/lit/ - Literature

>he fell for it
you're in for it now.

Stop reading French theorists. They are verbose windbags who try to spin an eclectic yarn to justify their innate prejudices(usually materialistic sensuality) - they cite as only a means to elevate their work and heir esteem but it never pertains to what the hell they are talking about - it has been this way since Montaigne. That retard wrote hundreds of essays and distorted the teachings of the ancients to conclude that he likes pleasure and his stomach hurts.
Don’t read the french.

>>18692167
There is nothing to understand. Your brain is fighting but you keep trying to kill it. The good news is that there is a type of slime mold that's brainless yet more intelligent than you.

>>18692191
> They are verbose windbags who try to spin an eclectic yarn to justify their innate prejudices
that's just your own fantasy that you're using to discredit someone to further your own innate prejudices.

>>18692205
>innate prejudices
No, just a cultivated one through actually reading them. You’re welcome to compare them to any other tradition
And see the difference.

>>18692216
>my prejudices = good, their prejudices = bad
I kneel at this masterful reasoning... France will never recover..

>>18692191
Ive never seen someone filtered this hard

>>18692221
It’s more about the methodology of justifying judgement. As I say, compare them to literally anyone else and you will notice the difference. The Germans, English and American theorists do not write like that - even when they cover the same territory.
Your comprehension is so poor, should I perhaps quote a TV commercial and link it to the Lacanian notion of the recognition of the I in the mirror?
Tony the Tiger you see, feels great and his smile is my smile the recognition of myself in the tiger allows my racism to tear through the flesh of the Arab and of course the cornflakes are the markets way of keep this behaviour in the guise of a bourgeois morality. You see it for us to smash the mirror and not recognise the I in the cereal mascot. It is for us to open the legs of a beautiful proletariat women and revolution the world with the cracking of a boiled egg. Organic, free. Like the world would be if you listened to my rhapsodic chain of anecdotes; looking at my black and white portrait on the back cover. I smoked two packs a day.
You understand now?

>>18692270
wow, that was beautiful. You must send this to all the french journals, they will publish you immediately Monsieur Sokal

>>18692191
based

>>18692191
Damn, did you get PTSD from getting filtered this hard?

>>18692167
Read Deleuze's "Nietzsche & Philosophy" and a few other of his early books. Anti-Oedipus in particular is one huge meme, but it is understandable if you are familiar with Deleuze beforehand.

>>18692191
>distorted the teachings of the ancients to conclude that he likes pleasure and his stomach hurts.
Sounds good thanks for the rec anon

>>18692191
Finally someone who realizes the deal with Montaigne

>>18692167
Second part is even better, you're in for a treat. Most philosophy is hard for me to read because it's so dry and abstract even if the ideas are interesting but Deleuze and Guattari are just fun to read.

>>18692191
wow, this some excellent bait

>>18692270
kek are you the retard who tried to do this in that Baudrillard thread too?

>>18693666
Not the guy but Baudrillard is markedly different from people like Deleauze. He and Marcuse are similar in that way in that as names they get lumped in with contemporaneous actually left leaning theorists from the same area but in reality their positions are quite easy adapted in non-politically motivated ways and thus can be used by academics in other areas who are not concerned with politics as well as liberals or even right wingers who are.

>>18692191
Maybe if you weren't so pregnant with the Sears-Roebuck catalog you could stomach real philosophy.

>>18693703
>can be used by academics in other areas
Deleuze is by far one of the most overused theorists outside of philosophy departments, from film studies to music theory

>>18693743
Guy wrote two whole books about kino I think he's at least as qualified as anyone else with a professorship.

>>18693743
I think my argument still holds, the systematicity of Baudrillard and Marcuse (hell even other contemporaneous German and French theorists) lends them to deep application in study of different cultural phenomena or politics respectively. Deleuze cultivates an extension of the same quasi-aphoristic style of someone like Nietzsche, leading to the potential for a wider yet shallower range of application.

>>18693754
And Baudrillard wrote beautifully about obesity, never once seem him referenced in nutritional journals

>>18693765
That's because nutritionists have poor taste.

>>18693763
>Baudrillard
>systematic
He literally designed his writing to be non systematic

>>18693763
What about someone like Henri Lefebvre (consider also his influence on Sartre) or Guy Debord? I would argue that their work(s) are completely worthless, yet anti-urbanites eat that shit up, they certainly have a systematicity that young Lukács could/would appreciate.

>>18692167
you're getting there

>>18692191
SPBP. Imagine wasting your time with a tome of gibberish written to justify free sex. At least it's interesting as a prose experiment.

>>18692183
>Tsukihi
based.

>>18693722
>you could stomach real philosophy.
muh oppression
muh ebil gabitalism
muh thirdies
fuck off globohomo, fr*nch fags like him is why yaldabaoth is ruling supreme, I wish the ride to end
>meds
no

>>18693722
>implying Baudrillard the Germanist would want you to read any French other than Baudelaire

>>18695462
You've not read a book since grammar school. Why are you here instead of at Burger King?

>>18695568
cringe cope

>>18695624
You're the schizo who thinks capital and the demiurge of gnosticism are opposed. Didn't your high priest just launch himself into space by quantifying your libidinal energy?

>>18692191
Every now and then there's some decent analyses but most of it is verbose circlejerking drivel

>>18695637
Okay, I am going to be frank. I am not the schizo you are talking about, I don't usually post, probably for the better lol. Anyway, one can always see pictures of these French philosophers with the same old bullshit I listed. Yeah capitalism sucks, yeah poverty sucks, sure. One gets tired of this impotent repetition, I mean, not a single one of us is going to change anything in this fucked up world, the top 0.01 are more powerful than any God, aren't they?
Guess I shouldn't have used gigacringe /pol/ words like "globohomo" and "thirdies".
>quantifying your libidinal energy
Does even this have any meaning? Anyway, thanks anon, you made me feel embarrased, which is good cause I am ignorant and got to know these philosophers just by annoying memes, which I probably misunderstood.

Thx for reading my sad blog.

>>18695694
You really ought to read a fucking book lol. Everyone here shrieking about the evil pomos who ruined society or something is almost 40 years late. Guys like Baudrillard were largely describing the very things you are now complaining about. The were the last development of marxist scholasticism, ie mostly the rejection of it, which is how scholasticism ends. Any marxists still around today are just decaying echoes, ignoring the pomos as much as you are. But you've missed out on that in assuming all intellectual developments are just a movement left.

>>18695694
Ah but to the other point, Bezos has made billions off farming people's desires and creating the world's largest supermarket which yells at you what to buy as you walk in, based on everything you've ever wanted before. There is no desire Amazon will not sell you, and it has enabled him to buy a rocket to space to leave behind the gnostic Matrix-tier soul farm

>>18695724
>Guys like Baudrillard were largely describing the very things you are now complaining about.
huh, neat
>You really ought to read a fucking book lol.
yeah, there may yet be hope for a retard like me, thanks anon, seriously

>>18695741
Thankfully he can't really escape this soul farm, can he. Wish Kim had a test of some sorts and shot down the asshole, but nothing would change. The memes would be bomb tho

>>18695762
The amazon rocket was an enormous phallus. And I don't mean that in the sense that every rocket is a benism i mean it's got a flared tip and everything. I'm sure there's plenty of memes to go around.

>>18695694
>>quantifying your libidinal energy
>Does even this have any meaning?
those aren't even difficult words to understand anon

>>18692191
oh please, being and nothingness was a concise and well though out essay on existentialism.

ha

>>18692167
Deleuze is honestly the definition of a professor philosopher - ignore him entirely. Foucault is the same but in the opposite direction. Bourdieu is the same.

It all boils down to trying to resolve the following:
1) Materialist Darwinianism
2) Scinetific truth as being a product of social positioning and power
3) The relativism of 1 due to 2.

Essentially, servivability is dependent on the current power structures and not based in fact. This is obviously silly. There is scientific truth without scientific governing bodies in the same way you don't need publishing houses for there to be writing. Essentially, these critical theorists are nothing more than explaining why capitalism has dominated the world and can still be unenjoyable. Basically, they didn't want to look society in the face - it's a hyperorganism that has rules from us and outside of us, but even what's from us is really from outside of us. They didn't connect the last bit - i.e. the position of toilets relates to our biology, not to power structures. Ignore them all and read Christian critical theorists like Baudrillard, Ellul, and McLuhan.

>>18697356
>Deleuze
>relativism

>>18697356
>Christian critical theorists like Baudrillard
Not yours, christer.

>>18697356
Beyond retarded. Deleuze never forcefully connects 1 and 2, they exist as separate facts. They are only interconnected because everything is to some extent.

>the position of toilets relates to our biology, not to power structures
*sniffs at you in Slovenian*

>>18697412
I genuinely think there's an argument to be made that he was gnostic