/lit/ - Literature

How many pop philosophers talk bullshit and know that they talk bullshit but they also know how they need to play the game in order to make a buck or two?

I mean, it's easy to construct a sentence that makes sense, just say something like:

"Hegel said that [quote here] and it can explain the situation we are in right now."

"People think [put something that people think here], but it's quite the opposite, like [quote philosopher here] already explained years ago."

I don't get it. What's the appeal? Are people just searching for someone who's eloquent enough to form a coherent thought so they can point at him and say "It's exactly like he said."

I don't want to attach the image of that other charlatan, so I also mean this charlatan, and every other charlatan.

>>12469855

who would win in a fight? i'd vote zizek, even though he has the beetus he has broad shoulders and could probably manhandle memerson

he is also a soulless marxist so he wouldn't hesitate to fight dirty

Be honest with yourself: he's smarter than you.

>pure ideology
>spooky
>postmodernism

Could we rangeban anyone who says these? Thanks

you're posting on it

>7-page essay and a exam covering over 200 pages of shit I haven't read at all due tomorrow
>I'm shitposting on 4chan instead of studying

any books about extreme procrastination?

Since when has he been such a pragmatist? This is insane

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/794232437337247744