/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7264443]

ITT: 'intellectuals' that set their respective fields back by decades

[Anonymous No.7264474]

>respective fields
es gibt kein richtiges in falschem.

[Anonymous No.7264480]

>>7264443
Lysenko. Pretty much halted agronomy and genetics research in the Soviet Union for telwenty something years.

[Anonymous No.7264579]

Plato set thinking back by millennia.
t. Martin

[Anonymous No.7264594]

Hume
Kant
Freddy
All Psychoanalysts
Derrida
All the Greeks
Alain de Boton (perhaps centuries)
Witty
Spinoza
Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.7264600]

>>7264443
Adorno is brilliant, though.

>inb4 'cultural marxism' and Satanic-bolshevik-lizard-Kabbalan-Talmudic plots

[Anonymous No.7264603]

>>7264594
what is wrong with Hume and Witty

[Anonymous No.7264624]

>>7264443

Why do you think Adorno set his field back by decades? And what do you think his field is?

[Anonymous No.7264633]

>>7264624
bad epistemology and sociology (though his reach is much further)

[Anonymous No.7264641]

>>7264633
>not being a negative dialectician

tears, buddy

[Anonymous No.7264661]

>>7264641
If you think Hegel's dialectic of reason is impossible to endorse after the Holocaust you're JIDF.

[Anonymous No.7264680]

[Anonymous No.7264681]

>>7264661
>JIDF

Stop polluting this board.

[Anonymous No.7264683]

>>7264443
ITT: post writers and philosophers you don't like and pretend this isn't just your retarded opinion

[Anonymous No.7264693]

Thanks to him..

[Anonymous No.7264702]

>>7264693
... and him

Economics is still not taken seriously

[Anonymous No.7264713]

>>7264681
Do you have anything else to say? Or are you just going to ignore Hegel's actual argument and cry about the Holocaust like Adorno et al. did?

[Anonymous No.7264719]

>>7264693
>>7264702
Truly incredible that you would post some of the legitimately interesting thinkers in the field instead of the dogmatic capitalism-boosters that truly discredit the field.

Marx was largely wrong but thought more critically about economics than most at the time and frankly, most economists today. Keynes was almost entirely right. Von Mises, Rothbard, and the like are the people who truly embarrassed and set back the discipline, anyone who has studied economics beyond scanning Wikipedia entries can tell you that.

[Anonymous No.7264724]

>>7264713
Just to add, I think Adorno and his buddies destroyed the fields of Music and Art from 1945-present day

[Anonymous No.7264726]

>>7264680

It's baffling people still give Freud more credit than Jung.

[Anonymous No.7264747]

>>7264719
>Marx was largely wrong but thought more critically about economics than most at the time and frankly, most economists today. Keynes was almost entirely right. Von Mises, Rothbard, and the like are the people who truly embarrassed and set back the discipline, anyone who has studied economics beyond scanning Wikipedia entries can tell you that.
Why do people type things like this? You come off as an arrogant, immature chucklefuck more interested in making fun of people who have accomplished more than you. I bet you took an Econ 100 course and decided you were now qualified to look down on people who browse Wikipedia.
>>7264726
It's baffling that people give Lacan more credit than Jung.

[Anonymous No.7264756]

>>7264719
>taking the bait

>>7264724
Adorno was a high modernist. Extremely elitist

[Anonymous No.7264767]

>>7264713
>muh identity thinking

[Anonymous No.7264798]

>>7264756
Oops if true.
>>7264747
I typed it because it was right. Von Mises is a genuine embarrassment, the Stefan Molyneaux of his time.

[Anonymous No.7264804]

>>7264719
>Keynes was almost entirely right
>anyone who has studied economics beyond scanning Wikipedia entries can tell you that.
So did Hayek not study economics?

>dogmatic
>implying Marx and Keynes weren't dogmatic

How can you think that two zealots, Marx and Keynes, who read very little economics beyond their own theories, tried to make their theories unfalsifiable and dismissed all criticism as economists? The only reason Keynesian economics is so popular, isn't because it's true, but because it gives governments a big pat on the back and says "keep up the good work". Likewise to a degree with Chicago economics.

They put the field of economics back so far because they become orthodox thinkers and universities still teach their junk theories over and over producing economists as effective as medieval plague doctors.

I also have an economics degree, not as though your education makes your opinions automatically correct

[Anonymous No.7264828]

>>7264804
Austrians are clowns who are taken seriously by no one. There is no point in even debating. Your entire worldview doesn't even exist outside the internet.

[Anonymous No.7264845]

>>7264804
Hayek quit writing about economics and moved to political sloganeering because he was so thoroughly embarrassed by several Keynesians, especially Sraffa. Conservative responses to Keynes since have at least acknowledged the essential truths in his argument regarding the relationship between the monetary and real economies.

Your dismissal of the Chicago school leads me to believe that you find Friedman too liberal as well. If you do have an economics degree, you must acknowledge at the very least that people with as far-right views in econ are as rare as orthodox Marxists in the field. Not trying to use this as an explicit argument for Keynes, but people who completely dismiss him after studying economics are almost nonexistent nowadays.

[Anonymous No.7264857]

>>7264828
Don't wanna contribute to shitposting but this is the truth. Austrian "economics" is dead outside the Mises Institute. Totally irrelevant and it deserves to be so.

[Anonymous No.7264870]

>>7264633
What about music critique?

[Anonymous No.7264884]

>>7264600
He reads very much like any other academic philosopher: wasting paper and not saying anything of revelance to anything beyond his navel gazing.
He lived during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Negro Emancipation, West German Rearmament and the War in Vietnam. And what he mostly wrote about is pop stars. "man. look at those fans. it's, like, fascism, like, man"

[Anonymous No.7264924]

>>7264767
>Muh rhizomes

[Anonymous No.7265138]

>>7264594
What's wrong with the Boton guy? Isn't he fostering interest in philosophy? Isn't that a good thing?

[Anonymous No.7265153]

Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell

[Anonymous No.7265166]

Marx & Engels (and of course there are a lot of interesting things i get from Marx and Engels but they really set a lot of terrible precedents in thought)
Derrida - fuck the linguistic turn. bad for art.
Foucault - fuck historicism. behind everything unbearable in academia right now.
Butler - fuck gender theory. complete departure from reality and nature (since historicism has questioned that, dishonestly)

[Anonymous No.7265180]

>>7264719
>dogmatic capitalism-boosters

And who might those be? Because I work as an economist and have yet to run into one of those outside of the no-names on the internet, and maybe this one guy I met who went to UChicago, although he did subscribe to a bunch of precepts of traditional structuralism.

Plus, Keynes was wrong on a lot of things, most of them having to do with the limited nature of his models leading him to mistaken conclusions

>>7264828
This is true.

[Anonymous No.7265192]

>>7265153
Triggered

[Anonymous No.7265195]

Moot

[Anonymous No.7265218]

>>7264719
>Keynes was almost entirely right.

lmao

[Anonymous No.7265228]

Marxist theorists make this too easy.

[Anonymous No.7265245]

>>7265180
>And who might those be?
As I said before, Von Mises, Rothbard, Hans-Hoppe - basically, economists who have no purchase on anyone except the no-names on the internet. I may not agree with Menger and Hayek and Friedman but they made real contributions.

[Anonymous No.7265263]

>>7265245
Well yeah, but the point of the question was finding any well-known economist who still touts the unrestrained free market as the ultimate force for growth and social good in 2015

Actually, after the 90s. Because we all saw how neoliberalism somehow fucked up Latin America even worse than really poorly articulated and implemented traditional structuralism.

[Anonymous No.7265271]

>>7264726
Freud was a better writer and his theories are easier to undertand.

[Anonymous No.7265279]

>>7265218
they could be measuring the amount sand in order to figure out how much cement to use

[Anonymous No.7265285]

>>7265279
>ruining jokes

why fam

[Anonymous No.7265293]

>>7264884
Read the dialectic of enlightenment bitch nigger

[Anonymous No.7265301]

>>7265263
Not that guy, but what sort of regulations are necessary? I think we should at least have regulations to protect from externalities.

[Anonymous No.7265305]

>>7265263
Oh, I agree, there aren't real academic economists who take those ideas seriously nowadays, though the ideas are taken quite seriously by a very significant amount of the voting public (at least here in burgerland they are). The conservative econ writers worth reading (people like Scott Sumner) are all pretty significantly more "liberal" than Peter Schiff or whatever hack actually agrees with that psychotically neoliberal view.

[Anonymous No.7265327]

>>7265293
It's literally just 'I don't like late capitalism, it's too much like fascism.'

Tbqh the 'fascism' boogeyman is overdone.

[Anonymous No.7265371]

>>7265301
That's generally the rule of thumb for bare minimum regulation.

Some other types of regulation I think are necessary generally have to do with shoring up and helping the business and entrepreneurial climate of a nation (manufacturing controls and standards, effective punishment of rogue actors, that sort of thing), adding to the soft assets that constitute a nation's factor endowment.

[Anonymous No.7265396]

>>7265301
>>7265371
The biggest thing that I think laypeople frequently miss is that the idea of an "unregulated economy" is just kind of a misnomer in general. Regulations, including property law, create the economy; there is no anarcho-capitalist fantasy land that we start with before we overlay government regulations over that.

Negative externalities are a good example (interestingly, I tutor high school economics courses - mine in the early 00s didn't deal much with externalities; since 2009 they have evidently added this). Financial regulations are another good example - I think Mike Konczal does a very good job explaining why something like Dodd-Frank is important: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/21/9004155/dodd-frank-explainer

[Anonymous No.7265406]

>>7264600
You called?

[Anonymous No.7265437]

>>7265138
Nah, he fosters dilettantism and superficiality. There are way better ways to bring people to actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7265789]

>>7265406
>this shit again

[Anonymous No.7265988]

>>7265327
Not that guy but I think there's more going on there. I'm interested in DOE more as a deployment of the logic he outlines in Negative Dialectics, kind of a Spinozist alternative to Hegelian Marxism/Social thought generally.

Also with respect to the Fascism bogeyman thing, I see where youre coming from but i think that the diagnosis of his conditions on those terms is more an epiphenomena of the genealogy of Western Civilization he gives via the discussion of the Odyssey. Its really intricate and kind of similar to what Foucault did in Madness and Civilization, but instead of power he talks about domination which is more of a dialectical category.

And the culture industry stuff in there is real nice. If you don't like Marx you probably won't like Adorno i guess but you dont nec. not like marx

[Anonymous No.7266000]

>>7264693
Marx was a god and if you dont like him its literally because you havent read him enough, dont understand which voice he is speaking in, and don't understand him. God damn i wish people could see that

[Anonymous No.7266018]

>>7265988
The problem might be that I'm not Jewish. I find Spinoza's entire philosophy highly objectionable. I also find the practice of characterizing a person's thought purely in terms of the names of other philosophers much less than helpful. Could you explain what exactly his counter-Hegelian logic is? How is domination not a function of power? How is power less of a dialectical category than domination? Isn't power effectively the begriff of dominance and servitude?

[Anonymous No.7266050]

>>7264443
>implying fields are "set back"
>implying you don't just want an ideological shit-flinging contest

[Anonymous No.7266212]

>>7266000
>Marx was a god
you are right, Marxism is a religion

[Anonymous No.7266290]

>>7266000
Damn these dubs n trips.....

[Anonymous No.7266606]

>>7264680
Freud is "fun" psychology. Its like describing Physics with Newton getting hit in the head with an apple.

Its introductory, and I'm pretty sure any higher education to psychology past a psych 101 class kind of pushes him aside.

[Anonymous No.7266612]

>>7264443
le corbusier and architecture/urban design

actually "decades" is not enough, never before in history has anyone done as shit designs as him. even african huts are an improvement over his "machines for living" approach

I hope he's being sodomized in hell by satan with a square block-shaped dildo in a grey room

[Anonymous No.7266733]

>>7266612
stay mad burgercuck

[Anonymous No.7266778]

>>7266612
This is true.

[Anonymous No.7267281]

>>7264594
Hilarious list.

[Anonymous No.7267390]

>>7264443
>ITT: 'intellectuals' that set their respective fields back by decades
Chomsky is the world champion of this.

Most linguistics graduate students in America have no clue about what historical linguistics is (!) or how it works. (!!) Chomsky was _that_ destructive to linguistics.

[Anonymous No.7267391]

>>7267390
what did he do?

[Anonymous No.7267392]

>>7267390
who do you read instead?

[Anonymous No.7267397]

>>7264443
Adorno hated black people and his dislike of jazz is mostly founded on racism and he uses his "philosophy" to endorse his views, much like Heidegger did with Nazism.

[Anonymous No.7267398]

>>7266612
Great artist who influenced one of the worst movements to affect the modern city

[Anonymous No.7267410]

>>7264804
>Marx
>read very little economics beyond their own theories

fuck off

[Anonymous No.7267415]

>>7267390
>historical linguistics
lol non-anglo yuropoors

[Anonymous No.7267421]

>>7264661
Your sentence is fucked.

[Anonymous No.7267424]

>>7267391
>what did he do?
He invented an unfalsifiable 'language organ' that was supposed to be located in the brain, and couched this in highly impenetrable quack-mathematical language. He was highly successful for three reasons:
a) it made linguistics look like a 'real' science, the faux materialist determinism credentials made linguistics professors seem more prestigious
b) being unfalsifiable meant that said professors could be employed for life writing bullshit papers without accountability
c) the vague mathematical jabber made it seem like linguistics is related to computer science, and computer science gets funding.

It's a clusterfuck. It's so bad that Google Translate's development team publicly _brags_ that they have a rule to never hire people with linguistics degrees.

>>7267392
>who do you read instead?
Papers by real linguists.

[Anonymous No.7267430]

>>7267424
>Papers by real linguists.
such as

[Anonymous No.7267438]

>>7266606
wasn't freud totally coked out though and objectively wrong in almost every way except in what he tried to study; mainly psychology within our minds or whtvr?

[Anonymous No.7267440]

>>7264594
Did Jesus have a philosophy other than "love others as you love yourself"?

That's all he asked for.

[Anonymous No.7267442]

>>7267438
No

[Anonymous No.7267447]

>>7266000
He was speaking in the voice of a child slave owner who wanted to convince his rape victim that someone else (producers) were responsible for his own evil acts and failure to maintain his estate.

[Anonymous No.7267455]

[Anonymous No.7267461]

>>7267447

I love when a personal history is attacked on all fronts and the text is rarely discussed in a negative light with actual context

[Anonymous No.7267467]

>>7265406
It's not fair to Benjamin, to Adorno - sort of.

Benjamin is basically a sort of Marxist sort of hippy mystic weed man literary critic. He wrote some really interesting pieces in a style that's not quite academic. He was interested in the Kabbalah like Borges was. Benjamin's famous essay uses the Kabbalah to offer an alternative to the conception of historical time in classical Marxism. Seriously, read his essays on hashish or his essays on children's literature or his essay on distraction and art.

Adorno's negative dialectics is mostly a critique of Hegel while still remaining Hegelian, I guess, sort of. He thought that anything that promotes "identity thinking" will encourage fascism, if even on a small scale. His arguments are strong but he feels incredibly elitist now and we're simply not ready to accept a lot of his views. Basically everything you do is gonna be "complicit" and encourage another Holocaust.

There's something missing about pop culture in Adorno - he couldn't understand it all and hated it. He bitched about Joan Baez protesting the Vietnam war (which Adorno opposed) because she did it in a simple musical style. Where you're sort of right for Adorno is that his philosophy is very Auschwitz centered and it seems like he's pointing the finger at a lot of the culture of the non-Jewish masses and saying "This is why we have disaster things."

Adorno is way too elitist to be part of the SJW, he would have hated it but I can't see how stupid critical theory is their fault. They were mostly into Hegel. Maybe the Frankfurt school invented and popularized critical theory, but there's no reason to single out Adorno and especially not Benjamin.

[Anonymous No.7267470]

>>7266606
This, he's like Aristotle and Plato.

Very important because he started a new intellectual endeavor, but wrong about almost every claim he made. Later thinkers in his field who were more correct wouldn't have gotten where they are if someone didn't lay the foundation beforehand.

[Anonymous No.7267471]

>>7267438
No, psychoanalysis is pure psuedo-science. It has given psychology a humiliating reputation among the fellow sciences

Nowhere in the developed world still practices psychoanalysis

[Anonymous No.7267477]

>>7267470
> Aristotle
>wrong about almost every claim he made.

read a fucking book my man

[Anonymous No.7267478]

>>7267470
But William James DID lay down that foundation. It is why he's the father of psychology. Freud is honestly just a pop culture figure. He's an Elvis or Bob Markey

[Anonymous No.7267480]

>>7267477
>implying Freud wasn't wrong about everything except religion

[Anonymous No.7267485]

>>7267480
read my fucking post my man

[Anonymous No.7267486]

>>7267477
I mean, he was? Save for formal logic, what else has he contributed to besides intellectual stagnation in Europe

[Anonymous No.7267490]

>>7267486
gas yourself my man

[Anonymous No.7267493]

>>7267480
The worst thing Freud wrote was on religion.

[Anonymous No.7267495]

>>7267478
He was a spiritualist and took part in séances. Also he was American.
>>7267477
Aristotle was wrong about almost every claim he made.

[Anonymous No.7267497]

>>7265406
This is hilariouslt retarded. Its like a pol user read a wikipedia summary

>>7267467
I agree, MOSTLY but I really dont think that there is anything wrong with critical theory at all.

[Anonymous No.7267500]

>>7267486
>intellectual stagnation in Europe
That was more because Christians and Muslims in the medieval world treated Aristotle and Plato like infallible gods.

[Anonymous No.7267501]

>>7264594
Kant understood that we'd got too far ahead of ourselves without solidifying base knowledge.

He was doing good work.

[Anonymous No.7267507]

>>7267493
lel no, all his pseudo-analysis of dreams, mommy-fucking and shit are clearly bullshit, but the essay he wrote on religion was dead on.

[Anonymous No.7267509]

>>7267430
Why do you care? It's a dry field without glamorous celebrities.

If you want an intelligent Chomsky critic who's not totally dry, try Geoffrey Sampson.

[Anonymous No.7267510]

>>7267507
You don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.7267511]

>>7267495
Those weren't part of his work in transforming psychology into a science though. He was also a religious philosopher and The Will to Believe is clearly seperate

>he was American
Cool meme

[Anonymous No.7267517]

>>7267500
So you are saying it's not his fault that he told people to believe all this stuff cause he said so and then they did?

[Anonymous No.7267522]

>>7267471
>No, psychoanalysis is pure psuedo-science. It has given psychology a humiliating reputation among the fellow sciences

>psychology
>science
lol

[Anonymous No.7267523]

>>7267507
Like when he said Moses was actually an Egyptian priest within the cult of Aten?

Lol, Harold Bloom didn't like that.

[Anonymous No.7267525]

>>7267509
none of your business

keep going

[Anonymous No.7267530]

>>7267480
It's super eurocentric and clearly written in the context of Abrahamic religions. Buddhism, as an example, is an atheistic religion

[Anonymous No.7267531]

>>7265406
>implying adorno & horkheimer were wrong

[Anonymous No.7267532]

>>7267523
No, but his idea that religion exists because we're afraid of death.

[Anonymous No.7267533]

>>7267517
No, because he was dead. Yet people spent the next 1800 years not reading him critically.

[Anonymous No.7267538]

>>7267522
It is? It has an empirical component and uses the scientific method, it's like saying evolutionary-behavioural biology isn't science.

Fuck STEM cretins

[Anonymous No.7267542]

>>7267530
>It's super eurocentric

Well, he was a European. Are you saying that your opinions are automatically invalid, if you don't generalize to the entire human species in an argument?

Besides, one could argue that Buddhism deals with the same mechanisms, because intrinsic to Buddhism is the idea that if you do X action, you will get some reward, i.e nirvana.

[Anonymous No.7267577]

>>7267440
Yeah he thought that you can get rewarded for your good deeds with eternal happiness, while bad, unrepentant people get eternal damnation.

Which, objectively, looks like wish fulfillment.

[Anonymous No.7267616]

>>7267542
>he was European

When he makes a bold statement decrying a universal institution like religion then he had best cover all of his bases. If not, it means he is *GASP* not entirely correct on a what he is speculating. This brings into question the validity of his assertion.

See this? This is what we call a "critique".

[Anonymous No.7267634]

>>7267616
Sure, but that doesn't mean that he is wrong. One facet of the existence of religion might be that it exists because we are aware of our own mortality, but that doesn't mean it's the ONLY reason it exists.

[Anonymous No.7267657]

>>7267634
That's a perfectly fine response to my critique anon. Not everyone has to always be right and wrong. I was just pointing out what I consider to be a flaw in his assertion

[Anonymous No.7267723]

>>7267657
> I was just pointing out what I consider to be a flaw in his assertion

No worries, and I do agree with you. Western religion clearly is not the same as Eastern religion; someone with even a fleeting understanding of both can see that.

[Anonymous No.7267836]

>>7267577
I was baiting in the sense that Jesus spent just as much time, if not much more, wanting people to worship him as he wanted them to be his definition of moral human beings.

[Anonymous No.7267852]

>>7267509
Why does a lack of celebrities mean we shouldn't care? Why do Euros only care about celebrities when they talk about ideas?
>mfw analysis allows you to understand concepts/look upon ideas in a more authentic way than Continental philosophy, the actual descendant of Platonism, does

[Anonymous No.7267853]

>>7267440
If you read the Bible you'll see that it;s only with gentle Jesus meek and mild that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced

[Anonymous No.7267892]

Aristotle is very narrow-minded in logic. And all the rationalists, scientists or not, still cannot connect today their inferences with the empirical world.

>The Nyaya school of philosophical speculation is based on texts known as the Nyaya Sutras, which were written by Gotama in around the 2nd century CE. The most important contribution made by the Nyaya school to modern Hindu thought is its methodology. This methodology is based on a system of logic that has subsequently been adopted by most of the other Indian schools (orthodox or not), much in the same way that Western philosophy can be said to be largely based on Aristotelian logic.

>Followers of Nyaya believed that obtaining valid knowledge was the only way to obtain release from suffering. They therefore took great pains to identify valid sources of knowledge and to distinguish these from mere false opinions. According to the Nyaya school, there are exactly four sources of knowledge (pramanas): perception, inference, comparison and testimony. Knowledge obtained through each of these can, of course, still be either valid or invalid. As a result, Nyaya scholars again went to great pains to identify, in each case, what it took to make knowledge valid, in the process creating a number of explanatory schemes. In this sense, Nyaya is probably the closest Indian equivalent to contemporary analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7268095]

>>7267892
>And all the rationalists, scientists or not, still cannot connect today their inferences with the empirical world.
What the fuck are you talking about? Why do you spam this shit in every thread where someone mentions logic? You don't know what empiricism or rationalism are. You're retarded. That comic is even more retarded than you are.

#SpreadTheWordToEndTheWord

[Anonymous No.7268129]

>>7267538
it actually was only just gaining an empirical component while freud was alive. idk how his theories can be considered pseudo-psychology when that was the only type of psychology at the time

[Anonymous No.7268594]

>>7265437
What would be better?

[Anonymous No.7268617]

>>7264594
this

[Anonymous No.7268638]

>>7265166
>Foucault - fuck historicism. behind everything unbearable in academia right now.
Oooh, care to elaborate? I'm intrigued b your hatred.

[Anonymous No.7269553]

>>7264600
How did this shit become a meme?

[Anonymous No.7269929]

>>7264443
Hans Kelsen.
Law went to shit after Kelsen.

[Anonymous No.7269972]

>>7264726

For some reason the academia has an issue with white people hinting at the spiritual.

[Anonymous No.7269980]

>>7264719
>Keynes was almost entirely right. Von Mises, Rothbard, and the like are the people who truly embarrassed and set back the discipline, anyone who has studied economics beyond scanning Wikipedia entries can tell you that.

>anyone who believes in massive government spending and the welfare state is right

[Anonymous No.7269981]

>>7265218
The economy is better because that guy is receiving income and now has purchasing power to increase aggregate demand. Are you triggered?

Of course, ideally, he would be doing something productive, but the whole point is that just having money to spend is better than nothing, productive work or no.

[Anonymous No.7269982]

>>7267853
>minor transgressions

try to understand christian theology a little better before you make such an ignorant claim you fucking toad of a human being

[Anonymous No.7270007]

>>7269981

and where does the money that pays him come from?

the taxpayer, who now has less of his own money to spend, since he's also footing the bill for bureaucratic waste in the redistribution program

thanks for playing

[Anonymous No.7270028]

>>7270007
Assume deficit spending, but if you have to assume Ricardan-Barro equivalence (a concept literally no economist believes in any more, but I'll humor you) just a transfer of income from the highest end of the income spectrum to the lowest (where this guy clearly is) increases demand due to the higher marginal propensity to consume

[Anonymous No.7270047]

>>7270028

It's the 'transferring' that is the whole problem. In the first place, taxes discourage people from being as productive as they could be, since working harder at a more lucrative occupation inevitably makes one's tax liability heavier. I'd rather work to earn 60K and pay no taxes than work to make 85K and pay 25K in taxes.

In the second place, you have to factor in the bureaucratic inefficiency of that transfer. A government middleman has to be compensated in this process. That is waste.

[Anonymous No.7270057]

>>7268594
wwww.historyofphilosophy.net

Listen to all the podcasts and read, say, as little as 10% percent of the references listed, and you'll have made a great deal of progress in your understanding of philoosophy.

[Anonymous No.7270065]

>>7270047
Then fight the waste! Just don't fight the basic principles and jobs programs that benefit everyone due to the increased spending.

[Anonymous No.7270107]

>>7270047
>I'd rather work to earn 60K and pay no taxes than work to make 85K and pay 25K in taxes.

...why?

[Anonymous No.7270130]

>>7264726
A man for whom everything is about le quirky sexual perversion of le social insecurity is assured of being more listened to than a psychiatrist talking about alchemy, the theory of knowledge and Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.7270135]

>>7264443
Abhinavagupta
Nicola Abbagnano
Dante Alighieri
Han Feizi
Ian Hacking
Sir William Hamilton
Nagarjuna
Arne Næss
Martha Nussbaum
Ernest Nagel
Iamblichus
Solomon Ibn Gabirol
James of Viterbo
Oswald Külpe
Henry James Sr
Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev
Calcidius
Étienne Bonnot de Condillac
Nikolai Chernyshevsky
Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten

[Anonymous No.7270170]

>>7266612
Le Corbusier was rather good as a home architect, which he should have done all his life.
He went full retard the day he wanted to do something else. His urbanism is god-awful and borderline insane.

[Anonymous No.7270413]

>>7269929
What was Kelsen on about again?

[Anonymous No.7270417]

>>7264719
this man knows

[Anonymous No.7270433]

>>7265218
triggered

[Anonymous No.7270437]

>>7270135
literally who: the people

[Anonymous No.7270516]

>>7267495
Holy shit you're retarded

[Anonymous No.7270543]

>>7269982
Merely looking at another woman in lust while you're married is a minor transgression, yet to Jesus you've committed adultery.

[Anonymous No.7270544]

>>7270413
In layman's terms. He tried to make law into a serious science, distancing it from morality. He wanted it to be "pure" and "free from ideology". It was during the positivist era in which everyone not working in STEM felt insecure as fuck.

Some argue it was the groundwork for the Nazi and USSR conceptions of the state. In clear contrast with the naturalist view of the law that existed in most of the Scottish-Enlightment influenced countries, in which a sense of morality is behind the making and following of every law.

[Anonymous No.7270938]

>>7265195
>Underrated post.
Also Bernoulli, fluid dynamics.

[Anonymous No.7270978]

>>7267853
>it's 2015 ppl
>believing Matthew Levi's accounts

[Anonymous No.7271007]

>>7264443

Open question to the thread: please translate the quotation at the bottom of the plaque, repeated by the first replier >>7264474 .

[Anonymous No.7272039]

>>7271007
There is no right life in the wrong one?

[Anonymous No.7272076]

>>7264804
>I also have an economics degree, not as though your education makes your opinions automatically correct

What a farce. The only reason you would have to advertise this to exactly assert your authority on the subject.

[Anonymous No.7272079]

>>7266612
I hate modern architecture so fucking much

[Anonymous No.7272094]

>>7265406
My college doesn't teach a single of those things.

[Anonymous No.7272105]

>>7272079
Modern architecture gave us wonderful buildings. Don't get wrong, you're looking at the top 5% of what was built in the past and there are thousands and thousands of disgusting constructions.

[Anonymous No.7272123]

>>7267477

Aristotle fucked up natural science for millennia.

[Anonymous No.7272126]

Lacan was a pretty regrettable figure in the history of psychoanalysis in that he lends so much credibility to the claim that it's all witch-doctory nonsense.

[Anonymous No.7272157]

>>7272123
>fucked up
What was there to fuck up, other than the Sophists and Plato's corpus, which is completely barren of empirically testable hypotheses? You realize that science qua a way of gathering knowledge and science qua an institution, right? Aristotle didn't even do that directly, people endorsing his ideas did, and even then, what you're saying simply isn't true, because there was no real science to hold back. Aristotle was the original empiricists, you fucking dunce.
Fuck. People like you make me sick.

[Anonymous No.7272166]

>>7266612
Don't think it's worth making a separate thread for this so i'l just ask here.

Can someone recommend me a good introductory book about the history of architecture?

[Anonymous No.7272173]

>>7267532
People noticed that long before him though
>>7267477
"Women are deformed men xd"

[Anonymous No.7272183]

>>7270437
Take the first name from each person to understand it

[Anonymous No.7272697]

>>7270544
While Kelsen was indeed a hack, he received the most thorough btfo ever by based Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.7272707]

>>7264443
Nietzsche on philology.

It took like 2 or 3 generations of classcists to forget his apollonian/dyonisian distinction and actually deal with the texts again.

[Anonymous No.7272732]

>>7264443
Hotheads are trying to push baneposting back by 3 years.

[Anonymous No.7272740]

>>7270047
The average worker wouldn't mind paying more taxes if he made more money.

[Anonymous No.7272928]

>>7272039
There is no right life amidst wrongs.

[Anonymous No.7272977]

>>7264693
would have been nothing without hegel.
gotta kill the head vampire

[Anonymous No.7272996]

>>7267467
>"Did I mention how much I hate Jazz yet?"

[Anonymous No.7273711]

>>7272697
ill look into it

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.7273721]

>>7264594
>all the Greeks
u trippin m8

>>7264661
>if you think jews turned to smoke is not Reason gaining consciousness of itself towards its realization as Idea you are literally JEWISH

[Anonymous No.7274094]

>>7266612
I personally find his style bland, grating on the eye, and simply unpleasant to be near. The Carpenter Centre in Massachusetts, I think, is his masterpiece of filth.

[Anonymous No.7274704]

>>7265406
This is 100% false. Not a single person from the Frankfurt School was Jewish, because real Jews who adhere to Jewish Law are wise enough to know why Leftism was evil. Likewise, we do not allow anyone to study the Kabbalah until they're married and have studied Talmud for over 20 years because they run the risk of using such knowledge for evil, as Benjamin did. But Benjamin was NOT Jewish. Real Jews do not promote communism, obscene literature or obscene art, as he did. He was a pagan. Everyone else from the Frankfurt School was an atheist. Real Jews do not spread lies that capitalism, the family and religion are evil. So please don't refer to Critical Theory or Cultural Marxism as the products of "Jews" when no real Jew would promote anything of the sort.

Shabbat shalom.

[Anonymous No.7274731]

>>7270437
>Dante Alighieri

[Anonymous No.7275361]

David K Lewis (and by extension the rest of the modal clique)
John Searle (got wrecked by Derrida. by DERRIDA. THINK about that.)
Christine Korsgaard (I would push her to stop the train)
Derek Parfit (the triple theory is garbage)
W V O Quine (the second chapter of word & object set off all the linguistic relativists and U CAN'T KNO!!!1 fucks that now plague the philosophy of language)
Richard Rorty (contributed nothing whatsoever to philosophy in and of himself, had an output similar in quality to the later bertrand russell: aka none)
Paul Feyerabend (HURRDURR EPISTEMOLOGICAL ANARCHY SCIENCE CUD BE DUN BY MAGIC WANDS U JUST HAVIN TESTED IT YET)
Charles Taylor (hardcore communitarianism slowly undoing the whole of the enlightenment)
Jurgen Habermas (no original contributions, empty attempts at broad synthesis in each and every one of his works, can't go a paragraph without making sweeping generalizations about at least 3 other figures who's ideas he tries to knit into his garbage patchwork)
Parmenides (U CAN'T SPEEK OF NOTHINGNESS!!!! set us back maybe a thousand years)

[Anonymous No.7275382]

>>7275361
>Parmenides (U CAN'T SPEEK OF NOTHINGNESS!!!! set us back maybe a thousand years)
nothing wrong with this.

[Anonymous No.7275410]

>>7264884
>Doesn't read actual present day academic philosophy and thinks things like Zizek and Deleuze qualify.

No thanks. I don't want any.

[Anonymous No.7275470]

>>7275361
that's some major rekage
who do you like?

[Anonymous No.7275492]

>>7267507

Which essay are you talking about? Could you give me the title/link so that I can read it?

I'm completely alien to Freud's works and never bothered with them because of all the terrible theories.

Could you please point me to which essay you're talking about? (He wrote quite a few apparently)

[Anonymous No.7275515]

>>7264594

[Anonymous No.7275873]

>>7269980
>Monetarists

Abandoned by the left and the right these days. Friedman occasionally gets lip service but nobody in America promotes his policies anymore.

[Anonymous No.7275993]

>>7266606
Pyschology is generally taught as a science now so the likes of Frued wouldn't have a place. You'd get a good bit of Frued studying literature or film though.

[Anonymous No.7276724]

>Lenin

[Anonymous No.7277397]

>>7264804
>The only reason Keynesian economics is so popular, isn't because it's true, but because it gives governments a big pat on the back and says "keep up the good work"

Explain all the pro-cyclical fiscal policy in the entire developed world. If Congress and the EU listened to Keynes we'd be soooo much better off.

[Anonymous No.7277433]

>>7269980
> massive government spending doesn't raise aggregate demand
> wages aren't sticky

[Anonymous No.7277439]

>>7270007
The government creates money when it spends. The whole point is to push more money into the economy when it doesn't have enough.

The US can literally spend as much as it wants. There is no constraint and they don't have to borrow it first. Treasuries are just book keeping after the fact and super helpful for the financial system.

[Anonymous No.7279340]

>>7275470
Mark Wilson and that's it.
Wandering Significance is the only good philosophy text published since PI in '51

[Anonymous No.7279662]

Boton is perfectly fine. he doesn't try to be anything he isn't. stop being so fucking snob.

[Anonymous No.7279667]

>>7264443

[Anonymous No.7279753]

>>7277439
this is correct but I didn't want to go into that whole thing so I gave the "assume Ricardan equivalence" answer. good work taking up the MMT fight though

[Anonymous No.7279766]

>>7277439
this is what fucking retards actually believe. lmao.

[Anonymous No.7279779]

>>7275873
Surely you've heard of charter schools and military contractors, right?

[Anonymous No.7279817]

>>7272105
Some of the neo-futurist stuff that's been built like the city of arts and sciences in Valencia is actually pretty cool aesthetically but most of modern architecture is trash.

[Anonymous No.7279839]

has freud been mentioned? I hope he has been mentioned.

[Anonymous No.7279848]

>>7264726
Because Jung has a name that sounds like it belongs on a chink.

[Anonymous No.7279850]

>>7279839
oh good this thread makes me a happy boy

[Anonymous No.7279851]

>>7279667
The pulp field?

[Anonymous No.7279852]

>>7279839

>invents a field
>sets it back by decades

(!)

[Anonymous No.7279946]

>>7270543
>Look at woman
>Lust after woman
>Sexify woman

Jesus was just teaching to be careful of what causes sin in the first place.

It'd be like your pal warning you that it's a bad idea to hang out at some girl's house while you're in a relationship even though you promise nothing will happen.

[Anonymous No.7280043]

>>7270135
>whenyouseeit.jpeg