[ 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: 52 KB, 400x264, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6276192 No.6276192 [Reply] [Original]

writers who did nothing wrong

>> No.6276291

>Lacan is now part of the same meme as Hitler

Pure ideology.

>> No.6276298

But Lacan did everything wrong. He was so wrong about everything that his 'therapy' actually hurt people.

>> No.6276308
File: 179 KB, 505x799, Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S33882,_Adolf_Hitler_retouched.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6276308

>> No.6276310
File: 86 KB, 992x744, HT_elliot_rodger_jt_140525_4x3_992.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6276310

>> No.6276328

>>6276298

how was he wrong?

>> No.6276801
File: 33 KB, 275x367, Stalin_in_young_by_Stalinlasar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6276801

>>6276308

>> No.6276806
File: 7 KB, 184x266, mishima.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6276806

>> No.6276845

These people barely qualify as writers
You should all be banned

>> No.6276847

>>6276328
He clearly did not understand the mathematical and scientific theories he employed and his 'psychoanalysis' in general is mere pseudo-scientific drivel.

>> No.6276856

>>6276845
>Mishima
>three times nominated for the nobel prize in literature
>somehow barely qualifies as a writer
yet everyone else should be banned

>> No.6276867

>>6276856
I was referring to the Lacan, Hitler, and Stalin posters only.

>> No.6276871
File: 26 KB, 400x500, old_bill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6276871

it was an accident.

>> No.6276874

This thread is a spoke in the square shaped spook of circular ideology.

>> No.6276880

>>6276874
>Muh ideology
This meme is getting old.

>> No.6276886

>>6276867
Not Elliot Rodgers?

>> No.6276892

>>6276847
>how was he wrong ?
>he was wrong !

Thanks m8

>> No.6276898
File: 10 KB, 111x119, aang retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6276898

>>6276847
>not getting the joke

>> No.6276905

>>6276898
woops, this was aimed towards
>>6276867

>> No.6276907

>>6276892
If you still think psychoanalysis is valid you should probably kill yourself.

>> No.6276926

>>6276871
A woman still died, because of him.

>> No.6276930

>>6276871

Shooting at a woman's head, and then unintentionally killing her isn't an accident.

If I did it, I'd get 20 years, but my gramps didn't invent an adding machine.

>> No.6276964
File: 213 KB, 600x634, 600full-charles-bukowski.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6276964

>> No.6277465
File: 15 KB, 250x396, Althusser[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6277465

>> No.6277499

>>6276907
Some of it's principles have endured the test of time and still remain perfectly valid in their presupposed contexts. Freud was a ridiculous man. Jung on the other hand..

>> No.6277504

>>6276907
Right, because all psychoanalysts share exactly the same methods and views and none of them disagree.

>> No.6277512

>>6276328
The scientific consensus on psychoanalysis is regarding it as pseudoscience.

>> No.6277516

>>6277512
The psychanalytical consensus on science is regarding it as pseudoanalysis

>> No.6277533

>>6277516
Nice tautology you have here.

>> No.6277546

>>6277465
I love him.

>> No.6278107

>>6277546
Would you let him give you a neck massage?

>> No.6278916

>>6276847
>>6276907
If you're reading Lacanian psychoanalysis for its scientific qualities, you're looking for comprehension in the wrong places. I've always emphasised how much more relevant it is to literary criticism and the notion of textuality than it is to making empirical statements about reality. The 'pseudo-scientific drivel' are more like linguistic games designed to allude to the reader a structural parallel of the unconscious rather than to present demonstrable 'fact'

>> No.6278922

>>6278916
>I've
Who are we?

>> No.6278938

>>6278922
Should it matter?

>> No.6278948

>>6278938
That's entirely dependant.
The posting format you're using is designed to be non-self referential; obviously, this is implicit in the form only, and not an explicit rule.

Using a pronoun is an absurdity on this site is an absurd: anyone can claim to be I, not me.

>> No.6278968

>>6278948
>Using a pronoun is an absurdity on this site is an absurd
You're complaining about my somewhat colloquial vernacular on a korean meme machine board? I fail to see how that actually has any bearing on what I said

>> No.6278986

>>6278968
I'm not complaining about anything - quit paving the ignorance of your prejudices between the words on your screen, dork.

All that's being pointed out to you is the absurdity of purposelessly violating a normative posting habit, an innocent faux pas no doubt, and then arrogantly defending it as 'part of your style'.

>> No.6279100

>>6278986
>arrogantly defending it as 'part of your style'.
>thinking using 'colloquial vernacular' is the equivalent of adopting a 'style'

>the absurdity of purposelessly violating a normative posting habit
I have no need to violate it, but on an informal messaging board I have no particular need to write in strict formality either.