[ 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: 287 KB, 509x378, continetal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921408 No.5921408 [Reply] [Original]

Why are people attracted to continental 'philosophy'? Is it because you don't need to be good at maths or science and only need to postulate over your feelings? Is it because there is some alluring factor in the pseudo-intellectual buzzwords used by those in the continental 'tradition'? I guess most people prefer something that requires less work, that's why there are more arts students than STEM students.

>> No.5921417

Thank you for participating

>> No.5921473

>>5921408
>Arts taking less work than STEM
if your art is taking less work than putting a man in space you're doing it wrong.

>> No.5921485

>>5921473
You don't have to learn anything in the arts, though, you just have to express your feelings.

>> No.5921497

They're into it because they think it's profound. It's not any less dense than analytic philosophy. However I do think that most if not all continental is obfuscating as all fuck which drives me away from it. Nietzsche excluded.

>> No.5921502

>>5921485

Speaking of learning you really need to learn how to bait. These are /b/ kid tier attempts, I feel bad for you.

>> No.5921503

>>5921497
It's only dense because they want it to be. If you take away all their buzzwords it is revealed as nothing more than posturing. Analytic philosophy is as simplified and clear as it could possibly be.

>> No.5921507

>>5921485
Strawman
Consider the research Goethe did to make Faust. Or how long it took Beethoven to compose the 9th symphony. There is far more going into the creation of a piece of art than someone's feelings.

>> No.5921508

>>5921502
I'm not really baiting. When I said you don't learn anything in arts I meant that you don't learn anything objectively true in the arts.

>> No.5921513

>>5921508
>objectively true

>> No.5921514

>>5921503
Analytics have buzzwords too. They're just better at defining them. "Qualia" for example. Continentals aren't bullshitters just out to get your shekels with their crazy language. I've had profs that are in continental. They just self-obfuscate because they think it's necessary

>> No.5921518

>>5921503
>posturing
Kinda like how you watched that Chomsky video and think you're profound. But this is bait anyway so 3/10

>> No.5921522

>>5921513
Yes.
>>5921514
If it is well defined and serves a purpose it is not a buzzword.
>>5921518
>chomsky said it so it must be wrong
Typical continental argumentative tactics

>> No.5921527

>>5921508
What's an anapest? And what are its applications in a poem?

>> No.5921533

>>5921527
Do you actually not know? Just use Yahoo, you dweeb.

>> No.5921540
File: 1.29 MB, 1840x3264, IMAG0229.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921540

>>5921522
>>Chomsky said it so it must be wrong
Not what I was getting at. You display an ignorance of art, continental philosophy, and general ineptitude. However, you're still going on like you know shit. You're the one posturing.

>> No.5921543

>>5921533
My point is that there are objectives in art. The questions were a little rhetorical device.

>> No.5921545

>>5921540
>You display an ignorance of art, continental philosophy, and general ineptitude
To study those would be like studying augury or alchemy. I don't waste my time with nonsense.

>> No.5921550

>>5921543
It's only an internal objective. It doesn't exist independently.

>> No.5921554

What philosophy is considered 'objectively true'?

>> No.5921557

>>5921554
Analytic philosophy.

>> No.5921585

At least I get to look at pretty pictures and read masterpieces of literature while you slave away in excel, nerd

>> No.5921667

>>5921585
You're not contributing to science, so kill yourself.

>> No.5921731

>>5921667

>I'm angsty and bored and not very good at baiting please work with me here guys I'd appreciate the distraction

>> No.5921751

>>5921731
Why? Did I hurt your feelings? Get over it, you pleb.

>> No.5921759

>>5921408
Because they are terrible at Mathematics and applying reason. They find Science hard and depressing and thus blame the Scientific approach.

>> No.5921764

>>5921585
>slave away
doesn't take that long to drop values into excel and hit plot