Post Ideology

[Anonymous No.6223026]

I'll start:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbqT_ubkT0Y

[Anonymous No.6223030]

I don't think ideology means what you (and Zizek) think it means.

[Anonymous No.6223042]

>>6223026

Is this ideology? Or is it merely narcissistic tautology played to a calculatedly-evocative drum beat. I'm suspicious of any message that flies on the wings of percussion.

[Anonymous No.6223206]

>>6223042
I think i agree. Like most hashtags and participation based internet trends it is created, received and perpetuated as an opportunity for narcissistic self promotion but never acknowledged as such. If anything its reinforcing this internet special snowflake attention seeking ideology.

[Anonymous No.6223212]

>>6223026
post-ideology shouldn't just me self pity should it? that would be disappointing.

also, listening to this trash is what it is liek to be a therapist right?

[Anonymous No.6223219]

>>6223212
ohh 'Post ideology'

[Anonymous No.6223224]

>>6223219
>>6223212
Was he claiming that the video was post ideological or was instructing us to post examples of ideologies?

[Anonymous No.6223234]

>>6223206
The internet was supposed to be subversive and progressive.

now it is 99.9% a reflection of latecapitalism. Late capitalist cultural logic is post-modernism, which is specificity and tribalism, so when the internet isn't skymall (amazon((which has labour practices from an more horrible time), ebay, alibaba, advertisment companies like Google) it is consumerist-tribal which only breaks apart the proletariat to where they can never gain power.

[Anonymous No.6223238]

>>6223224
i think it was an instruction, i thought it was post-ideology at first tho

[Anonymous No.6223240]

>>6223234
What the fuck does that mean?

[Anonymous No.6223251]

>>6223224

An instruction, I think.

I posted this >>6223042 assuming he meant it as such and then immediately thought I might have misunderstood.

[Anonymous No.6223255]

More, but different ideology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ENHiXed28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fuex5AlpUJ0

[Anonymous No.6223262]

>>6223234
The internet (at least the main, or you could call it popular, version) is a neo-liberal entity dispute being initially populated by NEETs.

[Anonymous No.6223264]

>>6223240
They're saying the Internet isn't about facilitating crazy ideas like people imagined it might be 20 years ago.

If they (the corporations) aren't selling you shit or stealing your information to sell to marketers, they are creating communities of nothing where average people circle the wagon and fight other communities over more nothing, sometimes over the products they prefer to buy or the sites they prefer to give their info to. Meanwhile, we keep buying their products and giving our private information for free.

[Anonymous No.6223265]

>>6223255
would i be wrong to say we use to play sports as a leisure activity, now we watch sports being played as a leisure activity.

we used to buy products and feel the joy of opening them as a leisure activity, now we watch other people buy products as a leisure activity.

???

[Anonymous No.6223278]

>>6223255
Oh man this shit is the worst. If you want to see Zizek's idea of ideology in action look no further. These idiots are doing legwork for companies and they believe they're selling themselves. Being in an ideology where you think you'll "make it" or "be famous" by converting yourself into a product in an internet video is pretty shit but to be doing a PR job for companies at the same time >for free is crap. These kids are fucked, they'll never be happy in life.

[Anonymous No.6223281]

>>6223265
There's your Undergraduate dissertation right there m8.

[Anonymous No.6223288]

>>6223281
jokes on you, i already failed out and work at target

[Anonymous No.6223306]

[Anonymous No.6223309]

in terms of media, McLuhan wrote that the lightbulb was pure information.

now we have pic related.
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/18/welcome_to_the_future_ingenious_artificial_skylight_feels_so_so_real/

[Anonymous No.6223311]

>>6223265
It's interesting to see that the fulfillment comes from something other than accomplishment or the acquisition of goods. We can watch people eat, fuck, open packages, beat videogames, try on sweaters, etc. I wonder how much of this is ingrained in human beings and how much of it is due to our society.

I recently saw a list of the highest paid YouTube channels. Most were the people doing the things you would expect, but two of the highest were channels run by toy collectors. I didn't understand. Surely Disney memorabilia collection is a very niche thing or at least not to the point of having two of the top five highest paid channels. I did a bit of digging and realized those channels are watched by kids! It's almost pornography for them. They spend hours watching someone else experience the pleasure of ripping the plastic off of a Frozen doll.

It really does make me question what itch we are trying to scratch with most human endeavors. Does getting to the highest rank in League of Legends make me happy, or is it just as fulfilling to watch someone else do it? Are we experiencing some lesser, surrogate form of happiness?

[Anonymous No.6223316]

>>6223288
Sorry for you bro.I also work in a crappy store it's not a nice life.
If it makes you feel any better i show the first draft of mine to my supervisor last month and he said sarcastically "Zizek... nice" and now i think he's just making fun of me.

[Anonymous No.6223330]

>>6223026
The fundamentally incorrect category assumption is that they have progressed to a state of self actualization from a state of insecurity and are now pleased with their lives and with who they are. I doubt that is the case though

[Anonymous No.6223339]

>>6223311
i have no answer at all. i dont think i've read enough to understand what is going on here at all. it is confounding. in simple terms i can't help but think there is some optimism behind it, perhaps. people feeling good when someone else gets to do something would suggest empathy, i think

[Anonymous No.6223370]

>>6223330
If they were honest, they would admit that they are happy because they are being acknowledged. They didn't transcend their intense need to be liked by others, it's just that they are now receiving that attention.

[Anonymous No.6223389]

>>6223370
Would you consider that they themselves don't actively know that's what they want?

[Anonymous No.6223423]

>>6223311
Honestly, I think that because of how the media has fragmented, hardly anyone watches the same shows or movies, reads the same books, or plays the same games. And part of enjoying media includes enjoying it with other people. So with this has caused people to want to know that other people are consuming the same things that they are.

[Anonymous No.6223711]

>>6223423
the slaves used to have slave songs.
~ today we connect with advertisement jingles, and everything that comes with it.

anyone know of an author that has done critical studies on PR firms post-2005? (I personally know people that work for them, and yes they are un-literate 'communications majors' from preppy schools, and wish I could do an ethnography, but who knows)

[Anonymous No.6223723]

>post ideology

oh my bad bro, didn't realize power structures vanished

[Anonymous No.6223799]

>>6223278
>>6223311
I know this has been said since Socrates, but the next generation of kids will be fucked up. The internet has been such a game changer since it's rise to popularity during the 90's and even more explosive popularity during the 00's

And now it's filled with more and more rapid and stupid stimuli. EVERYONE has a smartphone now, I used to think it was a good things but it feels like now it's just another way to dull and distract people.The sites now just cater to even shorter attention spans and reductive messages like twitter.

Make egoistic social profiles and take pictures of meals you will eat in 10 minutes. You have 100 million likes but no authentic human contact or empathy with anyone, splendid. I feel like the dude in The Network: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" This is probably a rehashed argument, but anyway no one seems to #care.

[Anonymous No.6223810]

>>6223026
http://youtu.be/CQERFnGvi_A

[Anonymous No.6223832]

>>6223255
>>6223026

play all 3 of these simultaneously. Just do it.

[Anonymous No.6223852]

>>6223799
i thnk it is a growing pain.
there are more people than ever before reading and writing to communicate how they feel.

this is a good thing.

capitalism has made the way people think and feel, and it comes across as disgusting when brought into the light. People have thought and felt this way a long time, and althroughout capitalism, we jsut now can see it.

since we can see it we can start to destroy it, scorn it, change it. back in the 1980s so much of it was hidden, or came out in ways that seemed less personal.

I think we need to bring back accelerationism. or maybe baudrillard's fatal strategies.

[Anonymous No.6223877]

>>6223234
>"late capitalist"
You act like this train ride has an end.

[Anonymous No.6223885]

>>6223877

it ends when we die... i hope

[Anonymous No.6223902]

>>6223832
today im doing a beauty fashion got some games anything else whats up questions xbox black and green a day one addition miracle how basically lets get into it dont fit in really fit that didnt fit pushed around and don;t be kind here is the unit which is square so basically amazing different that is the new these things the playstation 4 that supposedly makes a lot more this makes more space who can replace you you are going to be a version of yourself you didnt know existed actually come up so big size 10 UK failure is goign to be an achievement for you and this is an achievement for xbox so right about that also you and i picked up four things

[Anonymous No.6223904]

>all these women saying that it's okay to be yourself and you shouldn't change for other people
>all wearing a whorish amount of make-up
rofl
Yeah and it's narcissism not ideology

[Anonymous No.6223911]

>>6223904
You are as much a stereotype as they are.

[Anonymous No.6223915]

>>6223911
Surely I is

[Anonymous No.6223925]

>>6223904
no no no, no make-up was the early late 90s early 2000s anti-consumerist adbusters, alt- culture thing. which isn't relevant anymore.

today being yourself means don't shame anyone for having interests and buying into anything they want and finding out who you are in the make-up eisle because empowerment = buying power, and not caring that all of it is curated by PR companies and liek 3 corporations on the backs of the third world.

such is life in the year of the trial-size dove bar.

[Anonymous No.6223931]

>>6223925

will infinite jest make the

"FUCK ALL OF THIS STUPID BUYING SHIT AND ALL THESE FUCKING COMMERCIALS AND THESE FUCKING WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THIS MUSIC IS SO SHITTY, WHY AM I DRUNK AND HIGH AGAIN I HATE PEOPLE WHO ACT LIKE THIS"

feels go away?

[Anonymous No.6223987]

>>6223931
:.( it probably will not

[Anonymous No.6224035]

>>6223931
It'll reinforce the anti-consumer vibe. It should diminish the substance-abuse part though, along with the misanthropic sentiment (if you focus on the right character[s]).

[Anonymous No.6224396]

It's hard for me to express how much I hate these kinds of videos. They make me want to stab myself in the forehead.

[Anonymous No.6225763]

>>6223030
What does it mean?

[Anonymous No.6225778]

>>6223904
I bet that's a still from an MDE video.

[Anonymous No.6225821]

>>6223042
This is the expression of our mass of incoherent thoughts and matter movements being objectified/subjectified by the disciplining glare of different technologies of power for the purpose of utilizing as much of our unstratified life as is possible and in order to do that, we become delimited bodies of knowledge. You become "You".

It's ideology in the sense that it fits Althusser's model of ideology perfectly. You walk down the street and a cop hollers and points at you and say "Hey You!". You stop, turn around, and feel frightened/anxious/etc.. That moment is the movement of ideology arrested and made visible.

[Anonymous No.6225829]

>>6223309
truly late capitalism has gone too far

[Anonymous No.6225843]

>>6223309
More from Salon
Dad calls cops to teach son a lesson; cops shoot son dead
We have pubic hair for a reason
14-year-old girl films father’s sexual abuse with webcam
Warning men about “gray rape”
Brad Pitt keeps breaking his silence on how boring marriage to Jennifer …
7 right-wing Christians who got their comeuppance in hilarious ways

[Anonymous No.6225876]

>>6223832
make it stop

[Anonymous No.6225884]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UURtVfJIvRE

[Anonymous No.6225891]

whats ideology

[Anonymous No.6225892]

>>6225884
mm that was too obviously mocking 'gamers' should have kept it more simple

[Anonymous No.6225905]

>>6223931
we are the same.

I'm slowly coming to terms with the fact that the anons of lit are more interesting and "relateable" than anyone I know in real life. I'm not a NEET, I have friends, I go to Uni, yet somehow I only hear shit like this on 4chan.

WHY??...FUCK.

[Anonymous No.6225917]

>>6223265
I still play sports, though.

[Anonymous No.6225921]

>>6225891
The process by which a human being is objectified by the apparatuses of power and develops a subjectivity as a by-product and goal of technologies of control. It's the field on which your internality is defined and your externality constrained and shaped.

[Anonymous No.6225930]

>>6223026
"just b urself dude"

[Anonymous No.6225946]

>>6225921
That doesn't sound very scientific.

[Anonymous No.6225955]

>>6225946
>That doesn't sound very scientific.

[Anonymous No.6225958]

>>6225955
Well, it doesn't. It sounds like fashionable nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6225970]

>>6225946
>where are the truth tables?

[Anonymous No.6225972]

>>6225970
I didn't say that, don't misquote me.

[Anonymous No.6225973]

>>6225958
No it doesn't. It makes sense when you think about it for a few minutes.

[Anonymous No.6225986]

>>6225973
Whether something 'makes sense' or not is irrelevant. This idea of 'ideology' is just posturing and is totally unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.6226027]

>>6225946
My god. So this is what happens when you replace social theorists and cultural critics with scientists on the public intellectual sphere.

[Anonymous No.6226048]

>>6226027
What? People stop believing stupid posturing? What a shame. Nobody wants to hear about the theory of relativity is masculine and 'sexist' or how the speed of light is privileged.

[Anonymous No.6226177]

>>6223911

but at least we realize it so we are depressed as fuck

[Anonymous No.6226179]

>>6226048
Apparently, nobody wants to sit down and learn enough about something they dislike to at least make a proper caricature of it either.

I think you've just revealed the angle of biased, conceited ignorance you're coming from. I don't have a problem with that, ideology is ideology and so on, but next time just say it. Stop acting like you dislike things that go against your worldview just because they're not up to your high intellectual standards, because when parroting Dawkins is the best you can do then I think anyone can call your bluff.

[Anonymous No.6226184]

>>6223931

lel, i love you anon

[Anonymous No.6226199]

>>6225946

are you stupid? I'm STEM and shit but you have to drop your autism sometimes

yeah, they are axioms and yeah, you have to assume things, and they happen to help you connect ideas and form new viewpoints about how society works, that is the point

[Anonymous No.6226206]

>>6226179
Actually, what I said is from the book Fashionable Nonsense. It totally dismantles the ideas of post-modernism, psychoanalysis, post-structuralism and 'theory'.

[Anonymous No.6226213]

>>6226199
I'm not going to accept someone posturing over unfalsifiable ideas as fact. There is no evidence to support the claim, you may as well claim that conscious thought is the result of magical faeries in the ethereal realm.

[Anonymous No.6226214]

>>6226206
Yeah, bro, trust me, we know what you've been reading.

[Anonymous No.6226219]

>>6226214
How could you possibly know? I don't even know who you are.

[Anonymous No.6226223]

>>6226206

lel, physics try to describe the world when it's indifferent

humanities describe a world where the humans do things for influence

you can't combine both and whoever does it it's stupid as fuck. and just because some bloggers do it doesn't mean that everything is full of shit

it's like those scientific research about meaningless stuff that are just correlations based on statistics and done by magisters, who didn't wanted to do them in the first place, to get their title; we all know those are full of shit so we just take in account the good things.

[Anonymous No.6226229]

>>6226223

an example

do you play chess? go? baduk? whatever-strategy-no-luck-involved-game?

have you studied chess? those heuristics that are unfalsifiable nonsense but they actually work in the game thoery? do you know what a heuristic is?

[Anonymous No.6226232]

>>6226223
>bloggers
She's an academic.
>The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation". Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:

>The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html

[Anonymous No.6226237]

>>6226232
>The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation". Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word).

Source?

[Anonymous No.6226240]

>>6226232

[insert scientific research about how cocacola is bad for the teeth]

[insert scientific research about how alcohol is good for the body]

see? i did the same

[Anonymous No.6226241]

>>6226232
>theory literally reducible to "penis is hard, vagina is soft so men think about hard things better and women about soft things better."

[Anonymous No.6226255]

This is a glimpse of Sokal's CRUSHING attack on post-modernists:

Irigaray:
>If the identity of the human subject is defined in the work of Freud by a Spaltung, this is also the word used for nuclear fission. Nietzsche also perceived his ego as an atomic nucleus threatened with explosion.

Sokal:
>Concerning Nietzsche: the atomic nucleus was discovered in 1911, and nuclear fission in 1938; the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction, leading to an explosion, was studied theoretically during the late 1930s and sadly realized experimentally during the 1940s. It is thus highly improbable that Nietzsche (1844–1900) could have perceived his ego ‘as an atomic nucleus threatened with explosion’.

The book is entirely composed of arguments like that.

[Anonymous No.6226259]

>>6226240
>[insert scientific research about how alcohol is good for the body]

You will literally never read a scientific article with the conclusion "alcohol is good for the body" or "alcohol is bad for the body". That's not how it works, it is probably be good in certain situations, bad in others

[Anonymous No.6226264]

>>6226255

top lel

>>6226206

why are you reading that garbage, just stop

[Anonymous No.6226266]

I now HAVE to read Irigaray just to laugh at how Sokal probably misinterprets everything and deals striking sixth grade blows on his wrong perception of the theory exposed.

[Anonymous No.6226267]

>>6226237
http://monoskop.org/images/5/53/Sokal_Alan_Bricmont_Jean_Fashionable_Nonsense.pdf

[Anonymous No.6226269]

>>6226259

Totally missed my point on how a bad theory/experiment doesn't disaprove all the works done by others theorists/scientifics

[Anonymous No.6226270]

>>6226267
I know, but where does she say that?

[Anonymous No.6226271]

>>6226264
Because it shows how 'theory', and other such nonsense, is pseudo-scientific posturing for bored arts professors in need of papers to write so they can keep their 'job'.

[Anonymous No.6226275]

>>6226270
Sexes and Genealogies, 1987. It mentions them individually in FN.

[Anonymous No.6226276]

>>6226271

Okay, there are bad theorists out there, but that doesn't mean theory is bad, it doesn't prove that

A bad flute player doesn't prove that flute playing is bad

Can you actually think using reason?

[Anonymous No.6226282]

"theory" BTFO by Chomsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8

[Anonymous No.6226283]

>>6226271
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

So, apparently, this shows how this "physics" thing is pure nonsense hid in numbers so that physicists can keep their "jobs", if we are to follow your lead.

[Anonymous No.6226290]

>>6226276
Unless evidence is used to support their theories it is bad. When I took sociology it was largely about examination of data, there is just too much theory, particularly that pertaining to race and gender politics, that relies solely on posturing and pseudo-scientific drivel.

[Anonymous No.6226294]

>>6226283
That just seems like laziness from those who reviewed it, though some apparently recanted.

[Anonymous No.6226303]

>>6226290

why would you want a theory based on science?

do you even know what science is?
why is everything that is not science bad or 'pseudoscience' as if science is a universal qualifier of truth?

why don't you shut the fuck up and stop posting?

[Anonymous No.6226308]

>>6226290

see my thing about heuristic to see my point

it's sounds like no true scotsman but there is really good unfalsifiable things out there

[Anonymous No.6226313]

>>6226303
>why would you want a theory based on science?
I said evidence.
>>6226308
>but there is really good unfalsifiable things out there
Such as?

[Anonymous No.6226317]

>>6226313
>Such as?
Every metaphysical position beyond solipsism.

[Anonymous No.6226319]

>>6226317
Okay, what makes them 'good'?

[Anonymous No.6226369]

>>6225986
The fact that not all that can be discussed in life is a series of binary "successes" or "failures" to be either confirmed or disconfirmed by hard data obviates the use of hard-core scientific objectivity in some cases, and it would certainly be equally fashionable radicalism to disagree with that. Also, the brief explanation addressed really doesn't fall into either of the former categories; it was more a matter of semantic clarification (so that we can actually know what's being discussed, which is preliminary to discussing truth-value of the signified) than it was an attempt to really define any principles of realities. The problem is that you've got a beaker in your ass

[Anonymous No.6226374]

>>6226313

> empirical evidence

seriously stop posting. you don't even read

[Anonymous No.6226379]

>>6226313
>Such as?

All existentially quantified statements (for example, "There is a black hole") are unfalsifiable. So, insofar as you believe any such statement, you believe in something unfalsifiable. For example, I believe that there is at least one planet. I imagine you do too.

Popper's unfalsifiability criterion has been rejected by all serious philosophers of science for decades. You can read this Hempel paper (section 2.2, specifically) to better understand why: https://www.ualberta.ca/~francisp/NewPhil448/HempelEmpiricistsMeaning1950.pdf

[Anonymous No.6226398]

>>6226319
The fact that he feels being unfalsifiable is the same as them being true.

[Anonymous No.6226408]

>>6226374
I just said evidence. If you can't ground your theory in something testable then why should anyone believe you? You could say that something ridiculous like, 'life is a dream', that doesn't make it true.
>>6226379
Falsifiability is still used in the scientific method, m8, your little 'philosopher' hasn't changed that.

[Anonymous No.6226411]

>>6226408

>If you can't ground your theory in something testable then why should anyone believe you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

read more

[Anonymous No.6226419]

>>6226411
Yes, I know what it is. But the academic 'theory' is just baseless posturing.

[Anonymous No.6226443]

>>6226408
>Falsifiability is still used in the scientific method, m8, your little 'philosopher' hasn't changed that.

you have an embarrassingly crude understanding of science and the philosophy of science. "falsifiability" was a precisely defined concept invented by a philosopher (karl popper). it was intended to explain the difference between science and things that aren't science (metaphysics, etc.). it was, however, a failure.

but of course, you don't actually care about the history of the concept or what it was used for. all you really mean is some vague thing like "scientists totally get evidence and, like, test their theories, and if their theories are false, they totally abandon them!" if that's all you mean by "falsifiability" then your point is a vacuous platitude. it also fails to mark the distinction you are trying to draw, since everything is falsifiable on that interpretation. for example, if god himself descended from the heavens and proclaimed that all theory is false, then all theory would be falsified. so, it is, in principle, falsifiable. you will, of course, respond by saying "but that's not what i mean by 'falsifiable'," which is fine because, after all, you don't really mean anything very precise or well-thought out; you are talking about things you don't really understand in an effort to look smart on the internet

regarding your claim about the "scientific method," scientists don't care about these issues at all. if you read a genuine scientific text, like newton's principia mathematica, you won't encounter any discussions of what is falsifiable. you will find lots of actual, first-order science, not discussions ABOUT science, which is where the idea of falsifiability comes from

[Anonymous No.6226447]

>>6226443
>using Newton as an example
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.6226452]

>>6226419

>baseless

again, why do you insist on a pre-selected 'base' for theoretical paradigms? you sound like a religious person

you clearly don't know what the word even means
it's not a strictly academic term, dipshit

[Anonymous No.6226454]

>>6226447

nice non-response, faggot

stop posting

[Anonymous No.6226458]

>>6226408
>Falsifiability is still used in the scientific method, m8, your little 'philosopher' hasn't changed that.

Not according to your heroes, Sokal and Bricmont:

>In their book Fashionable Nonsense (published in the UK as Intellectual Impostures) the physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are used because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories. Their discussion of Popper, falsifiability and the philosophy of science comes in a chapter entitled "Intermezzo," which contains an attempt to make clear their own views of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism.

>They further argue that falsifiability cannot distinguish between astrology and astronomy, as both make technical predictions that are sometimes incorrect.

Have you actually read this book?

[Anonymous No.6226463]

>>6226454
Why would I need to respond when you try to use Newton as an example of a modern scientist? You know he lived before Popper, right?
>>6226452
So why should anyone accept your 'theories'? Or, rather, posturing.

[Anonymous No.6226468]

>>6226458
>if you agree with someone on one thing you must agree with them on everything
You moron.

[Anonymous No.6226469]

>>6226463

>theories are things that should be 'accepted'

kill yourself or come back when you're out of high school

[Anonymous No.6226475]

>>6226468

I'll take their opinion on this matter over some anonymous 4chan user since they are, you know, actual working scientists

[Anonymous No.6226477]

>>6226469
Go back to your continental 'philosophy' department and talk about fucking little boys and checking your privilege.

[Anonymous No.6226480]

>>6226475
Argument from authority.

[Anonymous No.6226485]

>>6226480

No, they present an argument and it is not from authority. You present no counter-argument. I take them to be trustworthy, given their experience in the field. I cannot say the same for you. So, I will accept their argument until given some reason not to.

[Anonymous No.6226490]

>>6226485
Read Popper, faggot.

[Anonymous No.6226492]

>>6226490

I have. And he was refuted decades ago, so what's the point?

[Anonymous No.6226496]

>>6226477
I see you posting these exact same images and comments 24/7. What do you do with yourself that you can "troll" 24/7?

[Anonymous No.6226505]

>>6226492
No he wasn't. You just think falsifiability has something to do with the confirmation of a theory, which it does not. It is about determining what is scientific.

Astronomy and astrology are different in that astronomical theories are open to falsification.

[Anonymous No.6226525]

>>6226505
>It is about determining what is scientific.

Yes, I explained that here:>>6226443

It fails in this task because, first, there are scientific statements that are unfalsifiable (e.g. "There is at least one black hole") and because there are unscientific statements that are falsifiable (e.g. "There are no apples and the Absolute is eternal."). You would understand this if you read the Hempel paper posted above.

>Astronomy and astrology are different in that astronomical theories are open to falsification.

This is incorrect; both are open to falsification. Astrology does make falsifiable predictions at times. For instance, it makes claims about the personality traits of people born when the stars are in certain positions. These claims can be tested and are often false. This is the point that Sokal and Bricmont make.

[Anonymous No.6226533]

The amount of people who babble on about ideology without having read Althusser is getting ridiculous /lit/.

Get it together: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm

[Anonymous No.6226543]

>>6226477

oh, it's you

I should have known
dropped

[Anonymous No.6226549]

>>6226525
Define 'the absolute'.
>This is incorrect; both are open to falsification.
no they aren't, as astrology doesn't change.
>There is at least one black hole"
if we know of a black hole then there is one. If black holes don't exist then it is falsified.

[Anonymous No.6226568]

>>6226549
>Define 'the absolute'.

The definition is irrelevant; the entire conjunction is falsified by the presence of an apple.

>no they aren't, as astrology doesn't change.

That's irrelevant. You clearly don't understand what "falsifiable" means. What is required is that the theory issue predictions that could be proven false. A theory that doesn't change can still issue false predictions, as astrology in fact does.

>If black holes don't exist then it is falsified.

This is incorrect. We must be able to prove that black holes don't exist in order for the statement "There are black holes" to be falsified. But that is in principle impossible, given a finite evidence base. Even if black holes don't exist, that doesn't mean that we can prove that they don't exist.

At this point, it is clear that you really don't understand these issues at all, so I'm going to stop responding to you. Enjoying having the last word. You probably won't understand this response either, but maybe someone less ignorant will.

[Anonymous No.6226581]

>>6226568
>The definition is irrelevant; the entire conjunction is falsified by the presence of an apple.
no, shoe horning 'the absolute' into a statement about apples is irrelevant.
>>6226568
>That's irrelevant. You clearly don't understand what "falsifiable" means. What is required is that the theory issue predictions that could be proven false. A theory that doesn't change can still issue false predictions, as astrology in fact does.
Read David Miller, you spastic.
>This is incorrect. We must be able to prove that black holes don't exist in order for the statement "There are black holes" to be falsified. But that is in principle impossible, given a finite evidence base. Even if black holes don't exist, that doesn't mean that we can prove that they don't exist.
you misread. If we do not find a black hole then we can presume they don't exist, like the idea of a god.
>At this point, it is clear that you really don't understand these issues at all, so I'm going to stop responding to you.
damage control from a literature undergrad. Cool.

[Anonymous No.6226645]

>>6223832
I have started into hell and it stares back

[Anonymous No.6226666]

>>6223423
>>6223339
>>6223311
you sure it isnt partly just fantasy?
say, a topgear episode that has a Ferrari F40, the same car, a guy watching it had as a poster in his bedroom wall, in his driveway is a Camry , the next episode comes on, and its a million dollar porsche 918, closest thing to that, is his rusty 924 thats been sitting his garage, with its engine block sitting beside it for the past six months, because hes too tired after he comes home from work to rebuild it, and because he cant afford the new parts, he changes to channel to Diners Drive-ins and Dines, where he watches Pho being made from scratch, on its way is the Pizza he ordered.... from domino's

[Anonymous No.6226682]

>>6226533
This and Sublime object of Ideology.

Also Verso released a fully translated version of the text which the essay comes from.
http://www.versobooks.com/books/1495-on-the-reproduction-of-capitalism

[Anonymous No.6226697]

>>6226666
If he likes cars and food why is it odd that he watches tv about those things?

[Anonymous No.6226733]

>>6226697
not saying that, Im saying that its something that stimulates an idea, and, most importantly, has some vacuous vapid sycophant on screen expressing enjoyment of that idea, that has people watch it, despite the reality around them

[Anonymous No.6226745]

>>6226733
Why should people prefer reality to a television programme? It sounds like, in your example, that he can't even do what he wants, so what is wrong with living through the television? It seems to make him happy.

[Anonymous No.6226758]

>>6223885
Nah mate you get reincarnated, and capitalism is so powerful that the future population of the world is ridiculously high.Your chances of being born into a non-capitalist country are then less than 1 percent, enjoy your ads and hedonism bb

[Anonymous No.6226773]

>>6223316
>supervisor knows who zizek is
Just how many dropouts are working at these places?

[Anonymous No.6226779]

>>6226758
Reincarnation is a bourgeois idea used to scare the force into submission with the promise of another life. It is pure neo-liberal nonsense and slave morality.

[Anonymous No.6226870]

Ideology rage general?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnDgZuGIhHs&t=122

[Anonymous No.6226874]

>>6226870
White men should be banned from colonising the womb of black women.

[Anonymous No.6226882]

>>6226874
Louis? You're still alive?

But how did you escape the IBG?

[Anonymous No.6226893]

>>6226745
I didnt state the status of his "happiness"

[Anonymous No.6226925]

>>6226893
Is he happy to watch them or not, then? He seems to choose to do so freely.

[Anonymous No.6226948]

>>6226925
the youtube and TV shows are just substitutes, emotions they invoke are not relevant.

saccharin is observably like 300 times sweeter than sugar, to some people it tastes bad, and to some people, when its used, it tastes the same as using sugar
but, it doesnt matter, its not actual sugar

[Anonymous No.6226954]

>>6226948
Why don't the emotions matter? If it makes him happy how is it bad? Why should everyone have to do something that you deem 'real'?

[Anonymous No.6226988]

>>6226954
the emotions of people who watch youtube videos and TV dont matter, the emotions expressed in the screen do

[Anonymous No.6227008]

>>6226988
Why? I thought we were talking about the consumer and how he substitutes entertainment for reality. Shouldn't it be about his emotions, then?

[Anonymous No.6227030]

>>6227008
the "thing" for the consumer is

that which stimulates the idea in their own mind (watever it is) and the proper emotion corresponding to that

you cant just show a car on screen, you need some idiot to talk about how awesome it is (or how terrible)
you cant just show game footage, someone has to smile and scream PEWWDEPIEE

[Anonymous No.6227036]

>>6227030
So are you saying it is better or worse to enjoy tv or a video about something they like as opposed to the actual thing?

I prefer just game footage, but I'm only looking to see if it's worth buying.

[Anonymous No.6227054]

>>6227036
im saying someone watching something being consumed or (insert verb) will continue to watch if there is emotion expressed, and it validates the viewer

[Anonymous No.6227059]

>>6227054
Yes, so they enjoy it. It makes them happy.

[Anonymous No.6227093]

>>6227059
no, it doesnt "make" them happy
the only time it changes the emotions of the viewer, is when the viewer actually reacts to the media,
consumer media is a circle jerk, stimulating the presupposed ideas of the viewer (exotic cars are awesome, food is delicious)
car shows involve 85% non-sense, they dont spend their entire 60 minutes talking about reality, (how exotic cars are expensive hunks of shit only rich people can afford, that breakdown more than you actually drive it, and if you could actually drive them a lot, you'll probably get a herniated disk from the stiff suspension, because exotic car manufacturers seem to have never heard of driving that takes place somewhere other than the Nürburgring, and havent heard of fucking dampers, or replacing engine components without having to take the whole damn thing out) which would be at odds with the ideas of the viewer, and the viewer THEN actually has a reaction, or is made to feel a certain way,
consumer media thats actually informative is just watched when someone wants information about it, it isnt passively watched on a daily basis by millions

[Anonymous No.6227100]

>>6227093
How does that affect their happiness though? Clearly they enjoy it if they watch it all the time, it doesn't matter what it has to do with reality.

[Anonymous No.6227104]

>>6227100
it doesnt do anything
its idle masturbation basically

[Anonymous No.6227111]

>>6227104
But masturbation makes people happy, generally. It is pleasurable.

[Anonymous No.6227116]

>>6227111
>guy doesnt know people find pleasure in things that make the sad

[Anonymous No.6227118]

>>6227116
I think that is an abnormality.

[Anonymous No.6227125]

>>6227118
you're abnormal

[Anonymous No.6227126]

>>6227125
How so?

[Anonymous No.6227134]

>the fact you want childish insult replies to have evidence and support to them
for one

[Anonymous No.6227246]

There's no point in merely pointing out something as ideology. Everything is ideology, you shithead. "Post stuff." — that's how dumb you sound. Write a critique of the ideology you're posting instead.

[Anonymous No.6227256]

>>6223030
Zizek uses it as Althusser does, but Zizek is particularly concerned with "cynical" ideology, that is where you are consciously aware it's bullshit but must follow it anyway.

[Anonymous No.6228526]

>>6227256
is althusser the most important marxist writer?

[Anonymous No.6228536]

>>6228526

Foucault, Deleuze

[Anonymous No.6228549]

>>6228526
No, but there has not been a more important one *since* Althusser

>>6228536
Foucault wasn't a Marxist by any stretch, just because he was anti-capitalist.

[Anonymous No.6228607]

>>6228549
list of your important marxists?

[Anonymous No.6228636]

>>6226870

2spooky4me

[Anonymous No.6228673]

>>6227256

unconscious as that tryhard pipe smoking tobacco yolo

[Anonymous No.6228850]

>>6223026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3zx8kyVtGM

[Anonymous No.6228859]

>>6228850

I can't do it
what the fuck is this guy's deal

[Anonymous No.6228888]

>>6226870
how are they not spooked?

[Anonymous No.6228891]

>>6228607
1. Marx

[Anonymous No.6229034]

>>6223309
What, you don't think the ancients, the wealthy at least, wouldn't be moderately hyped over a sky in a bottle?

[Anonymous No.6229493]

>>6228859

He intrigues me. He's not classifiable.

[Anonymous No.6230470]

>>6223255
Here's a more repungent version of the same ideology, in so far that the follow it strictly yet justify it on the basis of "art" or whatever excuse they want to bring up. I refer to them as criterion kiddies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIYEeEp9C8I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btxXtS5TTQs

You kind find hundreds of similar videos on youtube of 20 somethings showing off their epic criterion sale cops.

[Anonymous No.6230495]

>>6230470
It's like they're each trying to be ugly.

[Anonymous No.6230520]

>>6230470
that is painful too watch

[Anonymous No.6230532]

>>6230470
>grown ups 2
>comedic masterpiece of adam sandler
>adam sandler is the equivalent of charlie chaplin for sure
>his comedic genius rivals no other

this has to be satire, no?

[Anonymous No.6230551]

>>6230470
I wasn't aware this was some kind of phenomenon. I mean, I have a few movies from Criterion and they're very nice, but are people really this obsessive about the brand?

[Anonymous No.6230585]

>>6230551
Yeah.

It amazes me how what they're doing is so evident yet they can't even see how intellectually dishonest they are. I really wonder how much the get out of the films they watch.

[Anonymous No.6230593]

>>6223026
>2020-5
>still adhering to ideologies

automatons

[Anonymous No.6230634]

>>6230532
It's trying to be. I think.

[Anonymous No.6231000]

>>6227246
Basically. pure basic instinctive acts arent necessarilly ideoligy but are still influenced by it. For example pooping. Toilet paper talks about how its the softest around and so on. Its pure ideology.
>im not joking btw the blatant advertising would be ideology

[Anonymous No.6231019]

>>6230593

>he thinks he doesn't adhere to ideologies in everything he does and thinks

[Anonymous No.6231026]

you have 10 seconds to tell me how to escape ideology

[Anonymous No.6231035]

>>6231026
PUT ON THE GLASSES

[Anonymous No.6231050]

>>6231035
That only reveals the first layer, not an escape, peasant.

[Anonymous No.6231087]

Try to find purer ideology than this website: http://orgyofthewill.net/

Protip: you can't

[Anonymous No.6231199]

To what extent are memes as they are now a micro form of ideology? The majority of them work as a filter through which people run their personal experiences so that they can be organized and shaped. People willfully constrain their expression in a paradoxical way to seem unique. It's very much the same as zizeks notion of the container that shapes it's contents.
I'd say one of the few exceptions to this rule is baneposting. There's next to no room in it for personal experience, most of the time you're playing with the container itself instead of putting anything into it. You can't really turn baneposting into a method of talking about yourself, instead you're playing with the language of the meme itself.

[Anonymous No.6231228]

>>6231199
is baneposting the "for you" meme?

[Anonymous No.6231251]

>>6230593
the irony in this post is too good to be true

[Anonymous No.6231376]

>>6230470
>Second video
>Kid picks out F for Fake
>"Yeah, like, I'm getting this for the film too, but the second disc..."
What the fuck? He says that like he ISN'T buying most of these films for the actual fucking films.

[Anonymous No.6231380]

>tfw this is my ideology

I'm dead serious. I would try to present it in a more, lets say, utilitarian way and I don't like to be a sad sack but it makes perfect sense to me. And no, I did not get this from True Detective. I got it from extrapolating of Schopenhauer

>but muh music

You're in denial Schoppy

[Anonymous No.6231422]

>>6223234
>The internet was supposed to be subversive and progressive.
According to whom?

[Anonymous No.6231509]

>>6231376
He's purchasing his way to cultural and intellectual relevance among his peers and family members. it's not as if barrier of entry requires you to do anything but sit down for 2 hours watching your tv flicker.

Just imagine how cultured he looked to his friends on facebook on july 13th of 2011 in his selfie of him holding his criterion sale cop of f for fake.

[Anonymous No.6231516]

>>6231380
who, exactly, is being fooled by the illusion of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.6232513]

>>6231516
I dunno, its some edgy shit from the lord of edge Rust Cole. I'm sure he means humanity is being fooled that it has "free will". The salient point is that I think humanity is especially attuned to suffering, at any point 90% of it has been living in squalor and miserably and the best panacea to human suffering would be no humans to suffer .

[Anonymous No.6232877]

>>6225905
It's seems most people irl never have the language to express their distaste for all this shit. I mean unless you actively try to understand why someone feels the need to make a video of themselves opening a box of dildos, it's hard to verbalize your scruples.

[Anonymous No.6233310]

>>6230470
Loved that shout out to Grown Ups 2 #Criterion :)

[Anonymous No.6233354]

>>6223904
Let me venture a question here. Why is Sam Hyde always saying hedonism is a no-no and that this girl shouldn't be wanting to "make films" when Sam himself is hardly any better

He talks like a utilitarian and he's a self obsesses nobody who leans toward right wing libertarian views

Is he just trying to be critical of everyone?

[Anonymous No.6233449]

>>6230470
hypocrites. this board is nothing but arguing over book editions, showing off recent purchases and bookshelves and asking to be "rated" for it. consumerism is ugly when you peer at it from the distance across mediums but i think its childish to say movie buffs are purely collectors who dont care about the movies themselves whereas when one of us drops $50 on an everymans library its just because they want a nicer edition

[Anonymous No.6233519]

>>6230470
>>6223255


MORE

[Anonymous No.6233537]

>>6223265
This post is pure ideology.

[Anonymous No.6233560]

>>6228526
That would be Karl Marx.

[Anonymous No.6233832]

So this is basically a rage thread - /lil/ version

[Anonymous No.6234378]

>>6231380
>Human consciousness is a misstep in human evolution
Isnt that contradictory. When we became humans we already were conscious. Being human entails being conscious. Also there are so many easy ways to refute that idea philosophically that its ridiculous how bad it is. Liked the show but that quote is pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.6234943]

>>6233519
this kids entire channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFehsgo59-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOosRnpggG4

[Anonymous No.6234970]

>>6223042
>I'm suspicious of any message that flies on the wings of percussion.

Your parents told you they loved you too much.

[Anonymous No.6235122]

>>6234943
Fucking what? This guy is great

[Anonymous No.6235264]

>>6234943
Whats wrong with him? He seems to be at least fairly informed about what he's talking about and also seems to be genuine in his enthusiasm for the films he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.6235792]

>>6234943
liking movies = ideology?

[Anonymous No.6237489]

>>6235792
he also does unboxing videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUruWZN0Lpo

[Anonymous No.6237495]

>>6235792
calling films movies = ideology

[Anonymous No.6237538]

>>6237489
what is the problem though? I'm actually familiar with this guy and I think he's one of the better reviewers on youtube