[ 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: 11 KB, 220x181, 220px-Deleuze.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3263436 No.3263436 [Reply] [Original]

Who is the worst philosopher of the 20th century?

Deleuze is my choice. Incoherent philosophy written in a needlessly complicated language to hide the fact that he really has nothing meaningful to say. The fact that he has any following at all really depresses me.

>> No.3263447

this thread is going to go well

>> No.3263467
File: 15 KB, 367x388, 1312291457832.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3263467

>>3263436
>nothing meaningful to say

>> No.3263489

Who

>> No.3263978

My pick would be Lacan, although Dennett is pretty terrible but that's nothing new.

>> No.3263988

Derrida. Definitely Derrida.

>> No.3263996

Oh, it's mai philosopherfu general time again. Guaranteed 300 replies on a board as fucking slow as this.

>> No.3263999

Camus.

Just kidding. Rand.

>> No.3264114

Frankfurt School big time. Terence McKenna made a living copying their delusions without attribution. Lacan is worse. Heidegger is precious because he wrote a whole book hilariously pretending to understand Nietzsche.

>> No.3264131

>>3264114
Heidegger is probably the best of Nietzsche's followers.

I would certainly choose Heidegger over any of Nietzsche's french post-structuralist "followers."

Frankfurt School is very overrated (except Benjamin but he wasn't really part of them).

What does McKenna steal from the Frankfurts? I thought he was all about encouraging people to do mushrooms. I don't see the connection.

>> No.3264134

Dunno about 20th century, but Zizek should be tied to a post and set on fire. Very possibly the most odious human being alive today, like a concentration of everything that was repellent in Hegel and Marx.

>> No.3264135
File: 32 KB, 400x400, 1342375003709.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3264135

>thread is about worst philosophers
>OP picks an incredibly famous one

>> No.3264137

I would say most of the canon of continental philosophers - Derrida, Deleuze, Kristeva, Lacan, etc. I'd exclude Foucault from this list because his work is actually good like Madness & Civilization and he's a weird blend of history, philosophy, and other things.

I would have to disagree with the hate for the Frankfurt school if we're including Walter Benjamin in that school.

And yes, Rand is atrocious and not even a good novelist. Sartre is also a lackluster novelist and never quite convinced me that you can be both an existentialist and a Marxist.

>> No.3264138

>>3264135
>any year after mid-1700
>hating someone nobody has heard or cares about

>> No.3264142

>>3264138
It would have been better to make a "philosophers I don't care for" thread instead of throwing around the "worst philosopher of the 20th century" title around all willy-nilly.

>> No.3264154

Bataille. Worst, but also best.

>> No.3264155

>>3263436

Deleuze was one of the best of the post-modernists along with Foucault, these two created the best interpratations of Nietzsche that actualy gave us some creative tools to question the estblished order of philosophy. I guess OP is mad because of his ignorance in continental philosophy.

>> No.3264164

>>3264155
I disagree. I think Deleuze did a lot of damage with his "Nietzsche is a leftist" interpretation.

I'm sympathetic towards Foucault's similar reading of Nietzsche only because I think Foucault has some substance going for him. The best parts of Deleuze were done better by Derrida.

>> No.3264201

>>3264131

Basically, all their main points. He just slides them in when talking about drugs. Don't trust anyone except me of course, everything is oppressive.

Heidegger pulls a "yes, but" on about every 3 lines of Nietzche. It's like he's saying little ritual banishing spells to prevent cognitive dissonance. A true follower of Nietzche would at the very least accurately predict something about his country. I haven't read all of Heidegger, so maybe I'm wrong. I'd say Nietzche would have liked Carl Jung a lot more.

>> No.3264210

And everyone please say why, please.

I'm especially interested in the hate for Lacan.

>> No.3264228
File: 89 KB, 425x375, 1353850221418.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3264228

>>3264142
Welcome to /lit/, where high school student and basement-dwelling neckbeard alike project their insecurities using broad absolute statements (I'm looking at you >>3264114 ) onto the greatest minds of history.

Their saving grace is their self-consciousness, sometimes irony. For the others there is no hope

>> No.3264240
File: 50 KB, 254x340, D&G.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3264240

>worst
>implying intrinsic value
>implying dialectic use-value isn't more important
>implying disagreeing or disliking makes them bad
>implying that you have any claim to challenge the historical processes that have led these philosophers to notoriety
>implying Deleuze isn't really fucking awesome

>> No.3264250

>>3264228
Thank you. I always forget that conformity to elitism is more important than individual expression.

>> No.3264263

>>3264250
Atta boy. Have a cookie.

>> No.3264264

>>3264154
Explain this? I just started reading him and find his work fascinating.

>> No.3264272

worst: Deleuze, Baudrillard, Sartre, Kojeve

most disingenuous: Derrida

best: Heidegger

>> No.3264276

>>3264272

>no frankfurters in the worst category

1/10 see me after class.

>> No.3264284

Nietzsche

>> No.3264285

ITT: analytic-fags just saying "Deleuze" or "Derrida" without giving any reason whatsoever

Nothing new here. Keep biting at the ankles of intellectual giants, retards.

>> No.3264289

>>3264284
>8edgy16u

>> No.3264291

>>3264289
(It's a joke because he died in 1900)

>> No.3264292

>>3264284

>> No.3264294

>>3264291
>16funny32u

>> No.3264299

Ayer sucks balls. Uppity, constipated motherfucker. Nice job with that verification principle that fails its own test.

But he saves himself with that whole confronting Mike Tyson thing.

The shittiest would obviously be some fag nobody has heard of, this thread is obviously just to spread hate and bullshit. In lieu of that, Levinas was a JEW so he can fuck right off. Sartre is annoying too.

>> No.3264312

Bertrand Russell

he is literally so retarded that even I can refute his arguments

>> No.3264329

>>3264312
Give us an example.

>> No.3264361

>>3264329

So he is basically a defendant of correspondence theory of truth, e.g. the Aristotelian notion of reality having an intrinsic quality, that for example the blackness of a black dildo is an intrinsic quality to the dildo and not dependent on us.

So then Russel is retarded enough to use an example from Shakespeare's Othello e.g. "Othello believes Desdemona loves Cassio". He claims Desdemona and Cassio and their possible relation of "love" is outside of Othello's control, thus has to correspond to something external of him.

But if you think about it, he uses fictional characters, which means even if they don't exist, we can still read the play, mentally construct them, and still make truth claims about them based on coherence and without corresponding to reality.

>> No.3264383

>>3264272
Agreed.
>>3264285
I don't understand how you can be a monist and embrace difference at the same time. Deleuze's philosophy does not make sense.

>> No.3264413

I'm actually shocked with all this hate for the Frankfurt School.
No one likes Jurgen Habermas?

>> No.3264416

>>3264272
Derrida really is disingenuous. Just read any debate he's had with anyone.

But his philosophy is not bad. The cult of deconstruction is bad stuff.

>> No.3264418

>>3264413
I quite like Habermas but he's like Benjamin in that he's not entirely part of the Frankfurt School.

But I'm not the Frankfurt hater.

>> No.3264424

I really don't find Deleuze's language that difficult. Am I just too far down the rabbit hole here or what?

>> No.3264429

Although he was born in the 19th century, by the time of his death at the beginning of the 20th century his influence started to catch ground. I am a course talking about NIETZSCHE.

NIETZSCHE holds a peculiar predicament as a philosopher. He is an odd philosopher because while he was really-really shitty at doing philosophy, he wasn't without saying a few clever things. And what is also odd, is how those philosophers he became a source of inspirations for have had always the inevitable task of becoming a NIETZSCHE apologist.

NIETZSCHE was a shitty philosopher, but even an fool can stumble upon a profound reflection of things.

>> No.3264431

>>3264285
>implying being an "intellectual giant" makes you a great philosopher
>implying you can use vague terms like "intellectual giant" without explaining how they are supposed giants
>implying you didn't just appeal to their authority
>implying herppidy fuckin' derppity doo da loo!

>> No.3264437

>>3264431
>implying I'm not just fuckin' high off my rocker tootaloo!

>> No.3264500

>>3264210
>not knowing why Lacan sucks
>French post-structuralist who tried to resuscitate Freud
>constantly abused language and rarely understood even the concepts he was trying to employ

You don't even have to disagree with postmodernism to see that Lacan didn't know shit.

>> No.3264502

>>3264500
correction:
>rarely even understood

>> No.3264518

Deleuze, Derrida, Lacan, Guattari, and all of their ilk. Miserable and worthless.

>> No.3264587

I think all of the /lit/izens and plebs out there would probably appreciate Derrida a little bitter with some help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w24A7k6NTGE

He's actually pretty brilliant, just a tad difficult to read at times.

http://www.derridathemovie.com/bio.html#decon

>> No.3264596

>Who is the worst philosopher of the 20th century?

Barry Langshanks, wihthout a doubt.

/thread

>> No.3264713

>>3264587
He's good, but definitely most disingenuous philosopher of the 20th century, possibly of all-time.

>> No.3264742

>>3264263

No thanks. I only eat French pastry.

>> No.3264769

>>3264587

I found that most of the vitriol that is spoken at Derrida is coming from a conservative tradition. It's a very politically charged anger, often filled with bigotry. Look how the Britfaggots refer to Derrida as being apart of that 'french disease'. Again, I think it's a remark coming from a conservative tradition. They find Derrida extremely dangerous, that why they lash out like they do.

>> No.3264773

>>3264769
well yeah lol the validity of their entire worldview hinges on him being wrong

>> No.3265040

>>3264769
I'm sympathetic to the continentals and do understand them but I'm also sympathetic to people who are just fed up with french po-mo.

The french really don't give a fuck about philosophy outside of France (except maybe some German shit) and they're certainly pretty arrogant when it comes down to promoting their philosophy. You have analytics/anglophones on one hand who dismiss "the french disease" outright (it doesn't help that none of them understand the math they use) and then you have the french post-structuralists who shape their entire work on dismissing non-french philosophy.

Sure, if Derrida is right it would invalidate a lot of philosophy but what if Derrida was wrong? If Derrida is wrong about the origins (or non-origins) of language, then there goes deconstruction.

>> No.3265175

>>3265040
>Sure, if Derrida is right it would invalidate a lot of philosophy but what if Derrida was wrong?

But that is just it, this kind of thinking that is really coming from a conservative tradition. I don't think Derrida was charging a definite orthodoxy, other than the claim that given how fleeting the orthodoxies we prescribe to the world, we must be willing to always keep the discourse open. The matter of right and wrong and which side your on reflects both a misunderstanding of what deconstructionism was attempting, and the hidden political motives that were at work. There seems to be a spirit that there MUST be an orthodoxy about things, we mustn't have any Aporia. There is this 'worry' (and a false one at that) that if we let Derrida in, who knows what filth would come straggling in behind. A statement completely divorced from understanding what Derrida was trying to get at.

>> No.3265214

All structuralist/poststructuralist philosophy is the same boring shit in reruns.

>> No.3265221

>>3265214

All attempts to band-aid it so far are even more boring and silly

>> No.3265508

>>3263436
>Who is the worst philosopher of the 20th century?

Chomsky, in his linguistics work. Because he pretends he's an actual scientist, and not a quackpot mad hatter. The worst part is that the American academic community falls for the ruse, the result being the utter destruction linguistic science in American academia. :(

Chomsky is the American version of Lysenko.

>> No.3266629

>>3265175
I really don't agree. Derrida is evangelical about deconstruction and his followers are as dogmatic as you can get.

If you read his debate with Searle, Derrida is not trying to "keep discourse open." He's so disingenuous in those debates. Every move he makes is to close down discourse and to arrogantly show off deconstruction is so much superior to Searle's naive positivism.

>> No.3266634

Deleuze is a fair pick.

Rand and Dennett are pretty awful but I don't think they're taken seriously within academia.

>> No.3266663

>>3265175
> I don't think Derrida was charging a definite orthodoxy, other than the claim that given how fleeting the orthodoxies we prescribe to the world, we must be willing to always keep the discourse open.

But this essentially forbids any kind of work being done philosophically or politically.

You sit around deepening your Aporias which only can only dismantle philosophical systems and discourage political action. And I really do not buy the slogan of late Derrida that all deconstruction is inherently political. It's not. It's apolitical. Derrida was using this to cover his ass.

I can tell you that the capitalist state is totally okay with academics sitting around in their linguistic aporias, never agreeing on any political system or mode of action.

>> No.3266671

What exactly is so bad about Deleuze? I'm just hearing his name thrown about, or at best someone saying generally that his language is complicated and that it says nothing.

What precisely is your issue with him and his thought?

>> No.3266673

All the post-modern mouth farters, most of which are mentioned in this very topic.

The reason is their complete and total ignorance of any hard science and math. I mean, there is not much wrong with ¨soft¨ sciences, but people like Zizek and Deleuze pretend that analytical sciences are just stories form a different perspective, when in fact, they are not.

Boeings fly, magic carpets don´t. Stupid Frenchie

>> No.3266686

>>3266671
> monism
> embracing difference

i seriously hope you don't buy this garbage

>> No.3266697

>>3266686

When I said 'precisely' I didn't mean 4chan bullshit.

Try again.

>> No.3266702

Ayn Rand. "Objectivism" - quoted because it isn't really objective - is nothing more than the rationalizing away of concepts "Objectivists" don't like under the guise of "Freedom", "Truth" and "Moral Clarity"

>> No.3266705

>>3266671

I read the first half of Difference and Repetition and decided it was a waste of time because there was not a single idea in that book that I hadn't encountered in a clearer, more coherent and consistent manner in the writings of Adorno.

>> No.3266720

>>3266673

If postmodernism is so ignorant, then why do advocates of the 'hard' Science fear it so much? Why even give it audience, if postmodernism isn't 'real' like the 'hard' Sciences.

What's really rustling those jimmies?

>> No.3266725
File: 66 KB, 334x479, 1352517313734.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3266725

>>3266720
I really don't think anyone fears the work of Derrida or Lacan or Deleuze.

French po-mo is utterly inconsequential. Hard scientists just want to remind people that these po-mos don't understand the math they're using.

Then the frenchies retort with "LOL WOW RUSTLED JIMMIES MUCH? WHY SO ANXIOUS? I MADE YOU MAD"

pic related, its french pomos

>> No.3266728

>>3266720
Good question bro.

Take the Sokal hoax. He did it once. If he actually treated it like an experiment, he would have kept his trap shut after his first success and attempted it elsewhere to establish repeatability. But he couldn't resist and published an attack that can be explained away by numerous factors including overworked or apathetic peer-reviewers.

Another example of STEM people not being scientific enough.

>> No.3266734

>>3266720
Why do post-modernists hate science so much and then insist on saying things like "the penis is equal to the square root of -1"

You can't just say that analytics/scientists are scared of post-modernism. It's a back and forth thing.

Both sides love to shit on each other and pretend like the other side is scared or stupid.

>> No.3266739

>>3266734
>Why do post-modernists hate science so much


citation needed.

>> No.3266740

Irigaray and Kristeva. They combine the worst features of marxism, feminazism, empty psychobabble, and the continental philosophical writing style into something truly pathetic that would be deserving of pity if only it were not so utterly disgusting.

>> No.3266741

>>3264769
I found that most of the people defending Derrida haven't bothered finding out where he plagiarized most of his ideas from, which is Borges.

>> No.3266751
File: 41 KB, 300x245, prefe3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3266751

>>3266741
Yep. It's really not an exaggeration. And it's amazing just how clear and concise Borges is in comparison.

Apparently they met at one point but I can't find out what they said to each other. I hope Borges gave him a verbal pimp slap.

>> No.3266762

>>3264429

Explain to me: How is Nietzsche bad at philosophy?
Maybe also: Who is good at philosophy? What does being good or bad at philosophy mean?

>> No.3266776

>>3266697
Deleuze's account of a difference that is not derived from identity is incoherent, and his analysis of history in Anti-Oedipus is 'utter idealism', criticizing reality for falling short of a non-existent ideal of schizophrenic becoming.

His theory of individuation as a process of bottomless differentiation fails to explain the unity of consciousness.

Deleuze's metaphilosophical approach makes it impossible to reasonably disagree with a philosophical system, and so destroys meaning, truth, and philosophy itself. You can summarize Deleuze's metaphilosophy thus: "When faced with a beautiful philosophical concept you should just sit back and admire it. You should not question it."

Go ahead, vindicate Deleuze.

>> No.3266795

Anybody in the West, best philosophers reside and are influenced by the Orient instead of attempting to anally organize and define all of recognized and imagined phenomena in a very fascist like way.

Nondualism for the gold.

>> No.3266834

>>3264429
How was Nietzsche a bad philosopher?

>> No.3266850

>>3266834
Didn't acknowledge the profound trans-historic truth of analytic philosophy as developed by Karl Popper and Eliezer Yudkowsky

>> No.3266853

>>3266834
How was Nietzsche a philosopher?

>> No.3266857

>>3266853
Oh, come now, any reasonable definition of the term "philosophy" as she is used would have to include the sorts of activities that Nietzsche did. He was a thinker and writer who engaged with philosophic issues in a philosophic manner.

>> No.3266930
File: 34 KB, 604x453, 1303470236644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3266930

>>3266850
>mfw

My appreciation for Yudkowski has increased significantly since I read his Harry Potter fanfic. It is fun and gives you a much better picture of life than I thought the likes of Yudkowski were capable of seeing (not to speak of expressing).

>> No.3267303

>>3266762
>>3266834

He did shitty research with shitty reasoning, and then covered the whole thing with indulgent writing.

What, you didn't catch that? It's pretty obvious.

>> No.3267318

>>3266857

No, he was a retard who ranted on paper. People just like to put more into NIETZSCHE than what he deserves.

He is the hero /lit/ deserves.

>> No.3267331

>>3267318
>>3267303
I dunno, "man." I get that Nietzsche was armchair philosophy but you're just being edgy calling him a retard. But I value Nietzsche more as literature and as an essayist (or aphorist) then as philosophy.

It's too well written to be philosophy.

He's more like Emerson, Whitman and Proust and Flaubert.

>> No.3267437

>>3267318
>>3267331

Nietzsche from the Birth of Tragedy to the Antichrist is strict philosophy with philosophical arguments (unlike Russel) against and in favour of various philosophies. Both of you show your ignorance in not actualy having read and understod Nietzsche. Zarathustra stands apart from the rest of his works since it is Heraclitian in nature as it is both poetics and philosophy. Anyone who claims that Nietzsche is only a literary figure is an idiot.

>> No.3267444

>ITT bad-mad analytics who get angry at stuff they don't understand.

At least its better and more relevant than anything Popper or Russel shit out.

>> No.3267453
File: 24 KB, 500x367, you dont read.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3267453

>>3267437
> Anyone who claims that Nietzsche is only a literary figure is an idiot.

You realize you're going against almost everything Harold Bloom has ever said?

I'll give you a chance to retract that statement before being laughed off the internet.

>> No.3267458

>>3267437
> aphorisms
> real philosophy

lol no sry dog

>> No.3267463

Oh man, the hate of Lacan makes me so sad.

>> No.3267481

>>3267453

Have you read anything Nietzsche has read?
The concept of the will to power, the refutation of nihilism, his defense of determinism and the eternal recurence are all philosophical concepts in both moral and metaphysical philosophy which is bounded by a philosophical tradition since the pre-socratics ( which Nietzsche uterly vindicates). Nietzsche is both a poet and philosopher and you can use both, or a single part. Zarathustra stands seperately because it is entirely in prose ( It is still philosophy though).

>>3267458

>Irattionalism
>You getting it

Pick one

>> No.3267495

>>3267463

Me too.
Let the ignorants live in their ignorance. Lacan was healer first and foremost. Better than any of those scientists doctors that feed people pills and lies. Id rather use his language and psychoanalysis to discus mental health rather than be bound by the dishonest discourse of modern psychology.

>> No.3267496

>>3267481
So is Emerson philosophy?

>> No.3267506

Foucault

>> No.3267512

>>3267496

If his ideas can be structured to formulate a philosophical string of arguments then yes. Is he a good philosopher I don't know i haven't read him. Is Ayn Rand a philosopher? Yes. Is she a good philosopher? No. The pure seperation of what is philosophy and what is not is easily broken. Late Heidegger used the poems of Holderlin to formulate his theory. Have I demonstrated enough to prove to you my point?

>> No.3267515
File: 56 KB, 600x393, Lits-Hero.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3267515

>>3267331
>>3267437

No, he was real retard. NIETZSCHE went ape shit bananas when he saw a lame horse get flogged.

NIETZSCHE is the hero /lit/ deserves.

>> No.3267529

>>3267515

whatever

>> No.3267531

>>3267331

>armchair philosophy

how dare you

>> No.3267535

>>3267331
>more as x then as y
>then

Kill yourself.

>> No.3267615

>>3267515

Nietzsche's defense of the horse is one of the greatest moments in history in terms of humanistic psychology. A man who preached advancing the self (reaching self actualization) and "no mercy for the weak" trying to aid a defenseless animal basically proves that there is an inherent human drive to be good.
That said, Rogers is a fucking retard, lolololol

>> No.3267643
File: 7 KB, 257x196, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3267643

>>3267615

He was a humanist in his own way, not in the way you imply. He was a tragic person and in his most desperate moment he showed a moving gesture, namely that Nietzsche the "Ubermensch" in his poetic existancen, is a being sensitive to even the slightest of things.
His tragedy was that he was too involved in life and too sensitive to its tragedies. In this way he was human all too human, but not in abstract and detached way humanists are.

>> No.3267801

>>3267615
>>3267643

these are examples of people putting more into Nietzsche than what is actually there

>> No.3267823

>>3267801

You are a different soul, I can understand that. But your dismisal of him tells nothing about what his philosophy is or what it tries to achieve. It is you that lacks content, not him and the burden of proof to disprove him falls to you. Don't say that there is nothing to disprove because that would really reveal that you haven't really read him.

>> No.3267830

>>3267823
Dismissing your interpretation isn't the same thing as dismissing Neitzsche.

>> No.3267843

>>3267830

My interpratation was not really divergent from what Nietzsche is trying to say in Zarathustra. That the Ubermensch is not a darwinist barbarian but a poet who in his expressed poetry literaly cannot stop enjoyng life. Hence the eternal return. I'm not putting forth a controversial analysis of Nietzsche, just read the four last chapters of Zarathustra to see my point.

>> No.3267848

>>3267843
I'm not that guy, but I just wouldn't call him a humanist if you're >>3267643

>> No.3267855
File: 97 KB, 625x689, 1349385034854.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3267855

>>3264137
>continental philosophers - Derrida, Deleuze, Kristeva, Lacan, etc

My face when I live in Continental Europe and lone of these are respected. I never even heard of Kristeva.

>> No.3267860

>>3267855
>living in continental Europe makes me a valid spokesperson for philosophy

>> No.3267863

>>3267860

hahaha, you're a funny guy.
So please enlighten me, what would make me a valid spokesman on an ANONYMOUS website

>> No.3267871

>>3267863
Same things as everywhere else. Being on an "ANONYMOUS website" doesn't change that, just the veracity of any claims.

>> No.3267873

>>3267871
>Same things as everywhere else

my huge dick?

>> No.3267876

>>3267873
Exactly.

>> No.3267881

Does continental philosophers mean all the philosophers from Europe between 19th and 20 century?

>> No.3267890

>>3267881
No. It means all the ones from continental Europe that Frege either didn't like or probably wouldn't like had he known about them.

>> No.3267892

>>3267890
Does continental Europe mean Europe - UK + Russia?

>> No.3267896

>>3267892
It'd be minus UK and Eire, don't know about Russia. It's mostly an Anglo thing though, and related to a particular set of disagreements with Husserl's philosophy.

>> No.3267938

>>3264361
you need to study more philosophy. your objection is undergrad level, and to think that russell wasn't aware of such a simple counter argument proves your naivete.

>> No.3267964

>>3267896
>It'd be minus UK and Eire

as if there are any Irish philosophers.

>> No.3268047
File: 58 KB, 480x583, Do-you-even-phi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3268047

>>3267823

>> No.3268086

>>3267964

>has never met an Irish person

>> No.3268100

>>3267964
wut

>> No.3268104
File: 25 KB, 235x300, irish_handsome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3268104

>>3268086

During six years in the British Army, I met more than I could ever have wanted, thanks. Ireland's lovely, it's just a shame we can't gas the place and then move some human beings in.

So who are all these paddy thinkers who've set the world alight with their ideas, anyway?

>> No.3268123

>>3268104
What a weird hegemonic whine.

>> No.3268129

Does philosophy actually solve any problems?

>> No.3268132

>>3268104
>this guy
I remember you

You can go now

>> No.3268134

>>3268104
Berkeley, Scotus, Burke.

It is true that compared to their literary output the Irish lack in philosophers. The thing to remember though is that the literary output is exceptional for the size of the population.

>> No.3268138

>>3268132
Or wait, don't go

You haven't said anything about potatoes yet

>> No.3268140

>>3268123
>>3268132

>can't even name one Irish philosopher.

Tell you what, I'll help you out - there's Boyle (even though he was really English).

And that's it. Ireland is entirely consistent of thick cunts.

>> No.3268146

>>3268140
Ahh I thought you were just an angry, sad person. Now I see you're a troll.

6/10

>> No.3268148

>>3268134

Nice saging there, m8

Prove that the Irish have a disproportionate number of authors. Compared to the French or the British, or even the Merryclaps I suspect it's a pretty small portion of the population.
>Micks.

>> No.3268162

>>3268146
You'd be angry and sad after six years of being pummelled in the arse by your commander.

>> No.3270444

>>3268162

I'm here from page 15, and I would like to know what you mean.

>> No.3270510

>>3266734
>hate science so much and then insist on saying things like "the penis is equal to the square root of -1"

Gee, I can't think of anything that an Imaginary number could be a metaphor for something that *Lacan* said. No-sir-ee-bob nothing to do with any triads or anything.

>> No.3270567

>>3270510

Are you on drugs?

>> No.3270573

>>3263436
lacan

>> No.3270585

>>3267463
>Lacan
He was a charlatan obsessed with dicks, and invented a whole philosophy about the symbolism of dicks.

You're the sad one.

>> No.3270634

>>3270585

And this is according to some kid on the internet so it must be absolutely correct, so shut the fuck up n00b.

>> No.3270637

>>3270585
>invented a whole philosophy about the symbolism of dicks.
Are you sure you're not talking about Freud?

>> No.3270646

>>3270637
>>3270637
Freud didn't talk about 'the phallus' 90% of the time.

>> No.3270673

>>3267515

Compassion of a saint.

>> No.3270688

How come all the arguments I see in this thread are just about taken directly from Wikipedia?

>> No.3270727

llelelelelel no

>confirmed for fully organed machine-brute slave laboring victim of glorious 9deepness

>> No.3270737

>>3270688

>why is /highschool/ still in /highschool/?

do you realize how stupid you sound?

>> No.3272717

>>3270688

This is a thread on a board that is on an imageboard site based off a Japanese imageboard site about anime. Why would you expect anything here to come from a position of being well reasoned? There is nothing, nor will there ever be anything, here that will rise above the connotations of a vulgar-funny-superficial-remark. Never for a moment think anybody here is really invested at trying to really argue something. This is a carnival for the ego and angst. This is entertainment for people who think other people are nothing more than a supply of amusement. Why would you expect a well read person to be here? What would be the incentive?

>> No.3272736

>>3272717

You haven't been here long enough, I'd say. It's only 99% shit.

>> No.3272742

>>3270510
It's not a metaphor you retard. At least try to read the things you're defending.

>> No.3272751

>>3270688

Are you asking why an encyclopedia might contain common arguments?

>> No.3272764

>>3272742
Commenting to remind myself to explain this when I'm back home.

>> No.3273459

>>3272751

I think it's more of an implication that the background knowledge of some philosophy discussions is very shallow, as in on Wikipedia deep.

>> No.3273521

>>3272742
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~plotnits/PDFs/ap%20lacan%20and%20math%20Plotnitsky%5B1%5D.pdf

Fuck you, 'it's not a metaphor.'

Maybe analogy is a better word, but essentially Lacan noticed that our conception of something (imaginary numbers) in mathematics was analogous to our conception of the phallus (which, for Lacan, is expressly nonequivalent to the penis). Someone more familiar with Lacan may clarify it better than me.

Obscurantist shit? Sure, I'll agree, but it's not intended to be mathematical.

>> No.3273536

>>3273521
I am about to paste a text of Lacan himself saying it's not a metaphor and meant literally.

Are you ready to have your butthole utterly ravaged, you ignorant fucking mongoloid?

http://www.math.tohoku.ac.jp/~kuroki/Sokal/bricmont/node3.html

BOOM

Here let me help you by quoting the relevant part, because I doubt your reading comprehension skills suffice to navigate an entire paragraph:

>It is not an analogy.

IT. IS. NOT. AN. ANALOGY.

IN HIS OWN WORDS

DO YOU FIND THE CONTENTS OF THAT SENTENCE CONFUSING YOU FUCKWIT?

Who in the name of jesus' penis is Arkady Plotnitsky and why are you linking him when the man himself made himself abundantly clear?

>> No.3273550

>>3273521
With Lacan the penis IS the phallus, but the phallus is not the penis. Lacanian psychology says the phallus is signification of a instigating spirit, or an aggregating desire to have power over something. It represents a need to thrust ones own wants onto another, or a cognition of wanting to penetrate into something else one own ambitions.

>> No.3273588

Out of honest curiosity, how many of you are in the kind of graduate programs (continental or analytic) where these things can be reasonably discussed?

That means I'm thinking more or less of about 20 programs in North America, and about 4 across all of Europe.

>> No.3273594

>>3273588
im a postdoc in europe, working on analytic philosophy. but i wont contribute to this thread haha

>> No.3273600

>>3273594
Thanks. Anyone else? I'm just curious to see how many of the participants in this discussion are coming from a position of professional philosophy and how many are engaged (to varying degrees, of course) enthusiasts but are not within the profession.

>> No.3273608

>>3273536
>2013
>still believing in authorital intent

>> No.3273628

>>3273600
In masters program with philosophy as my major and with a undergraduate degree in philosophy as well. Have not contributed to this thread.

>> No.3273645

>>3273608
>rejecting authorial intent
>Retard detected.

"Mommy, I don't understand the metaphors and themes."

"Thaks okay, honeypie, just look at the pictures."

>> No.3273724

>>3273600
I have a BA in phil.

I don't like lacan.

>> No.3273788

So far, it seems there is just one other person who has completed or has experience with philosophy as it is done professionally. BAs, MAs, do not count, unfortunately, since nobody will take you seriously until you have begun publishing--and that tends to begin when you're a PhD student.

To the rest of you: it's great that you have opinions and defend them about this or that figure, but please realise that this entire thread is meaningless. The original question is meaningless. A Cavellian would decimate a Randian would decimate a Heideggerian would decimate a Rawlsian...etc. You need to develop within a specific methodology or ideology (or a set of them) before you can even begin to toss out the kind of bald-faced criticisms I've read here.

But, it's a great start. I hope some of you get to continue it at the levels where it counts.

>> No.3273795

>>3273788
you're the reason people dislike academics

if philosophy means anything at all, it must be accessible and comprehensible and meaningful outside of the academy, or it's just a bunch of bullshit word games people play with each other because for some reason we've decided they can make a career out of doing so. if what you're saying is true and it's only possible to meaningfully know philosophy through an academic career in it, your entire fucking profession is worthless.

>> No.3273798

>>3273788
What if BA's get published in undergrad journals

>> No.3273811

Can we go with philosopher who's had the largest negative effect?

If so, I'd say Rand.

If not, I have no opinion on the matter.

>> No.3273816

I don't care for Kant's ethics but I hear a LOT of people say he's amazing.

Should I read his other stuff? What of his is important to read?

>> No.3273841

>>3273788
I don't think you need a PHD to tell that Lacan is rubbish.

>> No.3273849

>>3273795
>it's just a bunch of bullshit word games people play with each other
That's what it is, mostly, though.

>> No.3273857

>>3273816
He is necessary to know in order to understand what came after. You'd be well off just reading a summary of his philosophy. I read a book called an introduction to kant's philosophy, by Korner.

>> No.3273862

>>3273857
Thanks.

>> No.3273879

>>3273798
Sorry, but unless you went to Chicago/Princeton/other very well-known philosophy programs, then undergraduate journals tend to not matter much.

>>3273795
That is your opinion. I'm simply expressing mine from the perspective of the profession. *Doing* philosophy is a professional thing. It is done by professionals within certain professional standards. I am certainly not a fan of the idea that highly complex concepts (whether neuroscience, philosophy, or physics) must somehow be explained away to a lay, uninformed audience. Why? If they are interested, they are welcome to develop the training and professional vocabulary required by the field. Philosophy, much like the recently-valorised STEM fields, is extremely rigorous, requires many years of progressive training, and is certainly not for a lay audience.

>>3273841
But to provide a coherent account of why (in your opinion) he is "rubbish" would require the kind of systematic, rigorously-reasoned account that someone untrained in the professional language and conventions of the discipline is simply incapable of demonstrating.

>> No.3273892

>>3273879
Science is justifiable on the grounds that it extends empirically-verifiable knowledge and that it produces things which improve the world. If philosophy is inaccessible and irrelevant to anyone who is not academically trained in it - what's the fucking use of it? I mean, if it bears no relevance whatsoever to people outside of academia and isn't comprehensible to people who aren't highly-trained specialists, what justification is there for its continued existence as a field?

>> No.3273904

>>3273892
your ignorance is hurting me.

>> No.3273908

>>3273904
Oh no someone thinks I'm ignorant oh no

It's not that I think you're wrong, I just think that if you're right then philosophy is basically worthless

>> No.3273926

>>3273879
>*Doing* philosophy is a professional thing. It is done by professionals within certain professional standards
Lel. Analytic philosophy isn't real philosophy. You try and talk it up like its some kind of respectable field, but there is a reason no one outside it gives a shit about it, or even knows that it exists. It exists only as a cul de sac for thinking to go and stay in, to needlessly obsess over language and agonise over non-problems that have no real meaning outside their historical context.

>> No.3273941

>>3273879
>But to provide a coherent account of why (in your opinion) he is "rubbish" would require the kind of systematic, rigorously-reasoned account that someone untrained in the professional language and conventions of the discipline is simply incapable of demonstrating.

Afraid not. One does not need to formal/symbolic logic with 'air tight reasoning' to say why Lacan is rubbish. The main problem with you analytics is that you put all this effort into doing little more than stating your opinion with an excruciatingly painful amount of detail.

>> No.3273943

>>3273908
it doesnt matter what you think is worthless. because you dont matter. not at all. youll never contribute anything of value to academia and the pursuit of human knowledge. youll just sit there and try to feel superior to things you cannot understand.

>inb4 oh so arrogant elitist intellectualist fuck

yes i am.
deal with it.

>> No.3273944

>>3273892
Pleb. Philosophy isn't about utility.

>> No.3273948

>>3273788
This sounds like somebody is butthurt over someone else's statements and is trying to make a call to authority to negate them. You do realize asking for academia experience is pointless on an anonymous board? Perhaps you should:

a) ignore certain things or...

b) be willing to engage in an effort towards clarity.

If you have no real idea of other peoples background on a topic that you know about. It would be beneficial to make your points accessible by assuming only the most rudimentary understanding. One of the benefits is that you get to hear the argument before you here the speaker. Who knows you might hear something very interesting.

>> No.3273949

>>3273943
Ah. So anything that isn't part of formal academia is worthless, and you won't listen to anything outside of formal academia if they say it's not worthless, because as previously established it's worthless.

Philosophy, everybody!

>> No.3273961

>>3273949
where did i say those things?
maybe you should start of by learning to read properly.

>> No.3273964

>>3273948
I think he's that analytic faggot who pipes up all the time when moral nihilism is proven true.

>> No.3273976

>>3273964
barely anyone in contemporary analytic philosophy will say a word against irrealism in metaethics....

>> No.3273991

>>3273976
if you say so

>> No.3273995

>>3273991
yes fucker i say so and ive published in the field. ill got to sleep now haha

>> No.3274004

>>3273995
>MUH PUBLICATIONS MUH FUGGA

>> No.3274006

>>3273892
You have much to learn, padawang.

>>3273926
I don't recall saying I'm in analytic. However, either side has its criticisms--some valid, some less so. Both have contributed great things. Also, "analytic philosophy" isn't a field.

>>3273941
See above. In addition, I wasn't actually referring to the technical fetishisation that analytics love; I was simply referring to the general standards expected at the professional level.

>>3273948
>>3273949
Both of you need to first let go of the false notion that "academia" is somehow detached from "reality" or "real life" or [insert other stereotypical opposition]. Academia is, for academics, a career, a life's vocation, just as performance is for a performer, or writing is for a writer. There is no call to authority in insisting that someone establish their credentials before commenting on a specific subject; it's the basic standard for credibility. I have no reason to admit your position when you lack the basic groundwork to articulate that position.

>> No.3274031

>>3274006
Arbitrary standards. Anyone can critique Lacan how ever they want. No one said they want to publish their critiques in academic journals whose individual readerships could probably be counted on two hands.

And whether or not you consider 'analytic' a field is a moot point. It is what we call that kind of philosophy done in anglo saxon countries. Sage for your pompous ego inflationary faggotry.

>> No.3274032

>>3273645
Cut that inflammatory shit out.

>>3273536
Mind that I'm not all familiar with Lacan, or Topology, except in where the two words have in this one criticism intersected.

Have we so far conceded that the criticism falls through when we take it to be an analogy, for the reason that it then can't be considered in a scientific or mathematical context? I must then plead that it's being an analogy isn't the only condition in which we're able to divorce the terms and symbols from their mathematical context. It may be that Lacan did not intend to apply mathematical method to his concepts, but rather construct a structural symbology *inspired* by mathematics (inspiration as in the case of the square root of negative one is expounded on in Plotnitsky's paper, and it is that which we've so far taken for a sort of analogy). It's still well to consider that Lacan was constructing his topology and symbols in his context, which justifies him in saying that it's not an analogy between his construction and another, but rather his manifest symbology (where his constructed system is rigorously represented).

Of course, I could always be talking out of my ass.

>> No.3274056

>>3274031
Well, then, as long as you recognise that you wish to critique Lacan on an anonymous Internet imageboard--that's quite alright. Just don't expect it to be taken seriously.

Also, I did not say that *I* don't consider analytic philosophy a field. I said that it isn't a field. Because, you know, it isn't. There's a difference.

>> No.3274087

>>3273995

Please link to your publishing. If you're willing to cite them as support, then lets see them

>> No.3274101

>>3274056
You insufferable cunt. Nobody here gives a flying fuck about your publications.

>> No.3274112

>>3274101
We weren't talking about mine, though?

>> No.3274114

>>3274056
You seriously sound like you're a 20 year old undergrad yourself. We all know this is an imageboard. No one is pretending that its a serious place of learning. But on the other hand your remark about 'being taken seriously' is ridiculous. Where the fuck do you think you are?

>> No.3274116

>>3274112
journals

>> No.3274124

>>3274056
The autism is strong with this one.

>> No.3274173

>>3274114
What's amusing is that you (or others) are the only ones seemingly upset by my questions or statements.

I came across an initially-interesting thread that quickly devolved into amateur and often amusingly ignorant discussions of major figures, which made me ask how many of the participants here possessed any sort of significant training.

As it turned out, none did. That led to various allegations of appeals to authority (nein), elitism/arbitrary barriers to entry (nein), and so on. It's interesting how, for people claiming to be interested in or knowledgeable of philosophy, there is apparently negligible regard for the practices of the profession.

>> No.3274189

So basically, if anything, we should take from this thread seriously is

1) Nietzsche really is a shit-tier philosopher. He inspired a lot, but sucked at doing philosophy.

2) If Lacan can into maths, so can you. So, if you can't into maths, you can't philosophy

3) If you haven't been published, your argument is invalid. And 4chan post don't count.

>> No.3274295

>>3274173

I am a Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus. I taught at an Ivy League school as a department chair for 30 years--from 1978 to 2008. I still write, and occasionally partake in guest lectures. And from assessing all you posts, assuming a linkage of course, I can justly say this: WTF! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

>> No.3274335

>>3274295
"Cool story, Prof."

>> No.3274354

>>3274173
No, its that you came on to an 'anime image board' and puffed some hot air about people's opinions 'not being taken seriously' in the academic world and
>muh publications

Even though it was totally irrelevant, and just an excuse to say
>muh publications

You are quite transparent

>> No.3274374

>>3274295
>YOU"RE
>department chair for 30 years--from 1978

You were appointed department chair at 35, you stinking bourgeois cunt. You reek of the fish from all the eel fucking capital has given you. You are the attempt to use critique to produce THE. PUREST. IDEOLOGY. You are everything wrong with appointment structures, baby boomers, and the lack of proletarian trade unions in the American Academy. You make me sick and I am going to vomit up the arsehole of your first son and then give him GRIDS.

>> No.3274380

>>3274374
marxist plz go

>> No.3274427

>>3274335
How can you be sure it's just a story. What if--excusing the typos induced by some quenching libations--that post's author is telling the truth?

>>3274374
LOL, Are you that guy?

>> No.3274509

>>3263436
>Derrida
>/thread
>inb4 shitstorm

>> No.3274545

>>3274509
Wrong, the correct answer is Nietzsche.

>> No.3274558

>>3274545
Nietzsche isn't a philosopher.

>> No.3274561

>>3274427
>that guy
>12/23/12(Sun)17:42

We live in an age of gender performativity.

>> No.3274563

>>3274558
you aren't a nietzsche

>> No.3274804
File: 21 KB, 455x364, gender performativity.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3274804

>>3274561
>potatoe

>> No.3274809

>>3274804

He's right, though.

>> No.3274928

Deleuze and Lacan definitely.

>> No.3275031

>>3274809
He/she didn't present any truth tables. So it might as well be considered speculative fiction.

>> No.3275156

i was thinking about reading some philosophy and you guys have completely turned me off of it.

thanks

>> No.3275169
File: 51 KB, 256x256, reaper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3275169

satre.

Jesus Christ, how horrifying

>> No.3275180

I like how most of the philosophers named in this thread are french.

Rightfully so.

>> No.3275187

>>3264429

Nietsczhe was a brilliant philosopher even though he was more of what we today would call a psychologist.
Have you read his criticisms of Kant's notion of 'the thing in itself'? That is something no ordinary could have come up with.

>> No.3275219

>>3275187
He just says its a tautology.

wow so deep

>> No.3275250

>>3275219
>tautology

No, he doesn't. Have you even fucking read anything he has written?
Besides, it doesn't matter if it is deep or not, only wether or not his understanding is superior to the one of Kant's.

>> No.3275255

>>3275219

He says the opposite, you nigger.
Tautology: using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct
contradictio in adjecto: Contradictio in adjecto is Latin for "a contradiction in itself" or a "contradiction in terms

yeah its wiki but cba

>> No.3275310

>>3275250
>>3275255
Cool, thanks.

I haven't read what he's said about Kant and this was a way for me to get you to tell me what he said about Kant.

sincerely,

you have trisomy

>> No.3275880

>>3267495
Don't you have to be able to, you know, actually make people better before you can be called a healer?