/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17325807]

ITT: people who were right about everything but who were strawmanned and misunderstood by later people who engaged with their ideas

[Anonymous No.17325843]

[Anonymous No.17325856]

[Anonymous No.17325862]

[Anonymous No.17325943]

[Anonymous No.17325947]

>>17325843
No
>>17325943
No
>>17325862
Literally who
>>17325856
No
>>17325807
Yes

[Anonymous No.17325948]

[Anonymous No.17325950]

>>17325807
The first English translations of This Spoke Zarathustra were terribly done, most of it was pure gobbledegook, and all of Nietzsche's plays on words were lost, so he was dismissed by most English speakers at the time, until later translations were done

[Anonymous No.17325957]

>>17325948
B A S E D
Only real niggas know who this man is.

[Anonymous No.17325959]

>>17325947
>t. retard.

[Anonymous No.17326039]

>>17325947
You don't know who Hayek is...
Do you at least know who Keynes is?
Or are you just that ignorant of 20th c. economic giants...

[Anonymous No.17326090]

>>17325843
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.17326103]

>>17325950
It hasn't changed in the important ways

[Anonymous No.17326104]

>>17325957
Who is he?

[Anonymous No.17326113]

>>17326104
Adolf Hitler

[Anonymous No.17326122]

>>17325947
This.

[Anonymous No.17326135]

[Anonymous No.17326140]

>>17325807
Spengler, Evola, Guenon, pretty much any of the ultra traditionalists of the 20th century have been super strawmanned since materialist liberals and marxists are incapable of understanding their worldview.

[Anonymous No.17326205]

>>17326140
true, I see it play out on /lit every day

[Anonymous No.17326241]

>>17326140
>Spengler, Evola, Guenon
the holy Trinity of pseudery

[Anonymous No.17326249]

Bonus: Spinoza, Bentham and Plato

[Anonymous No.17326255]

>>17326249
What is it that people don’t understand about Letterman?

[Anonymous No.17326258]

>>17326113
wait its actually true ahahahahah

[Anonymous No.17326268]

>>17326255
Oh to clarify, the pic is BF Skinner

[Anonymous No.17326287]

>>17325856
>Whole ideology was used and is still currently being used to suppress people's rights
>Caused millions to die
>Still causing millions to die

Okay.

Next time don't be a complete retard.

[Anonymous No.17326293]

>>17326287
You forgot to add it turns millions of rich 18 year olds into smug retards, convinced they’re proles.

[Anonymous No.17326414]

>>17325807

[Anonymous No.17326718]

>>17326255
Who's Letterman, the talk show guy?

[Anonymous No.17327000]

>>17326241
>t. faggot

[Anonymous No.17327006]

>>17326287
rights don't exist.

[Anonymous No.17327031]

>>17326140
Spengler's views on history and culture are radically opposed to the ones of Evola and Guénon, and that's what he's most known for. So how do you group the two?
Spengler wasn't an "ultra-traditionalist".

[Anonymous No.17327039]

>>17326287
>muh rights

[Anonymous No.17327086]

>>17327006
>>17327039
>NPCs who either think that there are no such thing as moral duties (implying complementary rights) or that something being a social institutions means it's a valueless illusion

[Anonymous No.17327154]

>>17327006
>>17327039
>Imagine denying yourself the freedoms you naturally have as an individual.
You aren't humans, you are bugs. You make yourselves voluntarily disposable to nation, state, or society. pathetic.

[Anonymous No.17327236]

>>17326287
>100 GORRILLION

[Anonymous No.17327247]

>>17327154
>>17327086
This is hilarious, because it was muh rights and gibs me dat philosophies which were used to justify neoliberalism and neoconservatism to the NPC masses. Freedom is not an end in itself, and freedom comes with responsibilities which many are unfit to take, freedom and democracy are not meant for everyone. The individual midwit who can’t recognize how animalistic his behavior, and his hives’ behavior is, is the real bug. What your philosophy ends with, is a cesspit like America.

[Anonymous No.17327284]

>>17327247
So what repressive authoritarian state are you in favor of, huh? Is it China or North Korea or maybe Nazi Germany? Maybe you want to return to Monarchism...doesn't matter, you're a bootlicker either way.

[Anonymous No.17327353]

>>17325807
Plato btfo'ed Parmenides pretty hard.

[Anonymous No.17327482]

>>17326287
>iphone vuvuzela 100 gorillion dead genocide
literally proving him right
>>17325862
nice bait

[Anonymous No.17327508]

>>17327482
Yes it's bait but it's also 100% serious.

[Anonymous No.17327699]

>>17327031
I just quickly lumped them together, he’s definitely an adjacent though.

[Anonymous No.17327706]

>>17326287
Rights don’t exist.

[Anonymous No.17328009]

>>17327284
What do you think they are repressing exactly? North Korea is retarded, Nazi Germany less so, but out of all of them, China has very strong points.
Would you rather have Capital in control of a nation or a nation in control of capital?
Unless if the masses are carefully selected and divided, instead of left rampant, democracy will be swiftly subverted into a plutocratic oligarchy that takes advantage of the “freed” masses for its own growth and keeps up the illusion of freedom.
Would you rather have the politicization and “freedom and democracy) for the masses of NPC which oligarchies (with only capital ad gravity, and power as its means) weaponize and solely benefit from, or would you rather have a systematized nation, with meritocratic societal allocation of power that takes into account the natural inequality among men, and with the national/party as gravity rather than capital?

[Anonymous No.17328228]

>>17328009
>t. tankie retard
It's honestly sad that you are this delusional.
The amount of mental gymnastics you have to go through to honestly think that China is a better society than ours. Sure we might be degenerate in some respects but we are freer.
General central planning is retarded and will never work. The Chinese realized this and switched to literal state capitalism disguised as socialism.
China has all of the worst aspects of capitalism (degeneracy, tiktok, comercialism, etc.) but none of the benefits!
China isn't even a meritocracy (like you said), it's an oligarchy.
The plebs might have to be subjected to Social Credit Scores (which don't represent anything but who's the best bugman), sure, but at the top the oligarchs are savagely fighting each other for power and Xi Jinping is winning, solidifying his position and culling the "corrupt" opposition (they might be corrupt but you have to be retarded to think Xi cares about that shit).
Honestly, do you really not value personal freedom at all? Would you rather live to worship some state and it's leaders?
Why are you on one of the freest sites on the surface web? why don't you fuck of to Weibo or some shit...

[Anonymous No.17328349]

>>17327508
You know
Of all the people listed in this thread, Hayek is the closest one to what the OP is asking for
I refuse to believe there's more than ten people alive right now who have engaged with any of Hayek's writings besides the road

[Anonymous No.17328421]

>>17328349
True desu
It's a shame too, he has a lot of interesting and legitimately revolutionary ideas.
Apparently his psychology (which he was really proud of) is starting to be studied more.
I remember that Pinker said something good about it.
I don't think too much of Pinker or even Psychology as a scientific field, lol, but I might actually check it out.

[Anonymous No.17329853]

>>17327508
libertarians are not only completely ignorant and oblivious to reality, they cant even comprehend what they are ignorant of

[Anonymous No.17330008]

>>17327353
>thinking that Plato understood Parmenides
ngmi

[Anonymous No.17330259]

>>17325807

[Anonymous No.17330709]

>>17326135
Who dat be

[Anonymous No.17330723]

>>17325862
based, Hayek (pbuh) is irrefutable

[Anonymous No.17331080]

The abandonment of Aristotle and its consequences have been a disaster for human race.

[Anonymous No.17331440]

>>17330008
Yes, he absolutely did, but he introduced nothingness into that Parmedian being as well.

[Anonymous No.17331446]

>>17330709
Thomas Carlyle.

[Anonymous No.17331879]

>>17325807

[Anonymous No.17331905]

>>17329853
Not an argument :)

[Anonymous No.17331922]

>>17330709
>>17331446
Mathematician, writer, philosopher.
I know him for his math, never read his works though. Apparently he was also racist as shit, and argued that England should BRING BACK slavery right after they got rid of it cause the people they formerly enslaved wouldn't do the work otherwise because they were naturally lazy lol.

[Anonymous No.17332163]

>>17325807
/lit/ love's to pretend to have read Schopenhauer. They strawman his philosophy constantly. Some skim his essay on women, but even that's a rarity on this board.

[Anonymous No.17332205]

>>17331905
It is though? Like it's a claim that can be contested and defended. You can argue that it's a shitty one, but it is an argument.

[hungryman !!5BI0oSV9uvS No.17332309]

>>17331080
Abandoned? Yes, because he requires a more careful reading than Plato and completely lacks the bells, whistles, and literary style.
Strawmanned? Only by Hobbes that I know of. Misunderstood? I only see people struggle with him on /lit/, and it’s usually the product of reading Wikipedia summaries of books they weren’t smart enough for/ weren’t ready for (both, actually).

[Anonymous No.17332330]

>>17331922
He was one of the most read men in the world during the 19th century, a great thinker, but that is often not quite seen in that all of his ideas and works are preceded through a literary or sometimes semi-fictional character, which rarely lays itself out beyond that descriptive character, so then in a sense Carlyle is removed from his ideas as seeming observer than creator; and has led to less and less mass recognition post-19th century, post-WW2, and in part because of the growing tide against his now highly unfashionable nature.

[Anonymous No.17332338]

>>17332309
They are not bells and whistles! Aristotle wrote in those 'bells and whistles,' for which we can only imagine and guess at its correct brilliance as is seen in Plato.

[Anonymous No.17332376]

>>17326140
This.

[Anonymous No.17332407]

>>17332309
>Strawmanned? Only by Hobbes that I know of.
He's strawmanned by practically every modern academic who writes about him.
>Misunderstood? I only see people struggle with him on /lit/
Aristotle was misunderstood by the same thinkers who are said to have btfo him. Read Feser.

[Anonymous No.17332424]

>>17332309
The thing about Aristotle is that some of the stuff he says is dead obvious to a modern audience. Take his theory of forms for example. Plato believed there was a place that held the perfect forms of everything. There was a perfect chair, a perfect shoe, etc. Aristotle took the more sensible view that a thing's form was comprised of its material composition and its shape.

Modern understanding of everything boils down to Aristotelian forms, not Platonic forms. Hell, we now even understand that materials can have different properties purely based on the shapes they take at the molecular level (eg metamaterials).

This and stuff like his assertion of syllogism are so obvious today, we take it completely for granted. So much so, you have absolute midwits like John Green claim he was of no value at all.

[Anonymous No.17332432]

>>17331879
this 1000 percent

[Anonymous No.17332436]

[Anonymous No.17332492]

>>17332424
Quite a few mathematicians are still Platonist though. If I remember correctly, Gödel was a complete Platonist and this, again IIRC, left Russell rather incredulous in their philosophical conversations together.
Oh and not that it matters but I'm a Platonist too :^)

[Anonymous No.17332527]

>>17332424
>Modern understanding of everything boils down to Aristotelian forms
(citation needed)

[Anonymous No.17332531]

>>17332436
Yeah, I heard some people complaining that his refutation was unjust but I'm not familiar with his work so idk.

[Anonymous No.17332562]

>>17332527
It was shorthand, but I'm saying that modern conception of "thinginess" is closer to Aristotelian forms than Platonic forms.

In the realm of AI, for example, we understand that "thinginess" is not an obvious quality. A lot of what we perceive as "things" are indiscernible to a neural network. In fact, so much of our world is defined in contradistinction to its usefulness to us: for example a rock can be a hammer if it is of a particular shape that we can hold. In all other respects, however, it is still a rock.

What's interesting about Aristotle's theory of forms is that it has perspective baked into it. By contrast, Plato believes in ideal forms-- a theory that starts to break down when you realize the aforementioned.

[Anonymous No.17332592]

>>17332424

[Anonymous No.17332886]

Mozi
Bergson
Vasubandhu
Bergson again
Crowley

[Anonymous No.17332936]

>>17332592
i kinda of agree with this photo, im obviously supposed to be for the guys on the left. I fuckin hate bill nye and he is an idiot on most things, but I agree with what he is saying here. To deny reality is to deny your own existence and thats something you can only pretend to do.

[Anonymous No.17333467]

>>17325807
bump

[Anonymous No.17333482]

>>17332886
>Bergson
>right
Bergson was BTFO by the incomparable Rene Geunon

>The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life— a veritable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age; and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?

>Be that as it may, one has the general impression that, in the present state of things, there is no longer any stability; but while there are some who sense the danger and try to react to it, most of our contemporaries are quite at ease amid this confusion, in which they see a kind of exteriorized image of their own mentality. Indeed there is an exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere ‘becoming’, leaving no place for the changeless and the permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this ‘becoming’, thus implicitly denying true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, namely transcendent and universal principles. One can go even further and say that it amounts to the negation of all real knowledge whatsoever, even of a relative order, since, as we have shown above, the relative is unintelligible and impossible without the absolute, the contingent without the necessary, change without the unchanging, and multiplicity without unity; ‘relativism’ is self-contradictory, for, in seeking to reduce everything to change, one logically arrives at a denial of the very existence of change; this was fundamentally the meaning of the famous arguments of Zeno of Elea

[Anonymous No.17333488]

>>17333482
>However, we have no wish to exaggerate and must add that theories such as these are not exclusively encountered in modern times; examples are to be found in Greek philosophy also, the ‘universal flux’ of Heraclitus being the best known; indeed, it was this that led the school of Elea to combat his conceptions, as well as those of the atomists, by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Even in India, something comparable can be found, though, of course, considered from a different point of view from that of philosophy, for Buddhism also developed a similar character, one of its essential theses being the ‘dissolubility of all things ’. These theories, however, were then no more than exceptions, and such revolts against the traditional outlook, which may well have occurred from time to time throughout the whole of the Kali-Yuga, were, when all is said and done, without wider influence; what is new is the general acceptance of such conceptions that we see in the West today.

>It should be noted too that under the influence of the very recent idea of ‘progress’, ‘philosophies of becoming’ have, in modern times, taken on a special form that theories of the same type never had among the ancients: this form, although it may have multiple varieties, can be covered in general by the name ‘evolutionism’. We need not repeat here what we have already said elsewhere on this subject; we will merely recall the point that any conception allowing for nothing other than ‘becoming’ is thereby necessarily a ‘naturalistic’ conception, and, as such, implies a formal denial of whatever lies beyond nature, in other words the realm of metaphysics— which is the realm of immutable and eternal principles. We may point out also, in speaking of these anti-metaphysical theories, that the Bergonian idea of ‘pure duration’ corresponds exactly with that dispersion in instantaneity to which we alluded above; a pretended intuition modeled on the ceaseless flux of the things of the senses, far from being able to serve as an instrument for obtaining true knowledge, represents in reality the dissolution of all possible knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17333493]

>>17332936
the problem is that its obviously an incredibly philosophically naive statement to ask if 'reality is real'
naive scientism usually just assumes some vaguely Aristotelian metaphysics and then considers metaphysics solved or irrelevant. The question the guys on the left are considering is what that 'real' might actually be structured like, and when you do you'll find the 'common sense' view the guys on the right assume is just as bizarre and contradictory as many others.

[Anonymous No.17333512]

I was more referring to Bachelard and Russel’/s critiques of Bergson. I do think Santayana had good points on Bergson tho.

[Anonymous No.17333566]

>>17332424
duuude, like, have you heard what Ari said about women, slaves and democracy. So not cool brooo

[Anonymous No.17333579]

>>17332492
True, Gödel was a full-blown Platonist, but in opposition to most of his peers. When analytics and mathematicians talk about platonism they usually use the lower-case version that just means that abstract mathematical objects exist independently.

[Anonymous No.17333599]

>>17326287
This has to be bait

[Anonymous No.17333605]

>>17326287
really cant post anything related to Marx on this site without some asshat getting getting their panties in a twist and immediately typing out the dumbest shit on the planet, its incredible

[Anonymous No.17333608]

>>17330259

The most based post in this thread

[Anonymous No.17333625]

>>17333608
Does anyone actually read these poolosophers?
I might eventually read them myself mostly because they were honestly really intelligent in math and logic and stuff but I don't personally find Eastern mysticism that interesting.

[Anonymous No.17333638]

>>17332562
>In the realm of AI
Oh fucking hell, check out this prick.

[Anonymous No.17333671]

>>17332936
They don't understand the subtleties. There's quite a big gap between Berkeley's idealism and people like Kant, Plato and Schopenhauer. Berkeley naively denies the existence of anything but the subject, while the latter ask under which conditions, why and in what form can something real be given to us objectively and what can we then say about what constitutes reality (whatever that may be). Materialism is just the other extreme where you too end up denying what is evidently there while ignoring the problem of intelligibility and ironically overstepping the boundaries of sense perception and reason. Ask Tyson if he thinks the galaxies he raves over are big in themselves and what bigness would constitute without him observing and thinking about them.

[Anonymous No.17333696]

>>17326140
Get rid of spengler and definitely put Guenon below Evola.