[ 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: 71 KB, 640x961, John_Locke's_Kit-cat_portrait_by_Godfrey_Kneller,_National_Portrait_Gallery,_London.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6234717 No.6234717 [Reply] [Original]

/lit/ has shat over almost every philosopher I've ever loved, but I bet you can't make me stop loving Locke

>> No.6234719

>>6234717
>U CAN'T KNOW NUTHIN

yeah you keep on loving him

>> No.6236303

his notion of "person"

there.

>> No.6236315

>private property
>good

>> No.6236371
File: 1.21 MB, 672x4184, locke.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236371

There are only two philosophers relevant on /lit/ now. St. Thomas Aquinas and Karl Marx. The rest are "meme philosophers".

>> No.6236379

>>6236371
Hegel is also accepted, an is in fact preferred to Marx by those of us who realize that 'dialectical materialism' is a contradiction in terms

>> No.6236396
File: 1.79 MB, 672x6000, locke2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236396

>>6236371

>> No.6236412
File: 1.57 MB, 672x5312, locke3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236412

>>6236396

>> No.6236415
File: 594 KB, 744x1944, locke4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236415

>>6236412

>> No.6236425

Look at his fucking face. Do you think I'll ever listen to a fancy old white man from centuries ago with a miserable mask of a face looking like he doesn't take a good shit in weeks, spending his time talking to other intellectuals from his little circle of acquaintances, puffing himself with liters of perfume, and burying his face in books. What does a man like this know about life?

>> No.6236449

>>6236425
He's seen some shit, for one thing.

>> No.6236826

>>6236371
Oh god i love this idea so much.
if lit has remained in any way cool its in having this steangely dialectical love for christianity and communism

>> No.6236917
File: 548 KB, 203x335, 1425444571368.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236917

>>6234717

MORE LIKE JOHN COCKE

>> No.6236923

>>6234717
What do you recommend by Locke; I will read one of his works as a challenge to make me adore someone more than I adore Stirner.

>> No.6236954

>>6236923
An Essay On Human Understanding is huge and drags on but it made me really like Locke.

>> No.6236970

>>6236923
If you're coming from Stirner then Locke is probably a bad choice. I would rather look into someone like Foucault.
Well, it depends on what you like about Stirner. But I'm guessing it's his radicalism and his suspicion of commonly held beliefs.

>> No.6236993

>>6236970
>I'm guessing it's his radicalism and his suspicion of commonly held beliefs.
To a certain degree this. I loved the passion I felt as I read it, perhaps it was because I agreed with what he had to say and that I could relate to his impertinent disposition. Sometimes in reading philosophy, it feels as if what is written is an ideal that even the author does not abide by, but I felt that Stirner was genuine with his convictions.

>> No.6236998

>>6236970
Also, I haven't heard of Foucault in the past. Why do you recommend him and what of his do you suggest I read?

>> No.6237039
File: 70 KB, 396x594, durn to yah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6237039

i like john locke too. durn to yah homie.

>> No.6237050 [DELETED] 
File: 2.45 MB, 480x360, dancing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6237050

>>6236917
>>6234717
>>6234719
>>6236303
>>6236315
>>6236371
>>6236425
>>6236993
>>6236998
>>6236970
>>6236954

more like john penise

>> No.6237174

>>6236998
Foucault was influenced strongly by Nietzsche, but what he took from him was mostly his critical side. His writings are mostly radical rethinking of history in order to understand our own times better. Rather than seeing history as progressive (e.g. with regards to morals or knowledge) he describes it as being made of shifts in "power relations". Power is a central concept of his and he doesn't see knowledge and subjects as something that can be positioned outside of power, or as something that can be neutral.
I think this is pretty similar to Stirner to some degree. Some have tried to synthesize both Stirner and Foucault (e.g. Saul Newman) into post-anarchism theory/movement. Where Foucault differs from Stirner though is that it's harder to turn him into a personal ethics or meaning of life, which I think is what most of /lit/ is searching for in philosophers. The reason for this is that he pays much closer attention to how any ethics or meanings are born in the first place, e.g. because of some historical or social power (which makes one think of Nietzsche's genealogy). But that doesn't mean he has no ethics, it's just more flexible and oriented towards concrete situations rather than being a general theory — basically, something that you have to continually adapt. I think there are quite a few books on this aspect of Foucault if you want to go that route.

Anyway, I would start with his most famous work "Discipline and Punish" which argues that our society hasn't become more "humane" with the abolishment of torture between the years 1760-1840. Instead very different types of power mechanisms replaced the dominance of the old ones, prisons being the most obvious manifestation of this new power.
But there are loads of other places to start with, it depends on what theme you're interested in. So check his bibliography (his Collège de France lectures are also worth looking into and they're very readable):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault_bibliography

>> No.6237185

People have no 'rights'.

>> No.6237210

>>6237174
Thank you so much for such a concise and elucidating response; I wish it were possible to convey gratitude through these anonymous posts, but you'll have to simply take my word for it when I say I sincerely appreciate you answering me with such a detailed post. I will definitely look for Discipline and Punish and read it.

>> No.6237299

Locke basically demands commodification. Tabula Rasa isn't really applicable. A person's entire life can be set up before they are born, he takes no account of power structures.
>muh property

>> No.6237343
File: 29 KB, 250x352, youdontknowpain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6237343

>>6234717
You're telling me, I'm passionately into Sartre and god does it make people on here angry

>> No.6237351

>>6237343
>read existentialism is a humanism
>it helped form the basis of my worldview
I get mocked constantly.

>> No.6237357

>>6237343
>>6237351
that's fine. just don't bring your deviance to a philosophical discussion

>> No.6237380

>>6237357
He was the first philosopher I read absolutely everything of. After "What is Literature?" I was hooked; the things he has to say on the nature of art and language are exceptional

>>6237351
I did the same. Have you read his other texts?

>> No.6237384

>>6237343
Nobody really seems to care about Sartre here. He seems like a public intellectual than a philosopher to be remembered for ages.

>> No.6237387

>>6237380
I have not. What should I read by him? Nausea? His plays?

>> No.6237411

>>6237384
I've gotten some grief for mentioning him as someone I respect

>>6237387
Still making my way through his plays, would definitely recommend what I have read (The Respectful Prostitute and The Devil and the Good Lord both were quite enjoyable). If you're interested in some of his books, What Is Literature?, Being and Nothingness, and Search for a Method (especially if you're interested in Marxism at all, which I am and thus am probably biased towards) are some great starting points and are probably my favourites of his books.

>> No.6237442

>>6237411
Yes, very interested in Marxism. Especially Sartre's fascination with Stalin. What edition of being and nothingness? I understand one is abridged and missing the chapter on bad faith

>> No.6237451

>>6236379
That's what's so dialectical about it.

>> No.6237463

>>6237442
Then you'll LOVE Search for a Method, I bet. I've only read the Citadel Press edition of Being and Nothingness so I can't really say how it compares to others.

>> No.6237472

>>6237463
Nice. Thanks a lot anon. I'll read Search For a Method then move onto Being and Difference.

>> No.6237475

>>6237472
No problem! I hope you enjoy.

>> No.6237574

>>6237451
Too bad dialectic isn't just contradiction

>> No.6237689

>>6237472
I meant being and nothingness.. Was reading Repitition and difference

>> No.6237696

>>6236826
What's that Jesuit ideology that mixes communism with Catholicism? I can't remember what they call it.

>> No.6237703

>>6234717
>classic muddle headed English professor
>pwned and anally annihilated by Baaaklay

>> No.6237958

>>6237696
Liberation theology?

>> No.6237991
File: 51 KB, 282x300, 1425586768756.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6237991

>Locke
Superior philosopher coming through

>> No.6238145

>>6237991
Meh, it's still social contract theory i.e. juridical perception of society.

>> No.6238164

>>6238145
So what? Hobbes is objectively superior to Locke. He's explicitly pro-tyranny, unlike Locke.

>> No.6238165

>>6237991
>state of nature
>bad
Try again

>> No.6238167
File: 4 KB, 247x250, 1413914556480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6238167

>>6234717
>Property rights

>> No.6238195

>>6238164
Yesss, but it's pretty much the same shit once you start thinking of "material" relations, basically how society makes bodies act in a certain way. It's also irrelevant to our times where we don't have monarchs and their subjects anymore.

>> No.6238204

>>6238164
Hobbes got BTFO by Joseph Butler, Lock was never BTFO, he was just corrected and refined over time.

>> No.6238213

>>6238195
I agree. I'm repulsed by Hobbes and absolutism in general, but his rationalism > Locke's empiricism.
>>6238204
But Kant BTFOs him pretty well. The simple concepts or the understanding demolished his tabula rasa theory, and transcendentalism is objectively superior to empiricism in every way.

>> No.6238231

>>6234717
>all religions should be tolerated
>except for catholics, who cannot be trusted because they obey the pope
>atheists can't be tolerated, either
Also, his epistemological assumptions got utterly rekt by Hume. So, in summary, Locke, what is he good for, huh? Absolutely nothing.

>> No.6238316

>>6238231
>except for catholics, who cannot be trusted because they obey the pope
This was perfectly sensible for his times where nations became more relevant than religion in the area of politics. Where do you see the problem?
>atheists can't be tolerated, either
Yeah, but that's because he kinda equates atheism with nihilism. It's a bad equation, but that's because he forgot to read Nietzsche :^)

>> No.6238325

>>6238316
So you admit he contradicts himself to get in with the Protestants in power?

>> No.6238350

>>6238325
In what way does he contradict himself? I think I'm not following you here, but the idea is that you can't be tolerant towards intolerance if that clears up anything.

>> No.6238370

>>6238350
But he's tolerating intolerance by advocating intolerance towards atheists and Catholics

>> No.6238446

>>6238370
With atheists it's his misunderstanding of it. I mean, it's not like atheism even existed at the time as an ideology.
The intolerance towards Catholics is based on his intolerance towards intolerance itself. Catholics didn't consider any other interpretation of Christianity as valid while Protestants wanted people to read the Bible themselves and form their own interpretations hence the publications of it in colloquial languages. Yeah, they were hypocritical as seen by their opposition to further types of Christianity but Locke's writings on this subject don't seem to go in that direction.

>> No.6238460

>>6238446
>The intolerance towards Catholics is based on his intolerance towards intolerance itself.
As a Catholic I find your and his equating my religion with intolerance to be a mark of intolerance. I don't see how letting individuals interpret the Bible any way they want to necessarily makes Protestantism more tolerant than Catholicism, anyway. Are you blinding yourself to this contradiction on purpose?

>> No.6238482

>>6234717
Why would anyone feel the need to shit on literal shit? At least other philosophers have SOME merit, so there's some purpose in shitting on them.

>> No.6238513

>>6238460
You have nothing more than Catholic propaganda to go on if you think Protestantism is about interpreting the Bible however you want. That's non-denominational, but denominations have very particular interpretations. Protestantism is simply against adding material that isn't an interpretation of scripture (such as the idea that Peter was bishop of Rome, or even in Rome at all).

>> No.6238529

>>6238513
Does that have anything to do with my point about Locke? The other poster even implied that Protestantism's stance on scripture was the reason Locke was justified in advocating intolerance of Catholics.