/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5291913]

>When discussing the "organization of signs that constitute the social" - whatever that is supposed to mean - Deleuze and Guattari write that "The mask does not hide the face, it IS the face". This is a typical display of the anti-scientism of contemporary philosophers. Any of us, who didn't spend our lives in the ivory tower of academia and actually bought a few masks for, say, the Halloween party of our children, would know that the masks are easily removable. Science has reached the point where the masks are becoming increasingly similar to the real thing, yes, but that does not constitute being the thing they intend to portray.

[Anonymous No.5291922]

Okay, Michael Scott, don't you have toner to replace

[Anonymous No.5291936]

le horseman face

[Anonymous No.5291942]

>>5291913
He is like an autistic kid not managing to understand metaphors.

Truth is: he is completely normal. He is just not that well read and is incapable of admitting that there are people smarter than him. So he just advances by strawmen any time he is in hardship.

[Anonymous No.5291954]

Please tell me this is a joke, either on the part of the OP or on the part of Harris.

[Anonymous No.5291961]

>>5291936
HOO BOY

[Anonymous No.5291965]

>>5291936
You know, Harris is actually right about religious moderation. All of the truly religious are extremists in one way or another. They may be peaceful and nonthreatening- a Franciscan monk is no danger to anybody, for example- but they are extremists nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.5291994]

>>5291942
>So he just advances by strawmen any time he is in hardship.

Damn. I've never seen such in-your-face hypocrisy and projection.

[Anonymous No.5292007]

>scientism

this is why people hate atheists

[Anonymous No.5292008]

>>5291913
>Deleuze and Guattari write that "The mask does not hide the face, it IS the face".
Isn't this the usual 'go to the reality beyond appearance by acknowledging appearance as such'? I don't see how he refuted D&G, because it says the same thing with what he said, only more economic and poetic.

[Anonymous No.5292070]

>>5291994
Except I understand metaphors.

>>5292008
Yup that's it.

[Anonymous No.5292093]

Wilde expresses this sentiment better then all three of them. Which makes sense, because he's Wilde.

>Man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

[Anonymous No.5292125]

>>5291913
At least he speaks science in wider scope, not just what we usually know from television.

[Anonymous No.5292417]

>>5291954
Delusion and Guitar are a joke, this guy is just too dumb to get it.

[Anonymous No.5292465]

[Anonymous No.5292472]

>implying Samuel Harristeinberg can parse Deleuze & Guattari

[Anonymous No.5292475]

>>5291913
>"whatever that is supposed to mean"

What a fucking pleb. At least make an attempt to understand post-structuralism before taking up a critique of it.

Moronic.

[Anonymous No.5292484]

>>5292475
He needed someone to beat up. After the Sokal hoax French philosophers are the one who should be the enemies of wisdom, because French philosophers are weaponized bullshit and sophistries.

[Anonymous No.5292491]

>>5292007

yep because atheists are the ones who take an issue with putting too much faith in science

brilliant

[o No.5292500]

Honest question:

Does he actually try to refute their argument here, or is he REALLY JUST SPEAKING ABOUT MASKS?

[Anonymous No.5292503]

>>5292500
One thing for sure is that he's trying to defend scientific project as a process of uncovering reality behind appearance. I think that he's trying to attack anti-scientism by arguing ad populum.

[o No.5292507]

>>5292503

I did not read much of D or G but I supposed they were sort of arguing about 'human nature', etc, that is 'there is no human nature behind what we (consciously or unconsciously) portray, so our masks are our faces', etc.

If that really is the context then Harris here is positing the existence of human nature. What's more anti-scientific than that?

[Anonymous No.5292526]

>>5291936
>rebel

[Anonymous No.5292567]

>>5292484

If you say you do not understand a philosophical sentance similar to:

>"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

And start to say like that idiot "hurr durr sophistry, discarded"

Then, you betray yourself fo be highest moron. Also keep in mind that Sokal hoax before it was revealed, was not endorshed ny any French philosopher. It was unstead imidietly claimed as a victory by the idiots who despise anything but pure scientism.

[Anonymous No.5293144]

>>5292507
I can't find anything by googling. It's like Sam Harris never wrote what OP quoted, let alone D&G.

[Anonymous No.5293150]

>>5292526
Hey you have to put them in context, m8. He's a rebel within his socio-historical context.

Though it doesn't help Hitchens at all, because in fact it clarifies that he's rebelling against rebels who actually rebels against status quo. The rebel-betrayer of the cause, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.5293152]

>>5292567
Besides, the Sokal hoax has been done in reverse multiple times.

[Anonymous No.5293153]

>>5293152
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.5293161]

>>5291913
So that's a real quote from him? Wow, I guess this only makes D&G more valuable in comparison.

[Anonymous No.5293189]

>>5293153
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

[Anonymous No.5293369]

⇒mfw all these philosophically illiterate comments ITT by people who didn't understand the quote

[Anonymous No.5293398]

>>5293369
Please, do explain the quote.

[Anonymous No.5293536]

>paying attention to any of these New Atheism zionist stooges