Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 59 KB, 220x262, IMG_2067.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601197 No.9601197 [Reply] [Original]

Yes, mental illness is on the rise...
but, man... have you seen how nice
*gestures to lecture room*
all of this is?
And, man, you gotta watch out, the post modernists want to take this away like
*snaps fingers*
that.
*begins to look around with mouth open, in a daze, as applause thickens*

>> No.9601199

>>9601197
Stop shitting up the board with this retard

>> No.9601201

That man is philosophy for right wing brainlets and is on par with monyleux in terms of intelligence

>> No.9601213
File: 1.18 MB, 950x761, 1494083226414.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601213

You can greentext and reddittext all you want but the man is a good speaker.

>> No.9601221

>>9601197
>tfw I have the same name as him

>> No.9601246
File: 84 KB, 662x559, IMG_2050.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601246

>>9601213
nah
that's just reddit!
haha
i have taken part in
labeling everything
i dont like
as reddit
reddit
the symbolic boogie man
of masculinity
intelligence
and humour

>> No.9601406

>>9601201

Lol no

>> No.9601416
File: 43 KB, 625x643, smug 5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601416

>/lit/ still hasn't refuted Maps of Meaning

>> No.9601421
File: 119 KB, 1455x798, sam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601421

>>9601246
Why did you ignore the greentext part?

>> No.9601422

>>9601197
I support Peterson because he's taking a stand against ZOG hegemony

>> No.9601424

>>9601197
Lmao

>> No.9601426

>>9601201
Molyneux is smarter.

>> No.9601432

>>9601197
AS SOLZENTISJUNG ONES SAID

>> No.9601439
File: 178 KB, 321x265, catbird.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601439

>tfw you watch Peterson's lecture to learn and suddenly your youtube recommended is filled with videos with titles like "JORDAN PETERSON DESTROYS POSTMODERNISM AND FEMINISM IN 12 SECONDS"

why humans gotta ruin a good thing

>> No.9601440

SORT

>> No.9601447

>>9601440
YOURSELF

>> No.9601462

>>9601447
OUT

>> No.9601463

>>9601447
OOT

>> No.9601473
File: 40 KB, 505x431, tumblr_inline_nt0yyzSyqK1sjh0qi_540.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601473

>logos

>> No.9601490

>>9601201
Molyneux and Peterson are smarter than 9/10 of this board imo
>people who unironically read plath think they're on par with a man who taught at harvard
lol
>b-but he doesn't have le original ideas
A person need only have ideas to be above you people

>> No.9601493

>>9601473
Its a pseud filler word, makes it sound like they're actually saying something and it amazes plebs

>> No.9601500

Peterson himself seems like a postmodernist

>> No.9601511
File: 113 KB, 410x293, man_drinking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601511

>>9601439
>going on youtube without being logged in

What the fuck? people actually watch this shit. hundreds of millions of people are watching this utterly banal bullshit and basing their world view off it. It makes one sick

>> No.9601512
File: 320 KB, 600x941, Peterson8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601512

>>9601197
>>9601199
>>9601201
>haven't cleaned their rooms

>> No.9601517

>>9601197
Anyone got any specific examples of what they think is wrong with his psychological or cultural analyses?

>> No.9601518
File: 380 KB, 1024x576, Peterson7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601518

>>9601500
No. He just understands their entire movement down to its foundation.

Peterson does not believe the world has no meaning in it beyond a struggle for power between artificial kinds.

>> No.9601525
File: 137 KB, 640x473, Angelus-Novus-Paul-Klee-Walter-Benjamin-Ceasefire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601525

>2017
>not a Jungian Marxist Kabbalah man

>> No.9601528

>>9601525
I'm pretty sure that's not a compatible combination.

>> No.9601531
File: 87 KB, 590x350, Peterson4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601531

>>9601517
No. They're just angry because their rooms are dirty and he exposes either their faulty postmodernist philosophy or their meaningless logical positivist existence.

>> No.9601535
File: 166 KB, 625x700, PetersonPhoto_20170606_021738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601535

>Why yes I am a fan of Jordan Peterson, how could you tell?

>> No.9601540
File: 312 KB, 389x386, 1482452161666.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601540

>>9601518
You clearly don't understand post-modernism, if that's what you take it to be.

>> No.9601541

>>9601490
Autism

>> No.9601557
File: 9 KB, 247x350, tolkien.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601557

>>9601540
yes I do, you faggot weeb.
If you think you can explain it better in 15 words, then go ahead and do it.
Or you can just post anime girls.

>> No.9601558
File: 404 KB, 604x574, 17439883_10208505795349433_669186603_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601558

>tfw you take the self-authoring programme

>> No.9601562

>>9601557
>Tolkien

lol this guy is such a pleb magnet

>> No.9601564

>>9601557
postmodernism is merely the cultural logic of late capitalism.

>> No.9601568
File: 39 KB, 480x504, dgGTOxC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601568

>peterson fans

>> No.9601570

>>9601197
He's actually genuinely brilliant and has a fantastic understanding of Jung.
It's not his fault his fanbase is autistic.

>> No.9601574
File: 48 KB, 592x480, ray.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601574

>mfw petersons fanbase

>> No.9601576

>>9601528
it's the only thing that makes sense
http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-11-02.7672177498/file

>> No.9601579
File: 179 KB, 720x582, 1486409794057.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601579

>>9601564
>postmodernism is where we currently are in history
That doesn't explain what it is, you dumb triple nigger, you just explained its context. That answer is enough to tell me that you are a postmodernist yourself, and thus a faggot.

>>9601562
>Tolkien is pleb-taste
neck yourself

>> No.9601583
File: 162 KB, 500x636, tumblr_lw1uj4qoi31r5zbdgo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601583

>pic related its jordan

>> No.9601593

>>9601579
>Tolkien is pleb-taste

True my reddit friend

>> No.9601605
File: 151 KB, 424x318, 7190 - pointing smackdown smiling suit vince_mcmahon wwf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601605

>logos

>> No.9601608
File: 157 KB, 424x318, 15862 - Raw suit thumbs_up vince_mcmahon wwf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601608

>precept position

>> No.9601609
File: 21 KB, 375x375, 1405325492735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601609

>substrait

>> No.9601615
File: 5 KB, 249x203, 1405322539181.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601615

>dominance hierarchies

>> No.9601628
File: 204 KB, 572x362, uwotcliphive.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601628

>clean your room

>> No.9601636
File: 5 KB, 201x196, 1406523617100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601636

>bucko

>> No.9601638

>>9601579
By 'postmodernism' Peterson seems to refer mostly to a strawman version of Foucault, based more on his Californian disciples than on the man himself, who was actually a nietzchean edgelord faggot who didn't even like leftists that much.

I actually agree with Peterson on some things, such as the need for religion as a way out from late capitalist relativism.

>> No.9601641

>>9601426
Molyneux is smart but he's a sophist. He argues dumb ridiculous shit but he's just smart enough to make it sound reasonable

>> No.9601645

Someone explain post-modernism to me again? Somehow everyone's definition collides and to me logos is a key part of post-modernism through the absence of it when it becomes circular. Logos is unavoidable in any argument if it's intelligent and critical in questioning.

>> No.9601648
File: 38 KB, 663x579, 1461089406809.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601648

>>9601605
>>9601608
>>9601609
>>9601615
>>9601628
>>9601636
when autism goes too far

>> No.9601654

>>9601638
>I actually agree with Peterson on some things, such as the need for religion as a way out from late capitalist relativism.

Kill yourself. That's literally the worst pack of this hack. God is dead

>> No.9601655

>>9601518
Idiot

>> No.9601657
File: 86 KB, 797x748, chinese gravel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601657

>>9601641
pretty much this.
He has a lot of really good old stuff, but most of his current events stuff is fucking tiresome, even when I agree with it.

>> No.9601662

>>9601654
The idea of god in and of itself give it life. Just a little quip Nietzsche said is always taken out of context. The only variable is change, my friend.

>> No.9601663
File: 74 KB, 469x480, danbilzerian.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601663

>>9601648
mate learn some respect

>> No.9601664

>>9601655
Moron

>> No.9601667

>>9601664
Imbecile

>> No.9601669

>>9601663
I am humbled due to the fact that I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.

>> No.9601673

>>9601662
>Anytime Nietzsche said something that I don't like its actually just a popular misinterpretation

Yeah I've come across a lot of faggots like you in my time

>> No.9601674

paul joseph watson is beetter btw

>> No.9601678

>>9601667
Fool

>> No.9601688

>>9601673
Gone too far, retard. I'm sorry but there is no redemption for you now.

*infects you with treatment-resistant lice*

>> No.9601696

>>9601673
Zero intelligence in any of those words no matter what order you put them in, with the exception of Nietzsche. Take him into historical context and stop projecting his thoughts to our world. Things are different and have always been different. Nietzsche wasn't wrong but it's people reading his work whom misinterpret his work.

>> No.9601697
File: 70 KB, 750x750, 1481679656274.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601697

>>9601557
>Can you dumb down postmodernism for me into a single sentence
No, you idiot.
Let's start with negative definitions
Postmodern is not
>Nihilistic (though Nihilism is postmodern)
>Driven by "Arrogance or Resentment"
>SJWs
>Marxism
>Leftism

Postmodernism IS a rejection of the previous, modern and pre-modern, western tradition, mainly that which believed that truth is objective---which is to say that there is a single, absolute underlying "thing" or "single principle" from which all else derives, or that there is a single moral or metaphysical axiom, law, etc that defines everything, from which the subject, in the world of the senses/phenomena, gains or catches glimpses of, through modern-phil-theory filtration. This is Kant, this is Plato, this is Descartes.

Pre-postmodernist metaphysics was largely tasked with trying to properly divide realms of phenomena from rational/true/forms, postmodernism rejects this duality. There is no "world out there", there is only the "Subject" and the world it is inherently embedded within and indivisibly a part of. Postmodernists claim that dividing the subject from its context kills the meaning of the subject. For Heidegger (who, arguably, birthed this whole thing), in stupid terms, Humans literally do not make any sense, lack definition, are not humans or anything at all, without their being in the world. Husserl's development of phenomenology (Which would be picked up by Heidegger, Sartre, etc), and Heidegger's critique of science and math, lead to a conception of the world only understandable via our senses, our point of view, our context, rather than through rigorous "science".

So, what does this mean? Well, it depends who you want to read. Largely this means that meaning is no longer any objective unchanging thing "out there" to be discovered, but instead is inherently tangled up with the subject, it changes with the subject: Subjectivity. The meaning of the subject is inherently bound up with its context: this does not necessarily mean muh White Guilt.

cont.

>> No.9601718
File: 54 KB, 562x518, 1478108989425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601718

>>9601697
lol. this is literally what I said but longer.
>no truth
>no reality except what I perceive
>only artificially constructed kinds engaging in power politics
thanks for taking the time to write it all out autistically tho.
>>/trash/

>> No.9601720
File: 143 KB, 903x1019, 1486360153411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601720

>>9601697
Now, this is NOT nihilism. Nihilism is postmodern, but postmodernism isn't nihilistic. Neither is it a rejection of individuality or free-will, as Peterson likes to characterize it. He also characterizes Marxism and Post-Modern, using a pretty amazingly dumb argument "Workers live better than they did, therefore they're not oppressed and dehumanized." While many major post-modernists were Marxists, and Marxism lends itself to Post-modernism, but Carl Schmitt and Heidegger were fuckin nazis, so, again, characterizing Post-modernism as inherently leftist is plain ignorant.

While people like to term postmodernism "Post-Truth", it's a misleading term. It's post Objective Truth, post-discernible, scientific truth; it is a rejection of previous understanding that truth can be understood, or understood through logic, rationality, and the various forms of dualism, whatever have you. Instead, it presents a world that is inherently complex and, for many, beyond human understanding. This is NOT NECESSARILY a rejection of ethics, or of states, or of anything else, it does, however, complicate them.

If the subject cannot be divided from its context, does not make sense without its context, then you have, potentially, an entire species of subjects, for which each context slightly overlaps, and yet their worlds greatly differ. Misinformed SJWs who think this proves relativist-ethics are idiots. Aut-Rightists who think this means the end of morals are even dumber.

Peterson doesn't tackle any of these things, let alone hint at its complexity, and the lack of any single, continuous post-modern view. Postmodernism is a fucking mess and can hardly be called an ironed out or hegemonic view, much less so than I did of "Modernism", which, I know, can vary massively.

However, Peterson just says "THEY'RE NIHILISTS, CAN'T CLEAN UP THEIR ROOM, LOGIC IS INHERENTLY PATRIARCHAL, THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN DISCOURSE" Which is total and absolute nonsense. It's hard to find views that even Judith Butler, who, arguably, helped cause the recent SJWs (Gender Trouble is worth a read though) would agree with.

He's a fucking sophist trying to push a bullshit ideology. If the rest of his work is like those 12 minutes, then Harvard is a sham. This entire lecture is the description of a strawman.

>> No.9601724

>>9601697
I completely agree with the exception of there not being an objective subjective about certain systems, ideologies, civilizations, etc. because everything has a historical context. Post-modernism is essentially an angstie teenager hating their life of puberty and awkwardness. Arguably, any post-modernist in any era would find themselves hating the world.
That being said there is still an objectivity to subjective frames of thought, e.g. tastes in art

>> No.9601729

>>9601696
>LAlalalalala Nietzsche wouldn't think I'm a pathetic retard lalalalalalla

Dude just stop, there's plenty of dumb religious meme philosophers out there for you, I don't get why people like you feel the need to try sock puppet Nietzsche of all figures

>> No.9601739
File: 123 KB, 460x460, Newman4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601739

>>9601720
>anime poster on a Bhutanese aluminum origami forum thinks he's smarter and knows more about philosophy than Jordan Peterson
>accuses others of strawmanning at the end of that post

>> No.9601740

>>9601718
Stop arguing like you're on /pol/. This forced incredulity is tiresome. Just state your ideas without pretending you're gonna be in some epic btfo screencap.

Anyway, you are just labelling those ideas as inherently "bad" without explaining why.

>> No.9601742

>>9601648
You joyless anon.

>> No.9601743
File: 26 KB, 200x290, ab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601743

>mfw all these pseudointellectuals

>> No.9601750

>>9601743
le persian stalin impersonator face

>> No.9601753

>>9601724
This guy here.
>>9601729
I am a post-modernist dude. Hope off the dick.
I'm just able to discern the difference between nihilism and post-modernism like what Nietzsche stood for.
You've been browsing too much /lit/ and haven't dove into enough books if you think Nietzsche's entire philosophy is fuck the world literally. It's more of a don't care about things that keep you from achieving Ubermensch.
>Muhh Nietzsche would throw a fit Muhhh he would CARREEE about my opined tantrum.
Eat a jizz sock faggot

>> No.9601755

>>9601739
>knows more about philosophy than Jordan Peterson

Oh wow, a liberal arts psych self help guru

>> No.9601759

>>9601753
>It's more of a don't care about things that keep you from achieving Ubermensch.

Yeah like believing in God

>> No.9601760

>>9601718
>no reality except what I perceive
Misconstrued. Even a postmodernist would agree that humans, largely, interact with the word in the same way. (Heidegger does exactly this). This is not necessarily highly individualized, but instead creates a species-subject, whose truth can only be defined within the confines of Humanity's context.
Therefore, if this is true, and I think it is, you can't have SJWs claiming that whatever they think or say goes because, y'know, postmodernism. It doesn't make sense. But you're making the same mistake, and even worse, can't even refute it.

>>9601724
> the exception of there not being an objective subjective about certain systems
Can you re-write this? What does the "not being an objective subjective about" mean?
>Post-modernism is essentially an angstie teenager hating their life of puberty and awkwardness
Can you explain this?

>>9601739
I'm not claiming to have read any of his work. I only watched those 12 minutes "Postmodernism: How and why it must be fought", and it's bullshit. It's clearly a straw man aimed confirming the beliefs of his audience. You'd have to be blind to not see it.

>> No.9601772

>>9601740
>I have to explain that there is a reality outside of your perception
>I have to explain that there is an objective reality that we describe by categories, even if they are created socially and sometimes imperfect.

Yes. Context of the subject is always relevant, but it doesn't overwrite the reality itself, even if everything we know comes through the lens of our subjectivity.

>>9601760
>I only watched those 12 minutes
Well I recommend you look into him more.

>> No.9601775

>>9601759
>There's only one path to Ubermensch
Little do you know... Buddha would NOT be so disappointed because he'd let it go

>> No.9601784

>>9601739
>knows more about philosophy than Jordan Peterson

peterson is a psychologist, not a philosopher; most of the figures (like jung, solzhenitsyn) he discusses are not philosophers, and most of the political, psychological and aesthetic trends he comments on are not primarily the domain of philosophers. even postmodernism is not a serious movement in philosophy, it lives mostly in literary theory with influence from a few, now largely outdated philosophers.

i doubt peterson knows much of anything about husserlian phenomenology or fregean formal logics or deleuzian interpretations of spinoza or tarskian theories of truth or the differences between late and early heidegger or lewisian semantics for counterfacuals and so on and so on. it's not hard to know more about philosophy proper than peterson, i'd expect that your average grad student in philosophy knows more about the subject than peterson does

>> No.9601785

>>9601750
*le leader of the kurdish independence movement face

>> No.9601787

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc

I can't believe what an idiotic polemic he's launching. Jesus christ, what the fuck is he talking about. Does he know nothing about post-modernism?

>"The first thing you should know about post-modernists is they don't have a shred of gratitude!"

Oh boy! You sure taught us a lesson!

>> No.9601790

>>9601772
>I have to explain that there is a reality outside of your perception
>I have to explain that there is an objective reality that we describe by categories, even if they are created socially and sometimes imperfect.
Please try.
>I recommend you look into him more.
This dude's a psychologist. Why should I look to his opinion on philosophy and politics?

>> No.9601796

>>9601787
He's a jaded conservative whos afraid that postmodernists will eliminate sensible conservatism among young people (while allowing idiot /pol/ tier reactionary conservatism to flourish). Can you blame him for saying the things he does? I think his fears are genuine, if a bit grouchy

>> No.9601806

>>9601796
It's the conservative's fault that conservatism isn't flourishing anyway. Guy's successful, has a whole league of underage /pol/lacks to support him for the time being. Can't say I especially pity him

>> No.9601808

>>9601796
What's genuine about his fears? If anything, he's supporting the autistic /pol/tards by creating an unnecessary opposition with no shred of merit. The way he talks about people of a different thought as if they are enemies is quite alarming. He even opens his shallow speech by stating how fortunate it is that the major post-modernists are all dead, which mainly seems fortunate for him so they can't address his critique (not that they would). Zizek, as meandering as he can be, would take Peterson to task in a discussion of the post-moderns. Christ, this is truly pitiful. The fact that this guy has any kind of following is disheartening for the state of knowledge. He's essentially marketing himself as some kind of life guru - here lies about the dangerous egomaniac.

>> No.9601812

>>9601796
>>9601808
Also
>implying SJWs are post-modern

>> No.9601827

>>9601775
>>There's only one path to Ubermensch

Absolutely true

>> No.9601828

>>9601812
Yeah, this.
SJWs are basically capitalist liberals who want more brown people and enjoy irony too much

>> No.9601835

>>9601808
Zizek likes to hang out with garbage,
As an academic its the least he could do.
Peterson is just a opportunist that gets offended that everyone gets offended. Maybe he has a righeous purpose but i think hes already jumped the shark for being too hasty in spreading conclusions.

>> No.9601855
File: 55 KB, 500x680, green model peterson tee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601855

>> No.9601867

>>9601808
>The way he talks about people of a different thought as if they are enemies is quite alarming
So... just like every leftist speaker then?

>> No.9601871

>>9601246
>-Rupi Kaur

>> No.9601879

>>9601867
Any actual leftist lecturer presents the other side as rational and tries to understand their point of view before making fun of them. Postmodernism is pretty helpful for, you know, actual discourse.

>> No.9601897

>>9601608
It's presupposition retard.

>> No.9601901
File: 56 KB, 1608x905, bret-weinstein-evergreen-e1496104726544-620x435.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601901

>>9601879
>Postmodernism is pretty helpful for, you know, actual discourse.

>> No.9601908

>>9601901
if they refuse to even understand the other person's point of view, it's not subjectivity and not pomo

>> No.9601919

>>9601197
>as recently as December: Peterson gets regularly discussed on /lit/ with no problems or shitposting
>now: any mention of Peterson on /lit/ results in endless sperging out by pseuds
What happened? Is it purely because /pol/ latched onto him? Or just that he got popular in general?

>> No.9601921

>>9601867
Not especially. Adorno and co. did this in their Authoritarian personality thing but they were German Jews attempting to figure out what went wrong to have the Holocaust happen, so you can hardly hold it against them.

Most political philosophers recognise that others have different aims counter to their own and so on, obviously, but Peterson has a very emotionally charged rhetoric.

>> No.9601927

>>9601879
>>9601908
>If I don't like it, it's not postmodernism

>> No.9601933

>>9601739
>Jordan Peterson
>Expert in Philosophy

His insights in regards to Personality Psychology is the most interesting thing he has to talk about. He's not really THAT great of a philosopher. He literally only repeats what philosophers before him came up with in a package marketable to the modern man.

>> No.9601940

>>9601760
I'm a fan of what the man has to say, largely because psychologists in general have had much influence on my life and he's selling a message that connects to me far more than the message most psychologists have sold, however even I can smell that something's a bit hollow in his criticism of postmodernism.

He doesn't make any real effort to inform his audience about the issue, he just explains why it's bad briefly, and says we have to fight it. For a man who likes to hammer home how there are two sides to every issue he doesn't really give postmodernism a whole lot of respect.

>> No.9601944

>>9601927
How postmodern of you.

>> No.9601948

>>9601828
>SJWs are basically liberals

No. Being a Liberal and being an SJW are only loosely related concepts to eachother in that you'll probably vote for the same party.

>> No.9601953
File: 63 KB, 600x350, evergreen-state-college-protests-grid-b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9601953

>>9601908
>if they refuse to even understand the other person's point of view, it's not subjectivity and not pomo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9f4Td7h9ek&t=311s

>> No.9601954

>>9601933
This

>> No.9601964

>>9601828
They are kind of postmodern in that they borrow freely from postmodern ideas but they're not hard postmodernists who have an attitude of skepticism. SJWs co-opt the avant-garde aspects of postmodernism and fold them into the modernist framework. But that's what happens when your consumption is primarily media made in the conditions of postmodernity -- you can't use these fragments to arrive at a deeper awareness of that spectacular condition.

>> No.9601968

>>9601517
he confuses the symbolism and meaning he throws onto a subject with the symbolism and meaning that were intended to come out of the subject often

>> No.9601983

he doesn't know what postmodernism is. I'm guessing he thinks its a cross between a man in drag and Chairman Mao

>> No.9601984

>>9601927
You're not getting it. Here's why I'm saying it's not really sticking to post-modern ideals, and why it's being used as an excuse by the SJWs and /pol/ to ignore opinions
>post-modernism has to do with subjectivity
>inherent in this, is taking any subject's view seriously--if it's a lived phenomenon, it's up for analysis
>when it comes to pomo politics, experiences of the subject w/in its context, societal structure, etc. are important
>ignoring, refuting, mocking someone's subjective experience and pushing your own onto it doesn't make any sense, and runs against post-modern subjectivity in the first place.

>>9601948
I mean liberal in the sense that, like, they're capitalists, even if they don't call themselves that I'm pretty convinced they are, they believe in private property and self-determination. They adopt all these different marxist/po-mo/anti-usa whatever for aesthetics and because they're too lazy and entitled to embrace an actual leftist ideology.

>> No.9601989

>>9601933
>He literally only repeats what philosophers before him came up with in a package marketable to the modern man.
Can you give an example?

>> No.9601994

>>9601984
Definitely agree on SJWs. They're whole shtick is very consumerist and completely unaware of any real leftist thought. Hell, it seems like they barely even read Butler.

>> No.9601998

>>9601989
Well my example would be everything he ever said, I think a better demonstration of my point is that I can't name a single original philosophical thought he has ever come up with himself. I guess "package marketable to the modern man" would be his entire maps of meaning lectures.

While in the domain of Personality Psychology he publishes novel research.

>> No.9602006

>>9601998
What other people have articulated what he has in regards to the solutions of existential nihilism?

>> No.9602007

btw he clearly only started reading about philosophy etc in the last couple of years. Its so obvious to anyone with half a brain he only has a basic grasp of the things hes talking about. The postmodernist nonsense is just sophomoric self righteousness at something he's just realized is a bit silly but has somehow convinced himself has import beyond a couple of pointless academic circles.

I saw him speaking and he started referencing Dosto, and its just painful how he knows fuck all about Literature and what Dostoyevsky was writing about, then he does that autistic 'ranking' of ppl that 12 yr old boys are prone to: 'Dosto is the greatest thinker of the 19th century, and one of the greatest writers ever. Up there with Shakespeare. Higher even, in my opinion' Just shut the fuck up Jordie, you utter pseud.

>> No.9602020
File: 54 KB, 640x480, BillNyeSexAnthem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602020

I mean, the one thing I will give Peterson respect for is he has a coherent philosophical position out there that dips heavily into mythology and psychology he's willing to defend against attack. It's just wholly unoriginal.

I have a hard time taking him as seriously as a philosopher as the people he cites. He seems more like a philosophy 101 teacher than a philosopher. He's like the Bill Nye of philosophy and when people act like "lol as if you know as much as Bill Nye about science" it's like "Yeah that's really not nearly as impossible as a thought as you think". Even though I would say Bill Nye is reasonably well informed about science relative to the average person, just like I would say Peterson is unusually well informed about philosophy.

It also smacks me as fairly absurd how he advises people to read Beyond Good and Evil but not the philosophers cited in Beyond Good and Evil.

>>9602006
Nietzsche is where he stole much of his thinking on that point from and tackles the problem better.

>> No.9602023

>>9602006
Not the same guy, but even camus offers a viable solution to existential nihilism

>> No.9602030

>>9601422
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXVDtICVwMA

THE GOYZ ARE JUST JEALOUS

>> No.9602042

>>9601994
Because SJW's are the bourgeoisie's attempt to defend itself by coopting leftist rhetoric. Just listen to Hollywood actors pretending to be oppressed minorities, despite being some of the most wealthy, powerful and influential people in the world. Identity politics is a total scam and the modern left has taken it hook, line and sinker.

>> No.9602043

>>9602020
>Nietzsche is where he stole much of his thinking on that point from and tackles the problem better.
Nietzsche never said stuff like: "If you want to give your life meaning, pick a goal.... sort yourself out blah blah blah"
>>9602023
Okay, you can have that opinion, but I'm looking for someone who's said the same things as Peterson.

>> No.9602053

>>9602043
Nietzsche was a philosopher, not a branded self-help guru.

>> No.9602057

>>9602043
Peterson is almost exactly riffing of Camus
>nihilistic void? Just fuckin close your eyes and make it yourself bro

>> No.9602059
File: 110 KB, 640x820, friedrich-nietzsche-407443.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602059

>>9602043
>Nietzsche never said stuff like: "If you want to give your life meaning, pick a goal.... sort yourself out blah blah blah"

>> No.9602068

>>9601953
psych ward/debt bondage factory inmates LARP as 60s civil rights activists, the doctors humor them, it's not like they are going anywhere either. late capitalism is quite a ride

>> No.9602073

>>9602059
Please don't pretend it's the same thing. To anyone who can read, it's not.

>> No.9602077

>>9602053
Well the act of escaping nihilism is in itself an act of self-help.
>>9602057
I'm not familiar with Camus, can you explain?
>>9602059
Eh... what's the context?

>> No.9602082

>>9602077
>Well the act of escaping nihilism is in itself an act of self-help
for you

>> No.9602095

>>9602077
Just read the myth of sisyphus dude, it's short, inspiring, and pretty. What Peterson fans need to actually do is read philosophy.

>> No.9602103
File: 318 KB, 808x1080, 1489115503580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602103

>>9601511
>logging into the greater google jew
>ever

>> No.9602105

>>9601785
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m4COqK-OL0

>> No.9602109

>>9601528
they are compatible inasmuch as marxism is compatible with anything, but that is not what peterson proposes

>> No.9602113
File: 940 KB, 627x502, DFBTj0a.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602113

>>9602095
Fortunately Peterson himself actually encourages his viewers to read Philosophy.
I honestly, while having visited /lit/ before, only started becoming a reg here after wanting to read Beyond good and Evil in his top five book recommendations. That book I tried reading, and it referenced plato. Now I'm starting with the greeks, I finished one /lit/ guide on how to get up to reading the Iliad and now I'm going through the Odyssey.

So, if nothing else, he is actually encouraging people to read philosophy, the issue with people encouraging people to read philosophy is that people who haven't read a shred of it start frequenting /lit/

>> No.9602120

>>9602113
Yes I know none of those books I mentioned are philosophy books but the end goal here is to finish Greek lit first and move onto Greek philosophy then Resume with the Romans. Then from there move onto the Bible.

>> No.9602121

>>9601535
I love this image, this is REAL tolerance

>> No.9602146

>>9602121
THe HAND of a MAN, on the shoulder of a BOY, to become a MAN, and the cycle continues and so on and sho on

>> No.9602149

>>9601808
>The way he talks about people of a different thought as if they are enemies is quite alarming.
This sort of talk is only a response to some pernicious things occurring in our culture. Dismiss him as a /pol/tard all you want, but he has a lot of appeal to moderate liberals. In fact, I don't see what's so very conservative about him. He's not anti gay, he's not even enti trans. The fact that you think him a conservative is better proof than anything that men like him are absolutely necessary right now. I'm seeing dozens of posters here who were fine with the status quo suddenly indignant at a middle aged platitude monger lel

Anyway, I hope this little post didn't alarm you

>> No.9602167

I love how
nobody
can
define
postmodern

>> No.9602178

>>9602167
Can you define modernism?

>> No.9602183

>>9602178
n o b o d y
o
b
o
d
y

>> No.9602190

>>9601199
Fuck you

>> No.9602191

>>9601998
Not the guy you're responding to, but I don't really see how this is that much of a problem. Peterson is trying to give young people, particularly guys but women as well, some kind of grounding for their beliefs so they're not just confused and angry. College kids don't have time to sit down and read a bunch of different philosophers or great authors, they can barely keep their attention span to read YA novels and play video games, and that only gets worse once they graduate and have a job. Peterson is definitely not well-versed in philosophy or literature, he sounds dumb when he just criticizes "postmodernists" as a sort of blanket bogeyman, but he's trying to put together a package of thoughts that will be helpful to young adults who are unsure or just less than enthusiastic about significant social and cultural change, and the psychological needs and wants targeted by this (admittedly shallow) package, are likely based on his own background and research in psychology, where he does have expertise. It's also probably informed by his Christianity, and this is the only respect in which I would describe JP as conservative, because it's only in the past decade or so that the practice of Christianity (and other religions) by its adherents has come into real conflict throughout the West with an increasingly secularizing state; beyond that, he is a moderately liberal Christian humanist.

Peterson is certainly a pseud, but he's not aiming beyond that, he's an academic self-help evangelist.

It is getting tiresome having multiple threads per day concerning him though.

>> No.9602200

>>9601439
Same thing happened with Hitch back in the day if you remember him.

>Try to find him on CSPAN discussing apartheid in South America or his experiences in Cuba after the revolution
>All the related videos are "Best HITCHslaps!"
>"Superior intellectuals DESTROYS MUSLIMS!"
And so on. Damnit, YouTube(rs).

>> No.9602201

>>9602191
>because it's only in the past decade or so that the practice of Christianity (and other religions) by its adherents has come into real conflict throughout the West with an increasingly secularizing state; beyond that, he is a moderately liberal Christian humanist.
I think you're wrong here anon. It's been a defining issue for the last 200-300 years.

>> No.9602204

>>9602200
*South Africa
Whoops.

>> No.9602206

>>9602191
That's a pretty good summary my dude

/thread

>> No.9602209

>>9602191
>College kids don't have time to sit down and read a bunch of different philosophers or great authors
Isn't this exactly why we send kids to college? Especially the liberal colleges where Peterson lectures anyway?
If college kids want a grounding for their beliefs they should take a fucking political science and philosophy class like they're supposed to. Peterson is giving them absolute nonsense and there are hundreds of lecturers who ought to be as big as him and actually know what they're talking about.

>> No.9602211

Peterson is only popular because he disrespected some students and then bragged about it. Some people loved that, now they eat up whatever he's putting out. Even if it's moderately interesting, his academic output is beside the point.

>> No.9602215

>>9602113
Y'know I have reason to think you're the exception, not the rule. Most aut-rightists who worship this guy have never picked up a philosophy book in their life, let alone any book that might go against their beliefs for a second.

Good for you though, keep it up! Greeks>Romans

>> No.9602220

>>9602215
>Y'know
opinion disregarded

>> No.9602228
File: 29 KB, 480x480, 1474861973928.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602228

>>9602220
sure showed me huh

>> No.9602233

>>9602201
Depends where you are I guess, there isn't much conflict between the practice of mainline Christianity by believers and the government in US history, whereas in Europe the church establishments and hierarchies (different than members of the church) have actively battled with the state over the centuries. But individual people have been generally free to practice their religion as they see fit, with increasing toleration for Jews, various splinter sects, and other religions; this is what I think is starting to run into conflict with the state over the past 10-15 years, as government takes on more and more social roles.

>> No.9602236

>>9602220
Sick refutation, my dude

>> No.9602250

>>9602209
I agree that college should accomplish that, and ideally it would; desu, I think Peterson would be viewed as a joke by college students in the 1950s. But higher ed, as well as education generally, has become so dumbed down that a lot of kids lack any ability to think critically when they arrive in college and are unaware of what used to be fairly basic cultural and literary touchstones. Combine that with all the requirements now, and the first two years of college (if not more at some schools) are practically extended high school, and a lot of kids are in there to get their degree and get a job.

>> No.9602252

>>9602233
I can see how that's an issue for some people, but for Peterson to blame it on Postmodernism is totally misreading, not to mention untrue. Issues over the bounds and obligation of the secular state has existed, like the other anon said, for over 300 years now.

>> No.9602253

>>9602211
That's true but it indicates an issue with the audience and culture rather than the man himself, which is an interesting avenue of discussion in itself.

>> No.9602268

>>9602250
I can agree with some of that, certainly. But Peterson is blatantly misinforming people and trying to push an ideology at that. Any regular phil professor worth his salt could do what he does, and actually do it accurately, seriously, and impartially at that. While Peterson may be inspiring some to pick up Philosophy, his larger impact, at least on 4chan, has just allowed edgelords to prop him up with monyleux as proof that their movement has an intellectual basis.

He isn't necessary, and there are plenty of great lecturers, (Yale has whole courses online) that people ought to be watching and hyping up instead of this sophist

>> No.9602273

>>9602113
You make a decent point, and I personally agree that the internet academic philosophy is far too harsh on Peterson (he's not nearly as clueless as Harris or Dawkins, and as such doesn't deserve the same level of hate or uncharitable dismissal). But, to their point, even if Peterson has a substantive understanding of the history of philosophy, his critics are correct to point out he doesn't really know the history up to postmodernism. He may say some things that capture the general gestalt, the psychological and sociological attitudes and cultural afflictions associated with the postmodern condition, but as far as the thinkers usually associated with PoMo, he's entirely clueless, including progenitors like Marx. I don't think one needs to have read and understood Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, et al. to offer any kind of critique of contemporary culture, obviously, but when he directly blames those thinkers and their projects, then it makes him look pretty oblivious and out of his depth.

>> No.9602276
File: 9 KB, 305x165, C83SkawXcAAkoyZ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602276

>>9602211
I think peterson's a pseud but im happy someone's out there fighting tyranny

>> No.9602286

>>9602276
You don't know tyranny, anon.

>> No.9602294

>>9602286
that's the point

>> No.9602298

>>9602252
Like I said, I don't think JP is a particularly deep thinker, and I agree his attacks on "postmodernism" is misguided. I think what he means when he says that is "Foucault-disciple left-wing activists with the you're-with-us-or-against-us mindset of Sartre and Marcuse", the latter two not really fitting into what is commonly thought of as postmodern. I think he is primarily concerned about the growth of this mentality, and that people might want to use the state, which has grown increasingly powerful, to go after opposition, rather than the normal liberal "live and let live" mentality.

>> No.9602300

>>9602209
>Peterson is giving them absolute nonsense
Such as?

>> No.9602306

>>9602268
>But Peterson is blatantly misinforming people and trying to push an ideology at that
What lies is he peddling and what ideology is he pushing?

>> No.9602315
File: 23 KB, 398x398, cQ-0xSWe_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602315

>>9601199
>>9601201

>come to /lit/ for first time in months
>top post is a bunch of retards eternally triggered by J-Petes

YOU LOST, AND DESERVEDLY SO

>> No.9602317

>>9602306
>SJWs are the downfall of Western society
>SJWs hate logos; Postmodernism is nihilistic, hates you, and everything "The West" stands for
>Postmodernism is bad for you, I won't tell you what it is, but that Derrida guy was dangerous

>> No.9602328
File: 70 KB, 720x540, kjhyAAnxy00.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602328

>>9602286
this is progressive capitalist social engineering, though. I don't like it one bit.

>> No.9602337

>>9602298
Then he ought to actually do this. Chomsky already does, but I have a feeling his fans aren't too keen on him.
If he has a problem with current culture and current politics he ought to actually just critique them from a socio-political standpoint. There's plenty of legitimate literature out there that'll support some of the stuff he says.
But going after thinkers just because they're vaguely related is anti-intellectual and kills the discourse.
I have a problem with SJWs as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to be so pretentious or misinformed to think that it's the faults of Derrida, Foucault, and Sartre are the main problem.

>>9602328
>muh degeneracy.

>> No.9602338
File: 24 KB, 464x713, 1496430415485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602338

So we are just gonna ignore that most of the posters in this thread sound like 12 year-old kids from Facebook who have never read a book on philosophy in their life, huh?

>> No.9602349

>>9601197
I really wish Peterson would just say something to turn off /pol/ from him because I never want to see his dumb sophist face on my website ever again.

>> No.9602351

>>9602317
Implying (((Derrida))) Didn't have an explicit political agenda of his own

I remember a particularly snake oil salesmanlike quote in which the Sage extols the virtues of 'deconstruction', claiming without a hint of irony the immaterial elixir is somehow going to prevent Annudah Shoah and save oppressed minorities from phallogoeurocentric rationality.

>> No.9602352

>>9602317
>SJWs are the downfall of Western society
They're something to be concerned about at the very least. Actually, it's very good that they went off the rails and made themselves an easy target for someone like Peterson. Their sedition was less conspicuous when they pretended to be mentally sound and were taken for kind hearted, naive moralists. Now, we've got professors lying, fudging stats, openly promoting treason, not to mention a supreme court justice declaring that true equality won't be had until we stack the court with only female justices.

No, I'm very happy that they've been exposed for what they are. And if a people are willing to listen to even a clown like peterson on the subject, that only shows how dangerous and intellectually incompetent these people are.

>> No.9602356

>>9602349
>I never want to see his dumb sophist face on my website ever again.
Just stay off the political subreddits

>> No.9602357

>>9602351
Implying the principles of deconstruction aren't equally applicable to the co-option of postmodernist ideas by complicit bourgeois SJWs.

>> No.9602360

>>9601197
you are hallucinating OP

>> No.9602362

>>9602349
triggered snowflake needs a safe space LOL

>> No.9602364

>>9602351
Are you not the person who asked what ideology Peterson was pushing? This post doesn't have a whole lot to do with that original question.

>> No.9602366

>>9602351
>implying i implied Derrida didn't have an agenda
But you'd have to be insane to think he's causing any of these problems. Most liberals don't even know who Derrida is, and even if they did they probably don't understand him.

Deconstruction, too, is a process, and like >>9602357 said, it can be adapted for any cause. You're talking out your ass.

>>9602352
Maybe you should try, you know, actually talking with them, having an actual honest discourse about your respective philosophies instead of sperging out.

>> No.9602375

>>9602366
Derrida> Peterson
Foucault>Milo
Judith Butler>Blaire White

history repeats itself

>> No.9602378

>tfw knowledgelet
>tfw almost fell for the Peterson meme

how do I become knowledgable about things? I have a copy of the complete works of Plato on my desk. Should I start with him?

>> No.9602380

>>9602378
Always start with the Greeks.

>> No.9602386

>>9602366
>Maybe you should try, you know, actually talking with them
I hadn't thought of that. Let me go tell hundreds of professors and several supreme court justices that I'd like to discuss things and that I intend to change their prejudices, which have been set in stone decades longer than I've been alive.
>having an actual honest discourse about your respective philosophies instead of sperging out.
Not sure what was dishonest about my post or how you procured information concerning whom I have and haven't spoken to.

Anyway, I addressed your post, didn't I? And what did I get out of it besides a passive aggressive rejoinder?

>> No.9602391

>>9602380
But can I start with Plato or do I have to read a bunch of meme shit like The Iliad and Thucydides and Anaxamander. Dude sounds like a fucking lizard.

And memes aside, what exactly should I be trying to get out of Plato? What should I go into it thinking in order to get the most utility on my quest for knowledge?

>> No.9602397

>>9602366
derrida is just another 'public intellectual' french hack, a media figure, a name that exists solely as a secret clubhouse password for members of the make work 'cultural studies' industry. I don't think he 'caused' anything, I won't give him that much credit.But I do know this world is sick and rotting to the core.

>> No.9602405

>>9602378
Please just read! The Greeks are great, but if you get bored and it's understandable if you do, Aristotle is boring, just please go and read any of the major guys, it'll eventually lead you in the right direction.

If you have the work of Plato already with you, start with the Trial & Death of Socrates dialogues (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo)-- they're really beautiful and a lot of fun.

>>9602386
You didn't really address my post at all. The idea that SJWs are a threat to western society is a blatant lie. They're your regular liberal capitalists that enjoy irony and like to fuck a bit more than the lasts group. I'm not ssure where you're getting this "profs are lying and promoting treason" shit from, or why you're even concerned if there are women justices or not.

Maybe, instead of just posting on 4chan billowed up with hate, you just go find your local SWJ and try to figure out exactly why they do the things they do, why you disagree with them, and try to work through it through, i don't know, discussion?

It's not very glamorous or sexy or revolutionary or anything, I know, but it's usually a lot more fulfilling

>> No.9602407

>>9602397
Derrida is just Peterson for a slightly more upscale consumer demographic.

>> No.9602409

Does anyone know Jordan Peterson's email? I can't find it on his website.

>> No.9602413

>>9602407
sick analogy bro

>> No.9602415

>>9602391
Thucydides is beautiful, and the pre-socratics are brilliant, but I guess not super necessary if you want to just get started.

>what exactly should I be trying to get out of Plato
Just try and understand each argument. Don't fall for the "oh, this is wrong because science" stuff. This kills the intellectual.

>What should I go into it thinking in order to get the most utility on my quest for knowledge?
It's good to learn some of Socrates' history a bit. Just like skim the wikipedia page or read your edition's preface if it's bearable.
Honestly, the healthiest thing you can do is just try to follow it as closely as you can, understand each argument, and then sit and think about it yourself afterwards. Then you can go from there to more Plato, or Aristotle, Lucretius, or anywhere you want, to an extent.
Also: stop thinking about knowledge as utility

>> No.9602416

>>9602405
>The idea that SJWs are a threat to western society is a blatant lie
I provided evidence to the contrary, you provided nothing bu blanket statements
>or why you're even concerned if there are women justices or not.
At least read my post
>The idea that SJWs are a threat to western society is a blatant lie
nice cliche, but you should probably take your own advice

>> No.9602423

The only reason people here don't like Peterson is because they are asshurt communists and he's popular.

>> No.9602425

>>9602415
Then what should I think about knowledge as?

The way I see it, knowledge just allows me to understand the world better, and thus make more informed decisions, which will improve my quality of life.


Am I supposed to think of knowledge as some kind of intrinsic "good"? Do I look like a redditor to you?

>> No.9602434

>>9602413
desu Peterson cultists probably, no definitely have a better mental health and less neuroses on average than derrida cultists, let alone Foucault/Deleuze cultists. Peterson's ideology is a practical ideology, functionally superior to french post structuralism. It's going mass market.

>> No.9602442

>>9602405
>The idea that SJWs are a threat to western society is a blatant lie. They're your regular liberal capitalists that enjoy irony and like to fuck a bit more than the lasts group
Not that anon, but this seems more like a difference in perspectives and priorities than deception, which you accuse him of. I find the whole SJW obsession annoying, and sympathise with your attempts to downplay it, but at the same time I don't want to put the idea of this attitude, or group, or movement (it's kind of nebulous) posing a danger of SOME sort out of the question. Hippies were pretty innocuous seeming people (and not very profound or strategic) but the effect they had on culture, for better or worse, was still immense.

I think we have a tendency to downplay the importance of our own period in something resembling a kind of cultural cringe. The contemporary seems less important, less "serious" than the historical, because we are experiencing it in all its vulgarity. I think the fact that campus life is dominated by whatever attitudes are symptomatic of "SJW-ness", as shallow and trite as both its practitioners and detractors may be, is still worth grappling with as a serious social phenomena. It may turn out to be nothing in retrospect, but it doesn't make sense to dismiss its impact prematurely to me. I think people might feel threatened by the of shit like this actually mattering as opposed to the influence of more respectable intellectuals, but I'm a bit pessimistic about culture being influenced so rationally. The blind lead the blind, the common define the common. There's not much of an aristocracy to blame or praise anymore when all of culture is defined by the demands of the public.

>> No.9602446

>>9602416
>I provided evidence to the contrary
You really didn't, you just stated that they were, and that they were doing things that I don't really see any evidence for.
I'm willing to dialogue with you, but you can't just say things like:
>we've got professors lying, fudging stats, openly promoting treason, not to mention a supreme court justice declaring that true equality won't be had until we stack the court with only female justices
And expect me to think that's reasonable, let alone true. How is development for more women on the court, left-leaning professors, political dissent, more women in x position, any different than what happened during the 60s? or even the 20s?

>>9602425
Nah not really, I just get worried when people see knowledge as some material or physical thing they can intake. That's all. I think it's an intrinsic good and all too, but that's besides the point.

>> No.9602460

>>9602442
60s radicals took control of universities and attempted to run them as communes, 'SJWs' are just unsatisfied with their university consumer experience and want additional medicalisation and managerial personnel. That's precisely what they demand on most of their Manifestos, more shrinks and 'sensitivity consultants'. American Universities have something in common with airports, fast food places and slaughterhouses. You get the cattle in and out as efficiently, and as profitably as possible. The university is first and foremost an economic institution.

>> No.9602466

>>9602446
>You really didn't, you just stated that they were, and that they were doing things that I don't really see any evidence for.
I gave you info about the supreme court, what more do you want?
>I'm willing to dialogue with you,
This is precisely the diction of the average illiterate college kids that peteron is against lel
>How is development for more women on the court
She literally stated she wants an all female court, you fucking clown. At least read the posts you reply to.
> left-leaning professors, political dissent, more women in x position, any different than what happened during the 60s? o
That's my point, it isn't. Up til now, it was confined to humanities courses or else hidden behind something else "the living constitution" doctirne, for example. But persons like Ginsberg jumped the gun, and now the average person sees precisely what it's all about.

>> No.9602474

>>9602466
You are arguing with someone who doesn't think SJW's are dangerous. May as well provide actual examples of SJW's attacking people physically, which they do all the time.

>> No.9602482

>>9602474
I don't know what else to do desu
I went through college being fed all sorts of leftist trash and I'm not even a humanities major. Of course I can't prove that this is normal, but I somehow doubt my experience to be an isolated one.

>> No.9602483

>>9602460
The divide between what you see as the radical aims and effects of the 60s student movements and the trite, bourgeois aims and effects of current student does not necessarily negate that they will have an effect. It is less of a shift though, obviously. A symptom rather than reaction.

I take it that your primary argument is that they are not really equatable and thus criticism following their own axioms of self-identification with radicals and 68ers is flawed. As well as, by extension, negatively affecting interpretation of historical leftism by association.

If I'm right, and I would agree with your observations though I'm not very partial to 60s radical politics, do you think it's worthwhile developing an independent critique of this phenomena? It seems like they actually deserve to be counted as more dangerous in your paradigm since they are the spectacle appropriating and de-fanging radical politics.

>> No.9602487

>>9602442
Now this is something I can get behind. I am all for dissecting the SJW movement, what it means, what the reaction against it means, and how it's cringeworthy. I can agree entirely with this.

I suppose I don't mean to downplay it, I think the current movements will have a profound impact on culture for the foreseeable future-- likely for the worse. But it irks me when people do treat the SJWs as something entirely novel, or even worse and brand them as either communists or fascists; saviors of the world or final blows to the west. I just can't stand the unthinking and ideological sensationalism behind it all. The big trend, which I don't think applies to SJWs alone, is the thorough rejection of academia and intellectualism. It's appalling how both sides will appeal to their feelings and feelings alone-- and if you try to articulate a contradiction between their feelings and their so-called platform, you're ostracized for not "validating" them.

My big point, however, is that they are definitely Liberals-- like pro-capitalist, pro-private property capital-L Liberals. In this way, they're much of the same as what we've seen, and they're, dare I say, far less radical in their ideology than the 60s youth rebellion.
>>9602460 this guy's right, although I do sympathize withe lack of better psych aid at unis, for a lot of people that's the first place they can get decent stuff.

>>9602466
>I gave you info about the supreme court, what more do you want?
I need you to tell me why you care. Why should I care what gender the court is? Why should I care if they're doing their job competently? I realize your response is going to be
>they want equality, yet they want all females! how's that equal?
There've only been 4 women supreme court justices out of 113. Ginsberg's point is to make up for that inequality. I don't agree with it, but how is such a response, in any way, a signifier of "The Fall of the West"?

>Up til now, it was confined to humanities courses or else hidden behind something else "the living constitution" doctirne,
Is that true? Haven't a significant amount of major contributors to academia been leftists, or at least progressive for their time?

>> No.9602491

>>9602482
>tfw you are in the humanities and your professor is the shit
>retired Army, was in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan
>Uncle Sam paid for him to study at Columbia to get his doctorate
>shit ton of real world experience both in and out of the army around the world
>more well-read than any of us kids in his 4000 level classes
>Didn't get any of the pseud leftists trash since he loved to throw ideas out there and just let us spend an hour and a half arguing about it as a class and stopping people when they're not being coherent
Hands down my favorite social and political philosophy professor. I've got him for Philosopjy of Law next semeater and I'm excited.

>> No.9602494

>>9602442
>I find the whole SJW obsession annoying,
It only takes a few days in academia to make it fresh again. Like it nor not, it's totally necessary at this point and I'm happy to have a platitude monger like Peterson around until I'm not being told by a fucking biology professor that limitless immigration is a good and that the English language is as American as the Chinese.

>> No.9602504

>>9602487
>I need you to tell me why you care.
Why do I care that one of the most powerful persons in our country wants an all female court? You must be joking.What does that say about her conception of society?
>Why should I care if they're doing their job competently?
That's the point, they haven't been. Haven't you been reading my posts? At first it was assumed that they were naive moralists, now we see clearly that people like ginsberg are in fact radicals in pursuit of license to remake society as they please.
>I don't agree with it, but how is such a response, in any way, a signifier of "The Fall of the Wes
By itself it isn't. What it implies is that the highest offices in our land are occupied by radicals.
>Is that true? Haven't a significant amount of major contributors to academia been leftists, or at least progressive for their time?
Not sure how this contradicts my post. Jesus, this is pathetic.

>> No.9602524

>>9602487
Even though you probably didn't see my reply to the other guy >>9602483 before you posted it looks like we're basically in agreement.

Bit irrelevant but I'm really beginning to feel like partisanship is the death of truth. I could agree with someone on /pol/'s outlook but if my words indicate an alien influence or idea I'll get shut down immediately as The Enemy™. This happens everywhere of course but you can go straight to /pol/ and get a good unfiltered first hand experience of it. I'm probably not well-read enough to be making this point, but inflaming tribalistic antagonism around beliefs would probably be a good way to prevent the dialectical process from occurring.

>>9602494
True. I haven't attended university so I'm sheltered from all this. My housemates have to deal with it on a near daily basis (and are pretty receptive to Jordan Peterson. Two of them have started listening to his lectures habitually). I hope it sorts out in some way that leads to more constructive, open-minded attitudes among people instead of this chronic shitflinging.

>> No.9602544

>>9602178
The era where being "modern" and maximally up-to-date has become a valued good in and of itself.

>> No.9602570

>>9602504
>Why do I care that one of the most powerful persons in our country wants an all female court? You must be joking.
I'm not. Please tell me
>What does that say about her conception of society?
Like I said, probably that the supreme court's been predominately male since its inception, despite half of the population being female. Seems like the comment's more of a pushback against the court's biased history.
>That's the point, they haven't been
O'Connor, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have a pretty good track record. I don't agree with everything they do, but I can't say they're appalling or incompetent.

Ginsberg's not a radical. She's pretty hard center-left. The comment came off more as a jibe/political comment, rather than some latent pursuit for a woman dominated society. If you think she's a radical, then you'd really hate late turn of the century American politics.

It really just sounds like you're blowing it out of proportion, by huge degrees.

>>9602544
That's basically been the case since the Renaissance though

>> No.9602572

>>9601720
>postmodernism isn't nihilistic
Yes it is. It's egoistic, nihilistic, and narcissistic. This is why everything postmodern is soulless, simple, small-minded, and degenerate; just like the people who follow it.

>> No.9602573

>>9602487
I'm curious as to why you're classifying them as Liberals. This might just be limited to where I am, but most of the people fitting the SJW mold where I live rail against liberalsm.

They criticise its "atomistic individualism", fault it for its emphasis on individual rights and property rights, and disparage its pretensions to allowing for neutral, procedural justice. I've spoken to a few who view it as implicitly, if not explicitly white-supremacist, which is a criticism I've heard levelled at capitalism as well. Again, this may primarily be limited to the ones I've spoken to, but some of the manifestos and statements released by student groups at American universities have used similar language, so I don't think I'm being unfair by placing them on the illiberal left.

Of course, this isn't to say that they're that radical either. You correctly point out that they tend to be fairly bourgeois, and I think that for a lot of them, the protesting, marching, etc. is a hobby that they'll eventually outgrow. It would be silly to cast all SJWs as the contemporary equivalents of the Weather Underground, for instance. Still, I don't think the fact that they're pretty milquetoast compared to the activists in the 60's mitigates their illiberal attitudes.

>> No.9602576

>>9601197
>Yes, mental illness is on the rise...
Isn't it a false equivalency? A system where mental illness isn't stigmatized or "treated" with literal torture is relatively new. That doesn't mean there was less mental illness before.

>> No.9602586

>>128702920
>>128703291
Are they right /lit/?
Are you all too retarded to understand how Philosophy and Psychology are tied?

>> No.9602595

>>9602351

holy shit dude

>> No.9602602

>>9602576
That's drug company ad copy. Over 50% of the population is 'mentally ill' at this point, 'they' are going for 100%. The DSMV is a pharmastate shill operation. The seventies anti psychiatry movement didn't abolish mental institutions, it made the whole world into a mental institution and all of us into patients. Psychiatric drugs have become a key instrument of governance.

>> No.9602607

>>9602572
Can you explain how it is? It seems to value the individual human experience far more than its predecessors.

>>9602573
I'm attending one of the most SJW infested universities in the nation, but it could differ.

They don't call themselves liberals, and they rail against liberals, it's true but they're ultimately liberals. Again, I don't mean that they're not marginally left; they like brown people, want more women, gender stuff, etc. But ultimately, I think the end goal is just well-fare state through.
For most SJWS I talk to, their problems with US are as follows
>Too racist
>Wealthy aren't taxed enough
>School is too expensive
>Unnecessary funding of military
>typical Democratic points with nose rings and green hair

The neutral procedural justice complaint is also common, but I've found that they don't dislike the process because it's neutral, but because it's not effective enough at getting unbiased, dis-passioned jurors, prosecutors, etc. I think, for them, it's less of a structural issue with the system, but rather the established power structures within the system.

The typical points I hear "against capitalism" have nothing to do with alienation, degradation of the worker, or any other Marxist points, but rather that workers aren't paid enough, CEOs make too much, and blacks typically get abused in the work place-- not especially the nature of the system itself, but rather the wealth/racial/ and gender imbalances in it.

This is why I think they're liberal. a lot of them are really fine with the system, they're just not fond of lines on which it's imbalanced, and extreme disparity between the classes-- again, not really that there are classes themselves.

Of course, there are actual radicals among them, and they tend to be pretty loud, but most people are just liberals along for the aesthetic ride.

>> No.9602609

>>9602602
Well, I mean, I have Borderline and ADHD, and if I was born in the 50s, I wouldn't be crazy, I'd just be beaten all day. So, you know. You can call it a shill, and pharmacy companies ARE evil mafia, but that doesn't mean people don't need help.

>> No.9602620

>>9602607
>It seems to value the individual human experience far more than its predecessors.
>individual human experience
An attribute of narcissism and egoism, a self-centered universe. Like that of Stirner, belief in nothing but your own self.

The problem is that leftists believe this while simultaneously adapting all the spooks their professors, their media, and the government has instilled into them. They can mask their lack of individuality with dyejobs and piercings but they are all exactly each and all one and the same. This egoistic pursuit and belief in nothing has been given a direction and a purpose, the destruction of meaning, culture, and the structure as it stands, this is what post-modernism looks like on canvas, on paper, in architecture, and in practice.

>> No.9602626

>>9602609
>I'd just be beaten all day
What did he mean by thus

>> No.9602631

>>9602620
>individual human experience
>An attribute of narcissism and egoism, a self-centered universe. Like that of Stirner, belief in nothing but your own self.
This seems like a wild over-simplification. Not to mention that the notion of understanding things first and foremost from your own prospective doesn't necessarily lead to egoism at all-- even just like cognitively it makes sense.

>The problem is that leftists believe this while simultaneously adapting all the spooks their professors, their media, and the government has instilled into them. They can mask their lack of individuality with dyejobs and piercings but they are all exactly each and all one and the same. This egoistic pursuit and belief in nothing has been given a direction and a purpose, the destruction of meaning, culture, and the structure as it stands, this is what post-modernism looks like on canvas, on paper, in architecture, and in practice.
Ah, you have nothing to say. My bad.
If you're going to vague post "spooks of their x, not going to say what these spooks are, or what a spook is"

>the destruction of meaning, culture, and the structure as it stands
It's really less the destruction of meaning, culture, etc as a concept entirely, and more of a critique of the previous structure, usually, in art, revealing it as shallow, arbitrary, and already meaningless. From that, a lot of po-mo media and philosophy is dedicated to constructing or discovering new meaning; whether any of it is successful or not is up to your discretion, but I think Heidegger did a great job.

>> No.9602642

>>9602631
>even just like cognitively it makes sense.
Are you in denial that we live in a narcissistic society? That is your "individual human experience" in action. This is undeniable.
>Ah, you have nothing to say. My bad.
Ah, so you have no counterargument. We know what 'spooks" cultural marxists are faithful to. Tenets of feminism, marxism, racial and social egalitarianism. Idealistic and naive pursuits built upon the silly belief that no-one is accountable for their own situations in life.
>It's really less the destruction of meaning, culture, etc as a concept entirely, and more of a critique of the previous structure
Yeah well if all you produce is trash you shouldn't be taken seriously in your critique, Warhol.
>revealing it as shallow, arbitrary, and already meaningless
No self-awareness.
>constructing or discovering new meaning
None has been provided because there's none to be found that hasn't already been considered. Nice ego though, you pseud faggot.

>> No.9602662

>>9602570
>Like I said, probably that the supreme court's been predominately male since its inception, despite half of the population being female. Seems like the comment's more of a pushback against the court's biased history.
It's an asinine comment and you're an ass for not realizing this. She literally stated that equality will not have been attained until we've had a fully female supreme court, which is stupid as well as an indication that she carries with her all of the sjw spooks like gender privilege
>Is that true? Haven't a significant amount of major contributors to academia been leftists, or at least progressive for their time?
According to who? One who uses "dialogue" as a verb? They've already used their power to basically pass law.
>Ginsberg's not a radical. She's pretty hard center-left.
She's hard left and cannot always show it.
> If you think she's a radical, then you'd really hate late turn of the century American politics
This is so vague as to be not worth refuting
>It really just sounds like you're blowing it out of proportion, by huge degrees
You're right- it was all a sham. It's perfectly normal for judges to prescribe law, for colleges to be effectively shutdown, for 1/5 of humanities professors to be literal commies, for the president of the united states to lie about the wage gap, for a supreme court justice to react hysterically to the election of a president, etc

>> No.9602686

>>9601199
definitely this

>> No.9602689

>>9602642
>Are you in denial that we live in a narcissistic society
No, but that's not what I'm arguing. You're claiming this is purely a post-modernist phenomenon. Hasn't this always been the case?
And given that Post-Modernism's concern with the individual perspective, doesn't that, in effect, actually humanize every individual? Given that now you're inclined to care and take other people's opinions seriously now?
>Tenets of feminism, marxism, racial and social egalitarianism. Idealistic and naive pursuits built upon the silly belief that no-one is accountable for their own situations in life.
That's also not true. Have you actually read any Marxist, Feminist, or Egalitarian literature?

>Yeah well if all you produce is trash you shouldn't be taken seriously in your critique, Warhol.
I'm more of a Hockney, Boccioni, and Pollock guy. But have you actually engaged in any post-modern art? Like the big books or movies?

>No self-awareness.
Pre-Post-Modernism supplied an "objective" meaning that, when looked at closely, is false, meaningless, and nonsensical. Therefore, it's up for humanity, for the individual, to forge their own. Sounds great.

>None has been provided because there's none to be found that hasn't already been considered. Nice ego though, you pseud faggot.
Life is for the sake of living. I think that's a pretty good one you philistine edgelord. Go live a little why don't ya?


>>9602662
Okay, sure, Ginsberg said a dumb thing. Is she really a radical? Her decision history points her almost exactly as a moderate democrat. Are you going to trust an off comment, or how she actually works?

>According to who? One who uses "dialogue" as a verb? They've already used their power to basically pass law.
Just if you go through the "greats" of each field, you tend to find that their views are progressive-- left or radical, for their time period. the radicalism of the american revolution is a book worth checking out on this very topic.

>She's hard left and cannot always show it.
Do you have any actual proof aside from this one interpretation of this one comment she made? What about the decisions she's made in court? Seems pretty moderate liberal to me

I think you're just a bit delusional man. Honestly. You should probably start reading texts from both sides, you'll realize that Ginsberg of all people isn't hard left at all. I wish she was hard left, that'd be amazing. But she's not.

>> No.9602695
File: 51 KB, 600x619, 004-t.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602695

>>9602626

>> No.9602696

>>9601500
He seems like a retard to me

>> No.9602700
File: 102 KB, 422x408, 1496215407224.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9602700

>came into the right from reading blogs and books
>95% of right-wingers got there through mongoloid ecelebs

>> No.9602702

>>9601535
>>9602121
>>9602146
*cringe*

>> No.9602705

>>9602689
>Her decision history points her almost exactly as a moderate democra
As well as those of a hard line leftist, or a communist, or literally anything left of center. She is a judge, not a legislator. That said, she is left of positions that would have been considered moderate even 20 years ago.
>Just if you go through the "greats" of each field, you tend to find that their views are progressive
This isn't true at all. The "greats," "leftist" etc- you're pushing these terms beyond the bounds of endurance. To call the founders radicals is an absurd delusion that clumsily applies modern terminology to actions centuries past. Johnson the conservative was staunchly anti-slavery and even toasted the l'ouverture at a dinner- yet he opposed your "radical" american revolution. You people see history as some sort of "progress" wherein everyone conveniently agrees with you, but it isn' the case.
>Do you have any actual proof aside from this one interpretation of this one comment she made
Her entire view of the law, according to which future justices will be left even of her and we are always making "progress" as she defines it
>.What about the decisions she's made in court? Seems pretty moderate liberal to me
Again, what else could they seem? If you ask a radical and a bougeois leftist do you believe in gay marriage, you'll get the same answer.
>I think you're just a bit delusional man. Honestly. You should probably start reading texts from both sides,
So that I can believe that the founders were radical leftists? lmao
>You should probably start reading texts from both sides,
You should probably save the condescending remarks for when you're able to make your way through a simple syllogism.

>> No.9602707

>>9602620
>>9602642
The last psychiatrist cultist detected

>> No.9602709

>>9602191
You basically explained why we should never have a JP thread again. He is a literally who with zero importance for the literary world.

>> No.9602711

>>9602705
Why don't you ever shut your mouth? All that text on an imageboard is pathetic

>> No.9602720

>>9602631
>From that, a lot of po-mo media and philosophy is dedicated to constructing or discovering new meaning; whether any of it is successful or not is up to your discretion, but I think Heidegger did a great job.
Is NGE successful...

>> No.9602721

>>9602711
If you disagree, just be honest. Kind of pathetic to sneak about

>> No.9602726

>>9602642
No idea what the point is in adopting the modernist stance when confronted with postmodernist critique. No honest dialogue.

>blah blah trash

Like how is that supposed to be convincing? Are you just letting off steam or something?

>> No.9602731

>>9602631
>It's really less the destruction of meaning, culture, etc as a concept entirely, and more of a critique of the previous structure, usually, in art, revealing it as shallow, arbitrary, and already meaningless.

Yeah this is the biggest misunderstanding of postmodernism as far as I can tell. It is modernism that is meaningless, because consciousness is too fallible to be the highest arbiter of meaning

>> No.9602734

>>9602328
This is a shoop

>> No.9602741

>>9602705
>As well as those of a hard line leftist, or a communist, or literally anything left of center. She is a judge, not a legislator. That said, she is left of positions that would have been considered moderate even 20 years ago.
Ginsberg's been on the court for over 20 years dude. She's pretty consistently mod-left. I don't think she has any plans to destroy capitalism or the class structure.
I don't know why you assume all leftists are communists, or why you're so intent on proving that everyone's a radical, when they're pretty blatantly not.
> To call the founders radicals is an absurd delusion that clumsily applies modern terminology to actions centuries past.
Self determination, inalienable human rights, self-legislation, the federalist papers, Thomas Paine supported basic income. OG John Locke liberalism was fucking radical for the 1700s dude. Even Hobbes was considered so radical that he was forced into exile.
You just don't know your history.
>You people see history as some sort of "progress" wherein everyone conveniently agrees with you,
That's also not true. You're attacking me because you lack any points of your own. I disagree with a lot of what the founding fathers did, for example, but they were no doubt progressive.
>So that I can believe that the founders were radical leftists? lmao
For their time, like yeah, dude, of course they were radical leftists. What's leftism other than the dissolution of oppressive or binding structures? Not that that matters to you at all.
>You should probably save the condescending remarks
I'm still serious about that. You really just don't seem to know the difference between Liberalism, Marxism, or really just moderate left from radical left
>>9602721
not even me bro

>> No.9602751

>>9601673
>God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?
Dunno, but to me it seems nietzsche liked the ide of god

>> No.9602757

>>9602741
>Ginsberg's been on the court for over 20 years dude. She's pretty consistently mod-left. I don't think she has any plans to destroy capitalism or the class structure.
>I don't know why you assume all leftists are communists, or why you're so intent on proving that everyone's a radical, when they're pretty blatantly not.
Jesus, at least read what you're replying to. This is pathetic
>Self determination, inalienable human rights, self-legislation, the federalist papers, Thomas Paine supported basic income. OG John Locke liberalism was fucking radical for the 1700s dude
Burke the conservative also believed in many of these things, and he would never have owned slaves. So much for history.
>That's also not true. You're attacking me because you lack any points of your own. I disagree with a lot of what the founding fathers did, for example, but they were no doubt progressive.
Again, you're defining progressive in retrospect. They have no more in common with a modern leftist than with a modern conservative- perhaps less in common with the leftist.
>For their time, like yeah, dude, of course they were radical leftists
Oh, my fucking sides
>What's leftism other than the dissolution of oppressive or binding structures?
Like slavery? Which the reactionaries Johnson and Baudelaire opposed, while the founders themselves owned slaves.
>You really just don't seem to know the difference between Liberalism, Marxism, or really just moderate left from radical left
That's just you misunderstanding me. I use communist in an analogy and you conclude I'm calling ginbsburg a commie, you're a fucking retard dude, good night

>> No.9602777

>>9602286
And it'd be nice if it sayed that way

>> No.9602785

>>9601662
>The idea of God in and of itself gives it life.

I agree, but fewer and fewer people act upon their beliefs, which pretty much means the idea of God is decaying.

>> No.9602913

>>9602491
what are you studying, philosophy?

>> No.9602921

>>9601197
hahahaha this is so spot on. you have his quirks down so well OP, you have to listen to him.

>> No.9602942

>>9602913
How did you you know??!!!1?

>> No.9602946

>>9601213
being a good speaker =/= being a good philosopher

>> No.9602951

>>9602328
>being this triggered
c'mon grandpa

>> No.9602952

>>9602375
true but jeffreys > butler

>> No.9602982

>>9602951

You know aids is an actual disease.

>> No.9602984

>>9602982
cancer too but 4chan is still a thing

>> No.9602987

>>9601421
where does this image originate

>> No.9603003

Nuke this fucking board.

>> No.9603013

those sure are his mannerisms

>> No.9603019

>>9601213
ok Protagoras

>> No.9603072

>>9602700
To be fair that's the case for almost any kind of ideology or believe system. The vast majority learn about it through some guy on youtube, a friend or relative with surface level knowledge or at best a professor with an agenda. Few people arrive at their believes through reading, studying and honest questioning. Most want their ideology ready to go without a second of thought required. Doesn't matter whether right or left; Christian or atheist...

>> No.9603309

>>9601213
I don't know if this is ironic any more.

>> No.9603551

>>9602942
you couldvve also studied polsci or law with those courses, retard

>> No.9603729

>>9601720
>post-discernible, scientific truth

In other words it is garbage, atomic weights are discernible scientific truths.

>> No.9603774

In case anybody is interested: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/hicks-ep-full.pdf
The book on Post-modernists that Peterson keeps recommnding:
"Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Faoucault" by Stephen R.C. Hicks

>> No.9603961
File: 36 KB, 413x396, 1476527520473.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9603961

>can't get coherent discussion of Peterson's thoughts without a /pol/ and tumblr shitfling
This shit is comparable to /v/ console wars. What a terrible state this board is in.

>> No.9604014
File: 218 KB, 780x1620, 1494950536724.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9604014

>> No.9604132

>>9601720
what the fuck are you on, nilihism predates modernism you dumb fuck

>Misinformed SJWs who think this proves relativist-ethics are idiots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance


>Peterson doesn't tackle any of these things
Yes he actually does, you are just not listening from the beginning

>Which is total and absolute nonsense
It really fucking isn't, postmodernism only works when you assume all of science is bullshit, they assumed this cause of the discovery of subatomic particles, the depression came from the atomic bomb

Nowadays we have loads of machines that manipulate subatomic partciles that don't pull really apart, we are well through the fear of existential betrayal that is postmodernism

Clinging to it is jut a suburban hipster expression, there's literaly no reason other than aesthetics and pseudointellectualism, or maybe "street/protester/punk cred" in some places full of youth, to believe the ideas are true. All of them have been completely proven wrong by the probabilistic approaches of computer science working. All that difference amounted to shit, your coloured hair doesn't make you unique, you are a human being and that has real truths that aren't beyond understanding.


Basically, the world is full Evola now and you are still a Sartrian faggot.

>> No.9604159

>>9603551
I know, I thought he was giving me a hard time though for including "philosophy" too much in the post. I'm actually a double major in philosophy and poly sci.

But I'm not pre-law, regardless of howany times my advisor asks me "when are you going to take the LSAT?"

>> No.9604178

>>9602487
> I don't agree with it, but how is such a response, in any way, a signifier of "The Fall of the West"?

Because it completely goes against the idea of equality of opportunity lad, if you start placing people in positions because of their race, ethnicity or genitals, you are completely jumping the jark, you are going more than 100 years backwards

>> No.9604206

>>9602726
>postmodernism negates modernism

>> No.9604224

>>9601416
/lit/ still hasn't read Maps of Meaning, or any books really; they just watch the youtube videos of people who have written books then congratulate themselves for being "literary" for shitposting about it after.

>> No.9604233
File: 30 KB, 280x341, leopold bloom.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9604233

>>9604224
>/lit/ still hasn't read Maps of Meaning, or any books really; they just watch the youtube videos of people who have written books then congratulate themselves for being "literary" for shitposting about it after.

Projection was never meant to go this far

>> No.9604239

I can't be bothered to watch this guy. Can someone give me some bullet points on his thought?

>> No.9604251

>>9604239
Nietzsche + Sartre = Solzhenitsyn which lead to -> French postmodernists which lead to -> Baudrillard , only salvation being : Jung

>> No.9604254

>>9604251
sorry, Jung + Piaget

>> No.9604256

>>9604251
thought he was against post modernism though

>> No.9604265

>>9604239
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242860067_Maps_of_Meaning_The_Architecture_of_Belief

The closest thing you'll get is the abstract to Maps of Meaning

>> No.9604276

>>9604256
yes but cause of a pragmatic approach, he doesnt say any of it is bullshit, he just says it freezes you cause you descend into chaos, thats why he then goes to Jung to get a firm framework out of an archetypal reading of christianity

he is a psychologist after all not a pedophile philosopher, his ultimate goal is to make people unfreeze

>> No.9604306

>>9604224
>they just watch the youtube videos of people who have written books then congratulate themselves for being "literary" for shitposting about it after.
But that is literally what the poltardian Memerson fans do. /lit/ wasn't ever interested in Kermit beyond the debate with Stiller. All the shitposting comes from autismos like you.

>> No.9604314

>>9604306
Whenever anyone says no one here reads like its a fucking impressive feat they obviously just don't read themselves

>> No.9604324

>>9604239
>le ebil leftists/SJWs/postmodernists are the root of all evil
>clean your room and read Solzhenitsyn mkay
He's an "intellectual" for teenagers and illiterate retards.

>> No.9604338

wish I could suck off cocks daily

>> No.9604344

Anyone else wanna see him hook up with Lauren?

>> No.9604361

>>9604344
>implying Peterson would ever fornicate with an ideologue

>> No.9604371

>>9604361
>implying "ideologue" isn't just anyone who says things he doesn't like

>> No.9604400

>>9604371
An ideologue is someone who dogmatically asserts the existence of only half of an archetype.

>> No.9604437

Lots of cynical smartasses in this thread. You better sort yourselves out.

>> No.9604440

>>9604400
Thats a pretty dogmatic assertion you got there

>> No.9604463

>>9601490
>Molyneux and Peterson are smarter than 9/10 of this board imo

Yes like we said, retarded.

>> No.9604511

Will they delete /pol/ already

>> No.9604633
File: 245 KB, 310x300, 1491780446226.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9604633

>>9604132
>nilihism predates modernism
Are you ill?

>> No.9604705

>>9601743
>Kurds are progressive!
I remember when I was in high school.

>> No.9604780

I got attracted to JBP at first because he showed some unusual definitions of truth, but having listened to many hours of him, he hasnt really elaborated on his metaphysics, and it seemed i mistook confusion for profundity. Ive gotten insights into psychology in religion from him, but his opinions about postmodernism are unnuanced and obnoxious, and his ontological model for truth basically boils down to "do what feels right", which makes him postmodern in a truer sense of the word than the strawman he attacks at every opportunity, which casts any insight he might have to offer into doubt. I think hes an interesting thinker overall, but massively overrated, even dangerously so as his naive critiques of identity politics are being appropriated and weaponized by the ever growing far right youth movement.

>> No.9604794

>>9604633
Go educate yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

>The term nihilism was first used by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). Jacobi used the term to characterize rationalism[14] and in particular Immanuel Kant's "critical" philosophy to carry out a reductio ad absurdum according to which all rationalism (philosophy as criticism) reduces to nihilism—and thus it should be avoided and replaced with a return to some type of faith and revelation. Bret W. Davis writes, for example, "The first philosophical development of the idea of nihilism is generally ascribed to Friedrich Jacobi, who in a famous letter criticized Fichte's idealism as falling into nihilism. According to Jacobi, Fichte’s absolutization of the ego (the 'absolute I' that posits the 'not-I') is an inflation of subjectivity that denies the absolute transcendence of God."

>Soren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) posited an early form of nihilism, which he referred to as leveling.[17] He saw levelling as the process of suppressing individuality to a point where the individual's uniqueness becomes non-existent and nothing meaningful in his existence can be affirmed:

>Nihilism is often associated with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who provided a detailed diagnosis of nihilism as a widespread phenomenon of Western culture


>Modernism is a philosophical movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

>> No.9604795

>>9604633
Read more.
Hamlet was practically a Nihilist

>> No.9604798

>>9604780
you arent fooling anybody

>> No.9604823

>>9604795
Hamlet was definitely an existentialist and found beauty by resigning to his fate.

>> No.9604845

>>9601197
all I hear is "I'm mentally ill, poor, and jealous"
I can't even imagine what it's like to have your thinking this clouded by simple resentment

kys buttmad queer

>> No.9604864

>>9601638
bro I'm sorry but he obviously knows 10X as much about every word you just wrote than you do

just kys and allow yourself to feel the peace of rest

>> No.9604874

>>9601740
they are prima facie bad

>> No.9604889

>>9601772
Don't bother. Analytic philosophy doesn't even engage with postmodernism because it's fundamentally laughable bullshit. Its adherents are literal subhumans

>> No.9604899

>>9601740
cause literally the machine you are using to write them proves you wrong

those ideas came to prominence in a very diffuse era out of people who lived in a daze of LSD and nuclear terror, the subsequent 50 years just proved they were wrong as fuck and humans did anything but further their manipulation of the objective world

>> No.9604920

>>9602215
I thank God every day I read all the marxist/postmodernist horseshit I needed to in college and already have a working model of it

now it's
>Nietzsche
>Evola
>Moldbug
>Hoppe
>the entire analytic canon
>any aristocratic man who wasn't warped by resentment and a burning desire for vengeance and gibs

There are actually people on this board reading women. It is good to be able to just laugh

>> No.9604935

>>9601593
Yeah, but if you were to neck yourself, it would stop being so.

>> No.9604937

>>9604920
>Moldbug
funny i was just shitposting about that guy in another thread
what is moldbug like?
is dark enlightenment as good as they make it seem? i always looked it from far away and looked like more transhumanist faggotry

>> No.9604941

>>9604920
Lol actually the whole right wing movement is made out of resentment.

>> No.9604952

>>9604899
>They happened during a period of time i dont like
>they're wrong because machines and late capitalism and technology
sure showed those post-modernists

>> No.9604963

>>9604823
By the end, I was obviously referring to Hamlet until the final few Acts

>> No.9604971

>>9604952
not machines, information technology and the basics of logic it is build upon, of course dumb morons like you don't get it, you still think in mechanistic terms, its like you kept stuck in the argument of if 5/2 is 2 or 3 cause you can't decimals

>> No.9604979

>>9604941
see Nietzsche's distinction between resentment and contempt

>> No.9604986

>>9604971
except post-modernists don't deny that machines, science, logic, and tech work. they just don't, and can't, reveal anything about reality or truth.

>> No.9604998

>>9604937
He's more the kind of writer to help inspire the reader's own ideas than to formulate particularly strong ones himself. He has his own arguments and they're flimsy but he's just like the first astronaut to land on a planet that hasn't seen any colonization.

Read Moldbug and Evola and Yukio Mishima to prove that it's possible to think a certain way, not for strong support of that way of thinking

>> No.9605018

>>9604986
but they actually do, the very fact they work shows the underlying observations about the universal laws are sound

im sorry, but you are flat out brainwashed by LSD addicted pedophile

>> No.9605052

>>9605018
Okay, but you're not getting the argument.
http://ssbothwell.com/documents/ebooksclub.org__The_Question_Concerning_Technology_and_Other_Essays.pdf


What are logic and science other than the playing out of pre-determined principles, in which you navigate the fields according to these predetermined principals? Is it really a revealing of nature, or rather the logical and determined coloring of spheres, that, likely, have little to do with reality and truth, but instead more to do with the nature of logical systems. The issue is that there doesn't seem to be any claim that the data we amass has anything to do with the things themselves, but rather are only observations about the scientific method, not the things the method claims to study.

The fact that they work doesn't mean that they're revealing of any truth, but rather just re-enforces that these systems can "function".

this isn't very hard to understand.

>> No.9605070

>>9601197
What an awful post.

>> No.9605106

>>9605018
>the very fact they work shows the underlying observations about the universal laws are sound
It's not that straightforward. Television, and screens in general, relied on false premises about the nature of the electron. However, the premises were wrong in a way that allowed the machinations to work. Eventually, better and more accurate models were made.
Most people who believe in objective reality tend to lean towards Newtonian and Copernican way of thinking, and both are flat out false.

>> No.9605110

>>9605052
I do get it, its you who have spent so long with a book that you now think everything can be reduced to the text-reader relationship.

>What are logic and science other than the playing out of pre-determined principles, in which you navigate the fields according to these predetermined principals?
You are mistaken scientific cosmovisions for the act of building tools, for technology to be true it needs to provide the expected result, it doesn't even matter if you even understand why it works as long as it works.

> Is it really a revealing of nature, or rather the logical and determined coloring of spheres, that, likely, have little to do with reality and truth, but instead more to do with the nature of logical systems.
It really is, because the systems stay in their place, bridges don't randomly fall, the pyramids have been erect for thousands of years. If it was an ouroborous it wouldn't relate so accurately with the outside world.

Lets say you are right doe, lets say all of our systems only work because we all agree they are supposed to work. Lets say even medicine only works cause the mind is convinced it should.

How do you explain dams? How do you explain airplanes? Cars? This are all things that interact directly with nature, there's no mind to convince, no language game to set up, its a triumph over forces that are at least 2 degrees alienated from our mode of being, the fact they work show we understand how they behave.

>The issue is that there doesn't seem to be any claim that the data we amass has anything to do with the things themselves, but rather are only observations about the scientific method, not the things the method claims to study.
Now you are having the same mistake, you are mentioning that semiology exist to try to forget that the things we build actually work. You are attacking the signs to pretend the signifiers behaviours aren't understood.

>The fact that they work doesn't mean that they're revealing of any truth, but rather just re-enforces that these systems can "function".
yes they do, each time sometimes work we can do something else with the newly acquired knowledged that it works, the whole world around you has been built by this natural escalation of understanding

>this isn't very hard to understand.
this is dumb elitism at its primest lad, you are lost in a mountain of misdirecting rationalizations

>> No.9605123

>>9605106
i tried to express this earlier on with the "you keep trying to decide if 5/2 is 2 or 3 cause you don't know decimals exist"

information science and technology works primarily with probability, you don't need complete certainty to operate with almost perfect accuracy

>> No.9605154

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUPsGDFZzVM

>> No.9605183

>>9605123
I wasn't that guy, but I think that I can now summarize my point. It's not about certainty. It's about claims. You can not trust in the reliability of your claim. You can instead use your claim and see where it leads you. That's what technology is.
It's not like your car mechanic is a genius.

>> No.9605200
File: 63 KB, 429x557, discours.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9605200

>>9605183
>You can not trust in the reliability of your claim. You can instead use your claim and see where it leads you. That's what technology is.
But you actually can, pic related

>> No.9605247

>>9605110
Again, you don't understand the argument.

>Modern science's way of representing pursues and entraps nature as a calculable coherence of forces. Modern physics is not experimental physics because it applies apparatus to the questioning of nature. Rather the reverse is true. Because physics, indeed already as pure theory, sets nature up to exhibit itself as a coherence of forces calculable in advance, it therefore orders its experiments precisely for the purpose of asking whether and how nature reports itself when set up in this way

>The essence of what we today call science is research. In what does the essence of research consist? In the fact that knowing establishes itself as a procedure within some realm of what is, in nature or in history. Procedure does not mean here merely method or methodology. For every procedure already requires an open sphere in which
it moves.

>And it is precisely the opening up of such sphere that is the fundamental event in research. This is accomplished through the projection within some realm of what is-in nature, for example-of a fixed ground plan of natural events. The projection sketches out in advance the manner in which the knowing procedure must bind itself and adhere to the sphere opened up.

>This binding adherence is the rigor of research, through the projecting of the ground plan and the prescribing of
rigor, procedure makes secure for itself its sphere of objects within the realm of Being.

>Modem physics is called mathematical because, in a remarkable way, it makes use of a quite specific mathematics. But it can proceed mathematically in this way only because, in a deeper sense, it is already itself mathematical. Ta rnathemala means for the Greeks that which man knows in advance in his observation of whatever is and in his intercourse with things; the corporeality of bodies, the vegetable characters of plants, the animality of animals, the humanness of man. Alongside these, belonging also to that which is already-known, i.e., to the mathematical, are numbers.

>If we come upon three apples on the table, we recognize that there are three of them, But the number three we already know. This means that number is something mathematical. Only because numbers represent the most striking of always-already-knowns, and thus offer the most familiar instance of the mathematical.

>> No.9605272

>>9605247

>In no way, however, is the essence of the mathematical defined by numberness. Physics is, in general, the knowledge of nature, and, in particular, the knowledge of material corporeality in its motion; for that corporeality manifests itself immediately and universally in everything natural, even if in a variety of ways, If physics takes shape explicitly, then, as something mathematical, this means that, in an especially pronounced way, through it and for it something is stipulated in advance as what is already-known.

>That stipulating has to do with nothing less than the plan or projection of that which must henceforth, for the knowing of nature that is sought after, be nature: the self-contained system of motion of units of mass related spatiotemporally.

>, Only within the perspective of this ground plan does an event in nature become visible as such an event. This projected plan of nature finds its guarantee in the fact that physical research, in every one of its questioning steps, is bound in advance to adhere to it. This binding adherence, the rigor of research, has its own character at any given time in keeping with the projected plan.

> Here all events, if they are to enter at all into representation as events of nature,must be defined beforehand as spatiotemporal magnitudes of motion. Such defining is accomplished through measuring, with the help of number and calculation. But mathematical research into nature is not exact because it calculates with precision; rather it must calculate in this way because its adherence to its object-sphere has the character of exactitude. The humanistic sciences), in contrast, indeed aU the sciences concerned with life, must necessarily be inexact just in order to remain rigorous. A living thing can indeed also be grasped as a spatiotemporal magnitude of motion, but then it is no longer apprehended as living.

Basically: Science is necessarily reductive, predicts and gaurantees itself, and inherently cannot grasp the world as it actually is. Can it be functional? Certainly. Can it be true? No, never in fact. For the reductive representation of science, math, and logic, dismiss being itself for figures that can only be manipulated within the realm of science.

>> No.9605395

>>9605247
>>9605272
I do understand the argument, you don't get how very ramified into various versions of itself it is, now that i can understand better your prefered branch of it , lets go on,

>Science is necessarily reductive
Yes

>inherently cannot grasp the world as it actually is
Again you are confusing text for reality, science doesn't attempt to "grasp the world as it actually is", science attempts to describe its behaviour, reduced aspects of its essential nature, and about technology you could say that it ultimately attempts to find a way to create models and structures to measure what it actually is and isnt there based on the behavioral observations of science.

> the reductive representation of science, math, and logic, dismiss being itself for figures that can only be manipulated within the realm of science
Same shit again, you keep semiologically confused, of course the sign resides inside a language system, but that doesn't mean the signifier doesn't exist out there, and again we circle back to the information issue, just because you have a reduced model of something it doesn't mean that the observations gathered from it aren't true, it just means that they refer to a specific aspect of the stuff instead of to its whole, that water is h2o, and that water is a liquid are both true, but they are not all that water is.

I brought up computers at the beginning cause the way it works is a very clear proof of this concept, it all works by the fact that electricity and lack of electricity can be determined by tools that were built according to aspects discovered about electricity essential nature.

Your initial claim is that there is no objective truth to discover, yet everything that is built around you proves that the opposite is true, that one can fully build more and more complex models by understanding the behaviours of stuff from recollecting observations and experimenting with them. If the system was truly closed, and worked merely on trust, it would work like economy does, but it doesn't, there are no crashes, the pyramids don't fall because people stop believing in geometry. The fact that subjective impressions vary speaks more about the range of difference between beings than about the outside world. Postmodernism is only valuable on a social level, when you attempt to hammer it into an explanation for reality it starts to leak everywhere, cause ultimately it only cares about phenomenological stuff.

>> No.9605449

>>9605247
>If we come upon three apples on the table, we recognize that there are three of them, But the number three we already know. This means that number is something mathematical.

This is the main error point for this argument, you can express the three apples any way you want, but the amount of apples will not vary, and the conceptual image of the amount of apples won't either, what will change on a subjective level is the value given to the three apples.

This is why i talked about LSD craze and nuke fear, postmodernism is trapped inside these two experiences, the impending sense of doom and the warping of mental experiences.

Also, i really don't want to get into this, but the poetics of the following part to me describe the real goal of furthering these kind of ideas: humanistic politics

> A living thing can indeed also be grasped as a spatiotemporal magnitude of motion, but then it is no longer apprehended as living.
> then it is no longer apprehended as living.

>> No.9605480

>>9605395
Again, though, post-modernism doesn't reject truth, it's rejecting science=truth; that truth can be explained purely by reductive and self-prophesying models.

>science doesn't attempt to "grasp the world as it actually is", science attempts to describe its behaviour
So it's trying to grasp the world? Describing the world's behavior necessarily implies an understanding, an inherent grasp of the world; science by its nature presupposes a reductive model of existence.

>just because you have a reduced model of something it doesn't mean that the observations gathered from it aren't true
That's almost exactly what it means. The realm of science, which treats being as an object, is fundamentally not talking about reality or existence at all. The ability to harness or manipulate objects qua objects, instead of dealing with them as phenomena of existence-- which many would argue necessarily opposes empiricism, is operating in a realm of incomplete reduction. The world is no longer the world for scientists, but instead a realm of operations. The fact that we can operate on these operations does not mean that these operations are reality.

>Your initial claim is that there is no objective truth to discover, yet everything that is built around you proves that the opposite is true, that one can fully build more and more complex models by understanding the behaviours of stuff from recollecting observations and experimenting with them
Only if you confuse scientific method as the only objective reality, instead of a necessarily incomplete construction.
It's not an issue of belief, it's an issue of experience. Humans experience gravity, but gravity-- which is defined by the phenomena of gravity itself, cannot be reduced into mathematical equation.

Again, I don't mean to dismiss science's function, I'm not even trying to push forward "There is no underlying reality" bullshit, i'm merely rejecting the scientific view of it.

>cause ultimately it only cares about phenomenological stuff
The argument is that all human experience is strictly phenomenological, and that science, as it is currently used, inherently opposes and rejects.

>>9605449
The apples are used to demonstrate the nature of numberness, a facet of the mathematical. It isn't an argument.
Heidegger also didn't take LSD and wrote the majority of his work before the cold-war.
>humanistic politics
Heidegger is vehemently anti-humanism. He's got a great essay on it.
w/r/t the poetical, it's pretty important to Heidegger's phil as a whole. Instead of phil being expressed as logical arguments, which are reductive, Heidegger later became interested in expressing philosophy in the form of poetry, like the pre-socratics and lucretius, the general idea being that poetry isn't as reductive as science or logic is, and can better point towards essences. It's pretty fascinating.

>> No.9605490

>>9605449
> A living thing can indeed also be grasped as a spatiotemporal magnitude of motion, but then it is no longer apprehended as living.
> then it is no longer apprehended as living.
Also, how is this an issue? It's true, science reduces the phenomenon it studies to objects, numbers, laws-- they're no longer treated as things that exist in the world. A living thing grasped as a process of physics is no longer considered, conceptualized, treated as a living thing, and it's therefore a totally false and baseless grasp.

>> No.9605626

>>9605480
>Again, though, post-modernism doesn't reject truth, it's rejecting science=truth; that truth can be explained purely by reductive and self-prophesying models.

From your own keyboard:
>Postmodernism IS a rejection of the previous, modern and pre-modern, western tradition, mainly that which believed that truth is objective

>So it's trying to grasp the world? Describing the world's behavior necessarily implies an understanding, an inherent grasp of the world; science by its nature presupposes a reductive model of existence.
Your entire claim rests on a belief that some sort of gnosis of reality is the only valid way of forming an accurate knowledge of reality

>The realm of science, which treats being as an object, is fundamentally not talking about reality or existence at all.
1 - Science isnt a realm, texts aren't worlds
2 - The scientific method is a logical system, which is basically a language system, the scientific method is a language to describe reality and existence

>The world is no longer the world for scientists, but instead a realm of operations. The fact that we can operate on these operations does not mean that these operations are reality.
Operating on operations would be meta-operating, which is not what science does its what metascience does. Science looks at the raw world and then attempts to describe it.

>Humans experience gravity, but gravity-- which is defined by the phenomena of gravity itself, cannot be reduced into mathematical equation.
Again, the gnosis fuckery

>Again, I don't mean to dismiss science's function, I'm not even trying to push forward "There is no underlying reality" bullshit, i'm merely rejecting the scientific view of it.
But you did, and again, the whole world around you rests on it, do you have another viable method of accesing to this kind of knowledge or are you just destroying for destruction's sake?

>The argument is that all human experience is strictly phenomenological, and that science, as it is currently used, inherently opposes and rejects.
Yes, of course it is, but the real question here is: Is human experience all that exists?

>The apples are used to demonstrate the nature of numberness, a facet of the mathematical. It isn't an argument.
I know, but it doesn't demonstrate shit, the three apples are three apples whatever you decide to call them, therefore there's an underlaying truth there that can be discovered by observation

>Heidegger also didn't take LSD and wrote the majority of his work before the cold-war.
I would guess so, but when one think in postmodernism one thinks about the french ones, not about Heidegger

The thing about poetics is it muddles shit up with implicit emotional associations

>>9605490
>It's true
No it isn't, things arent dehumanized (de-organicalized???) by observing their motion, its 100% a political statement about the social responsability of science

>> No.9606096

>>9602294
>>9602777
You guys better send him a really nice christmas card, saving you from tyranny and all that.

>> No.9606127

The amount of times Nietzsche is mentioned in every thread just shows this board is literally a bunch of pseudos roleplaying

>> No.9606196

>>9606127
And the frog posts, for that matter.

>> No.9607276

>>9601201

he's just a guy who spouts common sense, which is a rarity nowadays so kids see him as a hero/genius

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action