is pretty ridiculous

>> No.4108342

>>4108335
>saul kripke
not a lot of videos, only a few

just accept that zizek is your ruler and hate him for it

>> No.4108343

>>4108342
># of videos determines philosophical worth

oh /lit/

>> No.4108345

>>4108342
>measuring a person by the amount of videos.

>> No.4108348

It's ?i?ek you anglocentric plebs.

>> No.4108350

>>4108345
>>4108343
donna haraway 1540 results
michel foucault 105000 results

now tell me who's the hack.

>> No.4108351

>>4108348
habermas is also more important

>> No.4108352

>>4108343
>>4108345
it means he has a lot of followers, he goes to a lot of colleges around the world and everyone knows him
just accept it

>> No.4108356

>>4108348
I didn't know ? was used as a letter in other languages.

>> No.4108357

>>4108352
le epic troll

>> No.4108361

>>4108356
it's not. he meant to write w K√óìÀVú{≥m∆f˝ºv* fiπé ùïÄ—éé鉀uYÈx2iw K√óìÀVú{≥m∆f˝ºv* fiπé ùïÄ—éé鉀uYÈx2ek

>> No.4108397

>zizek
>a philosopher

Isn't he a Sacha Cohen character? He's a carnival freak, nothing more.

>> No.4108407
File: 92 KB, 1172x751, NickLand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108407

"100010010101010 10001001001 10010010101010 110010011 101010101000110 10011.

Also, fuck Zizek."

- Nick Land

>> No.4108416

You don't like Zizek because he's popular

also because his model of authoritarian nationalism is less impressive than yours

>> No.4108423

Daniel dennett anyone?

I thought he must be one of the more known philosopher's out there.

>> No.4108432

>>4108423
he is not.

>> No.4108436
File: 4 KB, 470x425, 1336399585668.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108436

>>4108311
>Foucault, Hegel, Nietzsche
>great

>> No.4108437

>>4108423

More of a professional contrarian and jimmy-rustler.

If you read anything he's written, it's just pretty much designed to piss off people with common-sense views, not to lead you to any higher plane of wisdom or anything.

>> No.4108454

>>4108311
We should be grateful to live in this period of time because people of previous generations didn't have the possibility to learn and reflect from all the philosophers you mentioned

>> No.4108457
File: 102 KB, 515x250, bostrom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108457

What about Nick Bostrom? He's like... my hero.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

>> No.4108487
File: 30 KB, 283x326, preciado.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108487

>implying beatriz preciado isn't the best

>> No.4108502

We have Nietzsche, Hegel and Foucault too. There are preceding generations who didn't had the fortune of having all of them.

>> No.4108509

>>4108502
Yeah, but what's the point of reading them? I want to bump into Hegel on the streets and ask him for an autograph. Or watch him on YouTube. That would be cool. Maybe they could even feature in a "Call Me Maybe" parody.

>> No.4108518

>>4108311

Nah, they didnt care about Foucault, Hegel or Nietzshe. They had Sartre, Sartre was the fucking Zizek of their time. He was so popular it was ridiculous (and ridiculed - see Boris's Vian Foam of Illusions). Then he began to fade away, while the less popular names are now widely considered the most important. The same will happen with Zizek.

>> No.4108529
File: 64 KB, 418x599, 418px-Jacques_Ranciere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108529

Why nobody is mentioning Rancière?

>> No.4108533

>>4108509
Nice one.

>> No.4108538

>>4108321
>implying that famous
>relevant

way to spot a pleb

>> No.4108578
File: 80 KB, 462x740, 1379009194397.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108578

Agree OP. Glad other kids my age agree we were born in the wrong generation.

>> No.4108579

>>4108311
Foucault was a useless pop jerk off.
Marcuse was a useless pop jerk off.
Sartre was a useless pop jerk off.

Face it: you're just a shallow reader.

>> No.4108611

>>4108579
so deepu sensei

>> No.4108616

>>4108611
Uncalled for catchphrases mate.

>> No.4108623
File: 27 KB, 200x299, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108623

>>4108579
I've got to agree with you about Sartre. I fucking hate that plebian faggot. He is the most idiotic Existentialist I have ever encountered and I think Existentialism is bullshit to begin with.

>> No.4108645

>>4108623
Sartre is the biggest advisement against the use of drugs, the amphetamines bleed off the page.

>> No.4108665

There are no philosophers anymore.

The last philosopher alive was Heidegger.

All we have now are "intellectuals", self-righteous clowns, or - at best - scholars.

>> No.4108789

>>4108665
>implying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5xXFZC4JA4

>> No.4108831

>>4108665
Heidegger claimed Nietzsche was the last philosopher tho

>> No.4108984

>>4108311

His books on Schelling, Hegel and the Parallax View are very good. I recommend them OP
Zizek's more a great commentator on past masters rather than an original systematiser

>> No.4109010

>Continental "philosophers"
>Real philosophers

Pick 1.

>> No.4109143

>>4108518
>Boris's Vian Foam of Illusions
Interesting translation choice... I guess Foam of Days isn't as appealing a title?

>> No.4109156

Gettin' real tired of people still glorify the past? And I was hoping that Paris Woody Allen movie would at least reduce the number of these threads. Guess that's what I get for expecting anything from a Woody Allen movie.

>> No.4109159

>>4108311
But people only hate him because he's a well known contemporary philosopher.

>> No.4109172

>>4108578
This is depressing as fuck. I am in the parents generation and my parents are on the grandparents. Jesus, I'm too old for the internet, I think I'll retire.

>> No.4109180

>Negri
>Agamben
>Hardt
And this is just Italia. Per favore...

>> No.4109386

>>4108311
He's a commie.

>> No.4111438

>>4109180
Negri is a useless cunt who has retarded the class war and Hardt is his coconspirator.

>> No.4113393

As Chomsky has said, Zizek deals entirely in posturing. Most of what he says is dressed up in unnecessary and convoluted jargon, and when you decode it all you find that he's just stating truisms.

>> No.4113407

we've got aleksandr dugin

>> No.4113412
File: 11 KB, 224x263, schopenhauer04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4113412

>implying anyone after Schopenhauer matters

>> No.4113414

>>4108327
Dude, analytic philosophy is "the thing" now.

>> No.4113425

>>4113414
everywhere except outside of u of chicago.

>> No.4113444
File: 11 KB, 480x360, AmazingAtheist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4113444

Our generation has many intellectuals.

>> No.4113446

>>4113425
Pretty much every U.S. university's phil department self identifies as analytic, bro.

>> No.4113452

>>4113446
Um, no. University phil departments don't self identify as anything but phil. departments.

>> No.4113454

>>4113444
Here's a fun game:

Google "Amazing Atheist anal banana" and see what happens.

>> No.4113467

John Rawls is the last great American Philosopher.

>> No.4113670

>>4113444

I actually really like him, especially during the stunt he did with Cody Webber. He doesn't venture into anything too demanding of his audience, but the points he makes are clear, cogent and well-presented. His more recent videos are subpar, though.

>> No.4113691

Robert Nozick was the last great American philosopher.

>> No.4114001

>>4113454
Not defending him, I wouldn't even consider him an intellectual, but I don't think shoving a banana up your ass dismisses everything you've ever said. There have been plenty of public figures caught in compromising positions but that doesn't discredit what they did.

>> No.4114010

>>4108311
Rush Limbaugh has more subscribers to his philosophy than Zizek.

>> No.4114014

>>4109010
>"

>> No.4114417

>>4108529
FUCK YEAH RANCIERE

distribution of the sensible is one of the most useful concepts to my academic work

>> No.4114485

>>4108457

>http://www.simulation-argument.com/

HOLY SHIT

>> No.4114876

>>4108341
what's ridiculous about it?
also
>logician
>rejects materialism
what the fuck?

>> No.4114886

>implying the philosophers of the future aka us won't be awesome

>> No.4114898
File: 19 KB, 600x453, 1305428208627.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4114898

its because of the nature of modern university systems and teaching/thinking modes.

i read foucault's biography recently and the french university system at the time fostered an extremely competitive and original batch of thinkers for decades on end.(although it did also have a many faults and failures which led to mass protests). there was a culture of intellectualism in which new ideas were always popping up and vying with each other for ascendency (the downside being a climate of snobbery/shallow elitism). now no such culture exists, only the downsides at best.

analytical thinking also has really destroyed the possibilities of thought. it says: writing has to be like this, thinking must follow these rules, if it does not fall into these categories it is not valid/does not exist, if it is stylistically different it not serious, if it is not referenced by a thousand journal articles it is plagiarism.

if philosophy is concept production, then the process of this production has been stopped dead by these analytical demands. we are not allowed to dream up now ways of seeing the world or acting in it because it does not fit within the analytical/empirical/positivist/scientific model. so we mull over the original thoughts of the past and lament the emergence of new ones. (Zizek is no exception, he's just a lasagne of freud/marx/lacan/hegel, not a single original thought)

the truth is we should be responsible for these new thoughts but are too scared or impotent to break out of the restrictions that bind us. it doesn't mean we should reject the past, but find new ways to overcome it and move forward into the future on our own terms (while still connecting with historical terms we find valid like justice/equality/blah blah blah).

i think we can do it. i bet a few of us here can be the names the next generation references because they helped illuminate and improve the lives of others.

>> No.4114901
File: 27 KB, 400x627, 049596.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4114901

I honestly believe this is the direction we are heading, and extinction of all sentient creatures is preferable to perpetuating this gene slavery misery cycle. We are smart enough to overcome our evolutionary cues eventually.

But right now it actually feels like being an atheist in the 1600's or something. My parents literally had me Baker Acted when I explained my anti-natalist views to them. I guess stripping me of my autonomy for 3 days was supposed to change the way I view the world.

>> No.4114906

>>4108325
Kripke and Habermas are way past their peak.

Their last relevant work dates before the 90s.
If you reject Kripke you are stuck with Singer, Pinker and Dennett as most influential thinkers. Which is even worse.

>> No.4114909

>>4108831
>Heidegger claimed Nietzsche was the last philosopher tho
The last philosopher died in fucking ancient Greece.

>> No.4114912

>>4114909
>greek philosophers
>worth a damn
pis off

>> No.4114915

>>4114912
Tell me one thing that they didn't say that is in any way important to the human condition.

>> No.4114916

>>4114906

Singer isn't bad though

>> No.4114919

>>4114915

all people are equal

>> No.4114922

>>4114901
Your predictivism is retarded, even if there's some (quite a lot of) merit to the antinatalist perspective.

>> No.4114929

>>4114919
>all people are equal
And who said that after them?

>> No.4114931

>>4114929
Christianity.

>> No.4114932

>>4114916
He is an utilitarian.

>> No.4114933

>>4114929

the french during the revolution: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good."

>> No.4114934

>>4114915
philosophy of mind in general
nihilism/existentialism in general

>> No.4114936

>>4114901
I don't know how the baker act works
how can this be done to people
how old were you at the time, &c.

>> No.4114937

>>4114932

i know, and i share your aversion to the method generally, but he really is very level headed and relevant to many of the problems we face today. give him another shot

>> No.4114939

>>4114934
>philosophy of mind in general
>nihilism/existentialism in general

So bullshit wankery?

>> No.4114940

>>4114915
No predicate logic.
No other theory of truth besides representationalism.
No fuzzy logic.
No theory of freedom.
No dualism.
No idea of the scientific method.

And so on and so on.

>> No.4114942

>>4114898
except when we go the other direction we are trying to explicate some guy who has an idea but can only express it in abstract language.

If there is no formalization of philosophy then it will lead to a communication breakdown. Philosophy must be communicated and most importantly understood.

Save the flowery symbolic-hyper abstract choatic writing for literature. Not philosophy.

>> No.4114944

>>4114940
you just read the wiki didn't you

>> No.4114945

>>4114937
I like how reasonable you seem anon, and I will try.
But I really have a hard time taking seriously anyone that actually does not take seriously error theory in meta-ethics.
With years going by and aging ever more I find myself closer and closer to nihilism and I feel anglo-saxon philosophical tradition insufferable.

Especially those who pride themselves of being especially moral, or virtuous, or attuned to the suffering of others. So much energy put in helping others, for what, so that they can live the life I did? Vanity, all is vanity.

>> No.4114948

>>4114944
No I actually have an MA in philosophy.

>> No.4114949

>>4114939
>thinking about thinking
>thinking about consciousness
>wankery

>> No.4114952

>>4114948
Please tell me your undergraduate degree was Bologna and you didn't pay for a separate MA by coursework in Philosophy?

>> No.4114957

>>4114942
formalization is silly, because you spend most of the time arguing how you should formalize a proposition from natural language and no one is ready to make concession to the other knowing that if they do they will lose the argument.

Deleuze said that the obsession with arguments leads to heristics. That is it transforms philosophy into the debate tournament where people will only be interested in winning the debate and not in actually saying something intelligents (I know very well how bad this can be since my arguments are often better than my ideas).

Similarly Rorty pointed out that if what you value is good argument all you will get is hacks who are willing ti spend a lot of time coming up with complex and through arguments.

Again formalization is silly because it does not make anything more clear, it does not permit to manage data more easily, all it does is to disguise former prejudices under the cloak of authority.

>> No.4114960

>>4114952
I'm from Europe, I got my degrees in Italy and France.

>> No.4114962

>>4114906
Zizek is also past his peak. The Sublime Object of Idealogy is nearly universally considered to be his best work. Habermas and Kripke both still publish good stuff.

>> No.4114963
File: 488 KB, 400x225, tumblr_makwc9uh611qil3bmo1_400.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4114963

>>4114942

i empathise with your reason for opposing abstraction (more understand is always good) but i have to disagree with your path for achieving it.

ok maybe Baudrillard or Kierkegaard isn't for everyone, and they will only ever help a small group of dispersed people over time. thus the need for something that will connect and affect positive change more broadly.

but can this be achieved by a unified, totalised process? i think not, and actually it would probably work exactly in the opposite direction. it would lead to the ossification of thought and action. we need to retain different approaches so that the tendency towards an authoritarian unity doesn't consume us all and make us think: the world is fine as it is, or there is only one way to this this one thing which we have decided is good (because we can't think any other way).

let us rethink what "abstract" thought actually is. i don't think flowery, dense prose is what makes something abstract or not. it is whether the thinking is connected to the concrete processes that affect our existence. i don't think empirical thought is connected to these processes, so although it may appear direct and "to the point" it is actually far more removed from the real world and the people in it than an irrational, poetic treatise on oppression would be.

philosophy should rekindle its love of style once more. as it now stands it is dry, bland, difficult for the eyes and the soul to absorb. which youth's heart is inflamed by some modern logician or scientist? why does each generation keep returning to Nietzsche? to affect change we need to inspire, and only style inspires.

also have you read habermas? seems like he would be right up your alley.

>> No.4114964

>>4114960
>European
Whew. Your degree is actually worth something.

>> No.4114965

>>4114962
It's his most original in a way, but also the one where he is still a liberal. I would say that his best one is the ticklish subect. It's much deeper and also pisses off a lot of people.

Haven't read yet the hegel book. A guy I like reading a lot is Brassier. More people should read him. Nihil Abounded is awfully underrated.

>> No.4114968

>>4108311
He's not representative of really important philosophers today. He's only representative of your line of interests (Foucault, Hegel, Nietszche) which is already fucked up

>> No.4114970

>>4114968
Who are the important philosophers today?

>> No.4114974

>>4114964
different anon,
I'm interested in philosophy but I'm an american
what is wrong with american universities and philosophy education?
what can I do?

>> No.4114972

>>4108327
>never heard of kripke and most people (even in college) never did
you must be assisting to a pretty pleb college. Kripke is really fucking famous

>> No.4114973

>>4114945

i feel you, but tbh the appalling state of the environment or the mass death of animals wont be helped by meta-ethics, whereas singer's ethics does (and has) had a positive impact. keep meta-ethics, to be sure, but i like singer's practicality in affecting change. doesn't mean i throw out Kant or whoever else, i just use them depening on the situation.

>> No.4114979

>>4114940

>>4114939

>> No.4114980

>>4108340
>not knowing tht the analytic philosophy rules the universities of the US to this day

>> No.4114983

>>4114974
Not that anon.
The problem with american universities is that they ask you 200k to get a degree that will never make you that kind of money.

You can go to Europe to study and it will cost you you no more than 2k a year and most universities will have no entrance exam.

Pros:
-You go to Europe.
-Stimulating cultural environment.
-Very little money.
-Learning a new language.

Cons:
-You are out of the US academic loop and they are the only ones hiring. It will be harder getting in a phd and you will not know what is fashionable and now in the academia.

>> No.4114985

>>4108352
>it means he has a lot of followers
it doesn't

>> No.4114986

>>4114979
You do know that Frege's logic, which was unknown to the greeks, is what permitted turing to basically invent the computer?

>> No.4114987

>>4114983
>You can go to Europe to study and it will cost you you no more than 2k a year and most universities will have no entrance exam.
Haha what? No you fucking can't.

>> No.4114990

>>4108437
nah. he's quite good in his field. great arguments to reject qualia, great clrification about thought process and about technology. he SHOULD be better known that Zizek. also, you're one of the lamest trips I've ever seen

>> No.4114992

>>4114983
suppose I get a degree in chemistry, but take classes in philosophy, just ignore getting a degree in it. Is there anything wrong with that?

I'm interested in learning, not much more

>> No.4114993

>>4114987
Yeah you can. There is no entrance exam in most of them (ENS is an exception). You just show up with your diploma and say "I want to enroll in this university studying philosophy". You pay the first rate and you are in taking exams.

>> No.4114995

>>4114986
>You do know that Frege's logic, which was unknown to the greeks, is what permitted turing to basically invent the computer?
And this is somehow good for humanity?

>> No.4114996

>>4114957
>>4114963

what can continental philosophy say that psychology, sociology,anthropology, art, and literature can't?

what can analytical philosophy say that math and science can't?

all the liberal arts teachers and grad students are flipping shit at my alma mater becuase the some of the programs are being cut. One such program is philosophy. which the dean is lumping in with language arts/english.
I know the profs are genuinely scared of losing their jobs, but all the phil profs at my school are pleb tier teachers and even worse philosophers.

Philosophy has permeated every single subject by the very fact that the foundation of all the academic fields is philosophy.

They honestly need to just get rid of philosophy and learn about theory of mind in a psych class, and learn about logic in your math class.

>> No.4114997

>>4114993
Dude, I'm European, you can't do this in practically any EU country. I don't know what you're talking about.

>> No.4114999

>>4114995
yes
the more production is automated, the more people can spend time worrying about interesting things
I realize this is not the case, blame capitalists

>> No.4115001

>>4114992
The problem with Dennett is that he has no great depth. Zizek arguments once you strip them of the buffoonery are actually incredibly insightful and tackle immense problems in metaphysics.

Dennett, eh he oscillates between being a good professor and a silly one.
Take for example the first pages of consciousness explained where he tries to disprove the malicious gene hypothesis by reasoning on the calculating power that a computer needs to have to actually create a life like simulation. That's just silly and sloppy.

>> No.4115003

>>4115001
wrong person?

>> No.4115004

>>4114995
the computer is the only good technology made in forever. you wouldn't understand because you don't do cs, but it is a godlike piece of tech that opens a field that is equal to mathematics in its power. it's probably the only technology that has improved my quality of life, without the computer, I wouldn't be able to do what makes me happy.

>> No.4115007

>>4114997
In france you can, in italy you can. I'm pretty sure you can in germany and spain too (but I admit I can be wrong)

>> No.4115010

>>4115003
yeah I meant
>>4114990

>> No.4115012

>>4115007
>In france you can, in italy you can.
Can you post a link to some university website or something along those lines? Because it seems like something that you misinterpreted somehow. I, a citizen of an EU country, can't go study shit in another EU country without meeting very specific requirements and paying a shitload of money that's about 100 times as much as you said.

>> No.4115018

>>4114996

your diagnoses is probably correct. institutional philosophy has largely lost its critical aspect and thus has become indistinguishable from other uncritical fields of thought.

by critical i mean: determines social/ethical/political values, envisages trajectories towards realising them, and ultimately helps actualise them in reality.

right now philosophy doesn't do this, at least in the american context. the fact that you don't envisage philosophy as having this goal is symptomatic of its ham-strung nature there.

if philosophy isn't critical, then yeah fuck it. send it to the dogs. but if it is, and we should always practice it so that it is, we should save it and use it to help improve whatever conditions we find ourselves in.

>> No.4115021

>>4115012
http://www.unipi.it/english/students/studyingin/admissions.htm_cvt.htm

The only requirement is that you get your diploma validated by the embassy. A language test if you are a non-eu citizen.
As EU citizen you don't need a student visa, you can just move there. If not you have to apply for one.
The taxes are 2,100 euros a year (which is what any person without a scholarship pays).

That's it.

>> No.4115028

>>4109172
these feels i know well.
are you also going to masterbate soon like me before 'retiring'

>> No.4115029

>>4108311
>Nietzsche
>Great philosopher


I can take opiates all day and come out with some bullshit about an old man doing jack shit, ain't no thang

>> No.4115030

>>4114996
What those disciplines cannot teach is history of philosophy.
Philosophy is a tradition and an ongoing discussion that has to be kept alive by constant studying or be lost.
Once it gets lost the result is a generalized stupidity among all other sciences.
By stupidity I mean a certain lack of subtlety and dogmatism towards one's instruments.

No other field can teach you that awareness.

Philosophy is a struggle against stupidity, not a way to produce knowledge.

>> No.4115035

>>4115030

i would say it produces something, but that something is understanding instead of knowledge pre se

>> No.4115036

>>4115035

per*

>> No.4115044

>>4115035
I can agree with that. I believe that the distinction between understanding (
Verstehen/Phronesis) and knowledge (wissen/epsiteme) gets way too often forgotten.

>> No.4115054

>>4115030

Philosophy is argument over what words mean.

>> No.4115055

>>4115054
I swear to God, Jorges.

>>>/bed/

>> No.4115056

>>4115054

structuralists pls go

>> No.4115061

>>4115054
Which is very important.
If people understood better the concepts of aesthetics we would have far less idiotic evolutionary explanations of art.

>> No.4115072 [DELETED] 

>>4115061
>>4115056

When will you people stop reacting so piously to my troll posts?

>> No.4115484

>>4109156
Lost it at last sentence.

>> No.4115493

the world has become too complex for intellectuals to ponder on.

>> No.4115505
File: 26 KB, 425x319, 1360079888001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4115505

All ideas in philosophy are used up, there can be nothing new.

We must burn all books and start all over again.

>> No.4115507

>>4115505
nope. the world belongs to scientists right now. who needs philosophy when you got large hadron collider.

>> No.4115514

>>4115505
Isn't that exactly the reason why Deleuze reinterprets Espinoza Nietzsche and Leibniz? I mean burning books might be more effective but i think he was into something.

>> No.4115519

>>4115514
Deleuze Schmeleuze

>> No.4115531

Did you know that Zizek hates Nietzsche

>> No.4115545

>>4115531

Source? I'll take Nietzsche's ill-mannered children (Foucault, Deleuze, Bataille) over Zizek any day.

>> No.4115549

>>4115531
It takes balls to hate Nietzsche. Does Zizek have what it takes?

>> No.4115557

>>4115549

Perhapsh.

>> No.4115564

>>4114919
socrates understood that all people are not equal

I am not done reading the thread, but it is a shame that philosophy and science have gone from study for the love of knowledge and search for truth, to making money and intellectual wankery

>> No.4115568

>>4115564

I think it's a shame that philosophy went from the pursuit of truth in aid of virtue, to the pursuit of truth in of itself.

(This happened when Plato, and not Antisthenes, was accepted as the successor of Socrates)

>> No.4115572

>>4115545
He calls Nietzsche a proto-fascist and of course hates him for that reason

>> No.4115578

>>4115572

Despite Nietzsche being an avowed cosmopolitan throughout his oeuvre?

Get it together, Slavoj

>> No.4115580

I am an amateur in philosophy but I have developed a huge interest in it. The sticky doesn't have a nice image of recommended readings in philosophy. Does anyone have an image? or any recommendations for that matter.

>> No.4115585

>>4115580

Which particular areas of philosophy are you interested in?

>> No.4115597

>>4115585
well what part of 'amateur' wasn't clear?

>> No.4115603

>>4115597

Are you trying to tell me you're interested in philosophy but you can't even say why you're interested in it?

It's a ridiculously broad field. You need to give me something to go on if you want recommendations.

>> No.4115606

>>4115603
yeah sorry, that was pretty silly of me.

I want to find out what kind of man I want to and can become. I don't mind politics, it just isn't my main interest. And I do not want to read much of ethics, well not yet.

>> No.4115615

>>4115606

>I want to find out what kind of man I want to and can become.

There's no book that can teach you how to do that.

'Towards a Psychology of Being' (it's more philosophy than psychology) by Abraham Maslow might help though.

>> No.4115616

>>4114980
>implying philosophy in the us has ever been relevant
get off your highhorses, you're only a bunch of german tryhards

>> No.4115617

>>4115616

Who is Saul Kripke?

>> No.4115638

>>4115616
Rich German try hards

>> No.4115661

chomsky is genuinely good so there you go

>> No.4115670

We have Alex Kierkegaard on the horizon.

>> No.4115676

>>4114934
Philosophy of mind was officially founded by Aristotles.
>>4114940

>No dualism.

Wat is Pythagoras ? Wat is Plato ?

I don't disagree with your general point, but at least do your research.

>> No.4115677

>>4115670
Kierkegaard is from almost 200 years ago and his name was Soren not Alex

>> No.4115688
File: 51 KB, 500x400, 1355758057747.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4115688

>>4115677

>> No.4115698

>>4114993
European universities are like prisons. The problem is not getting in, but going
out alive.

>>4115564
>it is a shame that philosophy and science have gone from study for the love of knowledge and search for truth, to making money and intellectual wankery

Debatable claim relying on even more debatable premises.

>> No.4115702

>>4115698
>European universities are like prisons. The problem is not getting in, but going
out alive.

Too many feels. I want my soul back.

>> No.4116058

>>4115676
I don't think I know much of pythagoras, that's a limit I have and I apologiaze. But I'm not sure you can pinpoint plato with being a real dualist, that is in believing both matter and spirit to be substances. By substance I mean Descartes' definition as "what can subsist on its own".

>> No.4116606

>>4115578
Horthy's fascism was cosmopolitan.

Game over.

(Magyarism was culturalist, but domain limited.)

>> No.4116960

>>4108311
>Hegel

>> No.4116965

>>4108318
Nietzsche was way less famous than Zizek and dozens of other philosophers before he went insane.

Plus there's Kripke and Putnam. Very famous guys. But you're clearly not into analytic, you're a continental bitch.

>> No.4116998

>>4115505
It's just because we have good record keeping now and stuff isn't constantly being lost, then reinvented.

Besides, being able to think of something, then find out someone had the exact same idea adds legitimacy to said idea.

>> No.4117020

>>4116965
This is true. Nietzsche had to self-publish a lot of his work.

I really don't get Kripke and Putnam - the whole 'water is H20', in fact, their whole argument abour really existing essence, is just so mind-bogglingly retarded I'm shocked it got published, let alone became popular.

>> No.4117091

>>4114922
>predictivism
sorry, i'm having trouble finding a good source on this. care to elaborate?

>> No.4117115

Which philosophers have ideas along the lines of "the wills are purified by understanding, and the purest state of any will is identical to every other."

>> No.4117179

>>4117115
It sounds like if Leibniz and Schopenhauer had a retarded child.

>> No.4117181

>>4117020
What do you find retarded about the argument?

>> No.4117184

The most important philosopher of our times hasn't published anything yet, probably owing to the fact that he's only 21 years old. Give him a little time.

>> No.4117185

>>4117115
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
— Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

>> No.4117189

Zizek's ceaseless sniffling is like witnessing a car crash to me. I'm morbidly fascinated by the horror of it.

And he's a moron.

>muh hitchcock symbolizsms

>> No.4117190

>>4116965
I always found analytic philosophers very boring. Most of them write terrible arguments, basically justifying their assumptions in three ways:

1) It's common sense lol.
2) I'm going to assume this because if I don't assume this it would mean the world is not like I think it is.
3) Our intuition tells us that x is true.

And if you pose a substantial counter-argument he replies:

1) Maybe you are asking to much from x concept. I'm going to call concept y a weaker form concept x and argue that thus x is true.

2) If I would believe you then to do philosophy of x would be impossible (and I don't want to lose my job).

3) Your objection points questions outside the scope of my research, it is for philosophers of y and z to decide this.

And if you insist they say that they are not understanding you, because clearly they are right.

>> No.4117193

>>4115661
Fuck Chomsky and you naive chumps who fall for his obvious controlled-opposition bullshit.

I can forgive you if you're under the age of 19, but after that, you're just a lost cause.

>> No.4117195

>>4117189
Tell us who is a smart guy.

>> No.4117212

>>4117190
you're very right. it's amazing to me people inducted into the academy don't see this.

>> No.4117220

>>4117212
>>4117190
you guys are both retarded and only know about analytic philosophers by reading about them on the internet. one of my favorite things in any philosophy class is watching people who think they know better than analytics getting destroyed by the professor in debates as soon as they bring up their ideas in class. analytics are not ideal, they have their problems, but they were smart enough and powerful enough to have effectively removed the continental philosophy tradition from the halls of nearly every phil department in the U.S. until recently

>> No.4117234

>>4117220
I actually started as philosopher of mathematics and then moved to continental because of how stupid it was.

Besides that you don't really get slammed that bad.
Last time I was talking to a SUNY professor about Nagel's being a bat argument.
I made an objection basing myself on wittgenstein and the professor replied misunderstanding wittgenstein. I pointed out his factual errors about wittgenstein philosophy and his reply was "well it may be like that I don't think that is the case". Then I dropped the conversation.

>> No.4117246

>>4117234
how long did you stick with phil of math? what was your objection to nagel? what were the misrepresented facts?

regardless, if a single time a philosopher misrepresents wittgenstein that doesn't mean analytic philosophy should be thrown out.

>> No.4117286

Philosophy is retarded.

>> No.4117305

>>4117246
I don't believe it should be thrown out. Some of it is very interesting, but for all the clamoring about seriousness I often find it incredibly unserious.

1) I study philosophy of math for one year. I ended up studying Brouwer attempts of describing analysis intuitionistically. I got into intuitionism because I was interested in foundation of mathematics and anti-platonism.

2) We were actually discussing the elaboration of the argument in Frank Jackson's What Mary Didn't Know. The argument goes that even if Mary is a perfect physicist she would never know what red feels like without experiencing it (maybe she lives in a black and white world). I replied that what he means by knowledge is no knowledge. And I pointed out how Wittgenstein would often deny that propositions that cannot be proven either true or false are not knowledge. So I argued that when may in that condition learns how red feels, his proposition "I know how this red cup feels" cannot be verified or falsified.

The argument goes in this way:
1)Mary is able to see the color red.
2)Mary eventually has the qualia of redness.
3)Mary knows everything about the physical world, so she knows the exact redness of every object expressed in hex.

Thus:

a) There is no condition in the world that would prove false her claim of knowing what red feels, hence her claim is nonsense.

3) The professor than argued that Wittgenstein taught school kids, he probably would have said when one of his kids said "Ah-ha now I see what red is" that he probably would have gotten some knowledge.

I pointed out that argumentation is a constant in Wittgenstein's work. In the Tractatus, in the Philosophical Investigations ("Think if you asked someone if they know how tall they are and if they answered by putting a hand on their head and saying: yes I know, I'm this tall!"), On Certainty he says that "here is a hand" is not a factual claim but a logical one.

>> No.4117308

>>4117305
Correction: 2) Mary gets to see the color red.

>> No.4117331

>>4115505

the romans thought all the ideas were already thought, and the americans shut down the patent office in the 19th century because they thought all the inventions had been invented.

perhaps its not a matter of originality as it is a matter of relevant appropriation

>> No.4117336

>>4115572

what a banal reading. bataille already rebuffed those accusations in 1937. (sorry couldn't find it in english)

http://i.a.m.free.fr/acephale/nietzsheetlesfascistes.html

>> No.4117355

>>4117305
>a) There is no condition in the world that would prove false her claim of knowing what red feels, hence her claim is nonsense.
Isn't this a communication problem? If you had telepathy, this would be resolved.

Also, whether or not a system is perceiving a property can be determined by its ability to make use of information derived from that property.

>> No.4117369

>>4117286

Says the guy who doesn't understand philosophy.

>> No.4117376

>>4117355
The first objection implies that you would know what the color red feels like. But you don't.

The second objection forgets premises three that gives Mary perfect knowledge of the world. She knows every object's color.

But the funny fact is that I don't even disagree with Nagel, I think that Nagel is correct.
All I did was make use of >>4117190
>1) Maybe you are asking to much from x concept. I'm going to call concept y a weaker form concept x and argue that thus x is true.

I used a different but similar concept, called it knowledge and from there I had free game.

It's all silly, but it does not matter because I have the strongest argument there.

>> No.4117420

Anyone know of some philosophers that are opposed to paternalism?

>> No.4117425

>>4117420

Kant, see "What is Enlightenment"

>> No.4117431

>>4117376
What if I assert that qualia and knowledge are the same thing? An observer will note no difference between a subject that has one and a subject that has the other.

>> No.4117439

>>4117425

I've only read a bit of Kant in regard to his deontological ethics for an Ethics class. I could already infer that the categorical imperative is in conflict with paternalism, but I was hoping for a political philosopher who deals with government paternalism. Maybe Nozick?

In any case, I definitely plan on reading Kant at some point.

>> No.4117448

>>4117439

read this, its very short and is about rejecting paternalism to become autonomous, both personally and politically

http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/what-is-enlightenment.txt

also Rawls is much better than Nozick

>> No.4117454

>>4117431
You would be begging the question.

>> No.4117479

>>4117448

Thanks.

>> No.4117480

>>4117369

I do understand it.

It's bullshit. That is incontrovertible fact.

It is individuals with a highly developed verbal ability giving their ability an outlet, so that they can attract mates.

It is much bullshit, signifying nothing.

The rantings and ravings of Zisek or any of the other faggots has no relevance to anything in our lives. Ethics is useless because we are going to do what we want to do anyway, etc...Philosophy is simply a job for professional arguer grammar nazi faggots, good for nothing else.

>implying philosophers could hold a real job or attract a mate without the welfare that is philosophy

Well...you could become a lawyer.

>> No.4117483

>>4117454
Okay, what triggers the idea that there is a difference in the first place? If the difference is impossible to detect, then it would not be the cause of this idea.

Therefore, the cause of this discussion must be an artifact of language and classification.

>> No.4117490

>>4117480

>value judgement
>fact

le philosopher face

>> No.4117491

>>4117480

Philosophy goes well with a law degree. One can also find work as an ethics consultant for various corporations and agencies. Though I imagine that pure academia and writing is the most satisfying work for a philosopher.

>> No.4117493

>>4117491

that's nice to know, i'm doing arts/law(philosoph) and am despairing as to my future

>> No.4117499

Why is philosophy still even relevant? Just for fun?

>> No.4117505

>>4117499
For happiness, actually. Do you have any per questions?

>> No.4117506

>>4117505
>>4115018

>> No.4117509

>>4117505
It was a trick question, because philosophy actually isn't relevant.

>> No.4117516

>>4117499
The more people with knowledge of philosophy, the less idiots can run around pretending their stupid ideas are profound and deep.

>> No.4117537

>>4117509
Are you mad? Frustrated because you didn't understand something? Explain yourself.

>> No.4117564

>>4117537
I just don't think it's relevant anymore. People don't use it.

>> No.4117568

Philosophers may talk about different un-thought of states of mind, and different variations of the universe we possibly live in- but ultimately in order to comprehend those concepts the philosophers themselves had to have certain cognitive abilities like being able to ask questions, compared ideas, be hypothetical etc.

Most of the major laws governing thought have been discovered, like in the phenomenology of spirit, for example. So modern philosophy really has just been criticizing authors for conceptualizing something abstract that they wouldn't have been able to if they didn't have those abilities. That's not ad hominem or any logical fallacy because when these philosophers are trying to encapsulate the universe, they themselves, or the mind in general, is on the table.

>> No.4117570

>>4108334
>kripke
>searching on youtube
>do you even know that search engines filter your results in order to your preferences?
>mfw I get Saul Kripke first

>> No.4117571

>>4117570
Screenshot it please.

>> No.4117574

>>4108487
>mfw you're spaniard or french
>mfw if you're spaniard you have seend Pienso, luego existo
>mfw you are a queer

>> No.4117573

>>4108318
>>4108321
>>4108327
>>4108334
>>4108337
>>4108340
>>4108342
>>4108348
>>4108416

you fucking samefag troll

>> No.4117577

>>4117574
what's the matter anon, don't like queer theory?

>> No.4117589

>>4108416
> his model of authoritarian nationalism
Are you sure it's zizek?

>> No.4117592
File: 1.13 MB, 1024x1499, identity politics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4117592

>>4117577
REFORMIST DRIVEL

>> No.4117597

>>4117577
I really liked the reportage about her, but I think the vast majority who call themselves "queer" are not as developed / adult / mature as Beatriz Preciado.
We need a few years more in order to make these people self-conscious and serious.

>> No.4117599

>>4117592
yep, it's like this.

>> No.4117625

>>4117592
I'm not sure I understand the thesis of this comic?
something about how feminists, queer theory-ists, etc. are just bourgeois trying to feel unique and wanting an excuse to claim to be oppressed?
if so, I agree

and then I get called a third-worldist...

>> No.4117629 [SPOILER] 
File: 1.26 MB, 1430x2000, 1337807806654.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4117629

>>4117625
The original was pretty third worldist, but their point that bourgeois identity politicians try and fragment the actual proletariat, first and third world, through identity politics as a substitute for class struggle is real.

They're just Leninists with a different "party"

>> No.4117631

>>4117629
what do identity politics have to do with the actual proletariat?
as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with it

>> No.4117640

>>4117631
Attacking, disorganising, deluding, deceiving.

Identity politics is racism in a new form.

>> No.4117651

>>4117640
I'm not sure I understand
identity politics actively fights against shit for the third world?

>> No.4117652

>>4117651
Identity politics is a tool used by the bourgeoisie to attack workers, disorganise workers, delude workers and deceive workers.

It is the negation of proletarian subjectivity.

>> No.4117654

>>4117652
I don't know that identity politics even affects workers
are west virginian coal miners or chinese factory workers worry about queer theory, and not organizing because of it?

>> No.4117655

>>4117654
*worrying

>> No.4117663

>>4117654
>>4117655
Their union secretaries have to "tip toe" around word choices used by college students to attack worker's vocabulary or face fines and arrests.

>> No.4117666

>>4117663
I still don't think I understand
can you refer to specific examples?

>> No.4117667

>>4117666
Hissy white bourgeois cunts waste four agenda days on kyriarchy theory leaving one agenda day to organise.

Chinese floor workers, imbued with identity theory stuff from Taiwanese TV try to deal with their job situation by having lots of sex, instead of by burning foremen to death.

>> No.4117668

>>4117667
where did this happen?
why would identity politics appear on ROC tv?

>> No.4117674

>>4117668
>why would identity politics appear on ROC tv?
Do a content analysis of a soap opera some time mate.

Also your pleading sounds like you've never been involved in a progressive party and had to deal with bourgeois fucks. Join a fucking movement and discover the problem praxically.

>> No.4117691

>>4117674
I'm a student, I'm mostly uninvolved with politics
I don't watch tv and haven't for five years, and when I did I watched the history channel and discovery... what is in soap operas?

>> No.4117692

>>4117691
Right mate, 10/10, well trolled. If you're serious, read Marcuse, Adorno, and anything with the word "kyrarchy" in the title.

>> No.4117695

>>4117692
I'm not sure in what way anything I've said would make you upset, I'm certainly not a troll.

also, what papers/books in particular?

>> No.4117764

>mfw I'm from Slovenia
>mfw I know nothing of Žižek nor do I care
>mfw I have no face

>> No.4117782

>currently doing Law Studies
>suggested books are from Max Weber and Aristote

I can understand Aristote but isn't Weber more focused on sociology ?

>> No.4117786

What you seem to forget, however, is that all the people you've named are charlatans and hacks.

>> No.4117809

>>4114919


>all people are equal

[citation needed]

>> No.4117822

>>4117809
They all end up in the ground.

>> No.4117837
File: 136 KB, 425x1000, it spreads.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4117837

>>4117822


yeah that really drives into the crux of the idea doesnt it, the only true equality is oblivion.

guess that means weve got to destroy civilization.


ah, but life might re-evolve on the planet after us, and then theres the rest of the galaxy too...


we must momentarily betray our ideals and advance as a species, so that we can destroy the universe.

>> No.4117841

>>4117837
can you explain this comic

>> No.4117843
File: 47 KB, 523x452, Stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4117843

>>4117841


comics are a spook.

>> No.4117853

>>4117782

Weber is an important thinker of modern liberalism all around.
Max Weber also was one of the first and most brilliant thinkers about the relationship between society and law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_law

Last, he is a brilliant man, one of the most brilliant people that ever lived on earth. Just read him.

>> No.4117855

>>4117564
Yeah, what need do you have of the thought and the company of History's smartest men. Who needs it?

>> No.4117863

>>4117843
I do not understand

>> No.4117878
File: 5 KB, 313x313, stirnscii.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4117878

>>4117863


not understanding is a spook.

>> No.4117889

>>4117878
please explain
inb4 "explanation is a spook"

>> No.4117895
File: 547 KB, 939x397, you spooks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4117895

>>4117889


the creative nothing transcends language.

>> No.4117899

>>4113467
>great american philosopher
Is there even such a thing?

>> No.4117900

>>4117895
>feeling the need to make racist cartoons

what's your life like

>> No.4117902

>>4117895
please stop confusing me

>> No.4117903

>>4117899
there will be

>> No.4117905

>>4114932
Nothing wrong with a little bit of utilitarianism.

>> No.4117909

>>4117903
Having dem great expectations lassy?

>> No.4117912

>>4117909
you know it

>> No.4117960

>>4108437
Oh look it's the namefag again, who doesn't actually know about Dennett.

polite sage

>> No.4117961

The amount of academic us/euro-centrism is disgusting, some of the best authors i've read in the past years were africans, brazilians, indians.

In particular, a guy named Marcelo Neves and his reading of Luhmann and his critique of Dworkin, it's simply amazing

>> No.4117968
File: 22 KB, 220x567, Stirner02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4117968

>>4117900


gb2>>>/gaia/

>> No.4117971

>>4108311
>who is Peter Sloterdijk

>> No.4118330

>>4117895

And yet we give it a name? Hrrumph.

>> No.4118384

>>4113412

>implying Wittgenstein doesn't

You need to leave.

>> No.4118398

Zizek's psychoanalysis stuff is cool and he might be repetitive but it doesn't make what he originally said 20 years ago less good. Also Verso publishes plenty of relevant and contemporary thinkers

>> No.4118568

>>4117900
>Revealing your own plebness
Top kek!

>> No.4120055

>>4115021
Those taxes are more than my in-state tuition at a top US school.