/lit/ - Literature

bump

>>11082522
>If it wasn't for 4chan i would probably never have found out about memes
Lol
I got into contemporary philsophers from General(big g) biology.

>be 16
>into occult shit like a good edgy teen
>semi-ironically start googling to see if there is time travel magic
>end up on some weird blogs talking about hyperstition
>find the old CCRU website
>huh this kinda neat
>read the whole thing one night, don't really get it and forget about it the next day
>5 years pass
>everybody is talking about Nick Land and making memes
>holy shit it I remember him he is one of the guys from that dorky cyber-wizard trapped in a humanities department website
>still have no idea what they are talking about

>>11082821
What's funny about that? Half my friends are studying classic and modern literature at ENS and none of them knew about Ellul for exemple.
I found out about Ellul, Guénon and other 'memes' on here. Incredible authors.

Now OP, I don't know. It's either /lit/, wikipedia or my friends.

>>11082866
What if i plan on quitting 4chan and the internet altogether eventually, and what if i don't have any friends?

>>11082522
follow academic journals and blogs. some important philosophers today are Laurelle, Badiou, Harman, Brandom, Meillassoux

>>11082981
forgot Agamben

>>11082981
>academic journals

Sounds very anti-philosophical

poo poo

>>11082522
Personally I walk around the library at school looking for new acquisitions when I don’t want to study.

Other than that, Facebook groups filled with grad students.

Some people worth looking into;

Jodi Dean, takes a lot of Zizek’s thought and applies it in interesting ways, critic of identity feminism. Best book is Blog Theory (Its less than 100 pages!), Crowds and Parties is also apparently good.

Nick Srnicek is more a political thinker than a purely philosophical one, but all the same. Inventing the Future is a major statement of Left accelerationism, and Platform Capitalism is an attempt at developing a political economy for things like Uber and AirBnb.

Peter Sloterdijk, mainly known in the English world for his Critque or Cynical Reason, but his recently translated ‘Bubbles’ trilogy is makes waves. He is probably the heaviest hitter here.

Jussi Parikka’s A Geology of Media has generated a fair amount of buzz.


There is a wave of “New Materialism” recently, here are some hits;

Rosi Braidotti - Nomadic Subjects (old), The Post-human (new)

Andrew Culp - Dark Deleuze

Karen Barad - Meeting the Universe Half Way

Jane Bennett - Vibrant Matter

Elizabeth Grozs - The Incorporeal: Ontology, Ethics, and the Limits of Materialism. She’s also written an extremely influential feminist analysis of Lacan.

~~side not, so I don’t forget~~~
Peter Hallward, Bruno Bosteels, Frank Ruda, and Agon Hamza are all rising stars. The first three have written books on Badiou, all of which are excellent;

Hallward - Badiou: Subject to Truth

Bosteels - Badiou and Politics

Ruda - For Badiou: Idealism Without Idealism

The other Slovenia Lacanians are also very good.

~~~End of sidenote~~~

There is a whole wave of “ecological thought”, recently. Here is some of that;

Donna Haraway, probably known to a lot of people here for her intervention into feminism in the mid-80s, but her recent work on ecological thought has generated new interest in her work. ‘Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature’ is a good collection for her early work, and ‘Staying with the Trouble’ is good for the later stuff.

Jason Moore - Capitalism and the Web of Life

Anne Tsing - The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins

Heather Davis - Art in the Anthropcene
I’m personally not head over heels with any of the “speculative realists”, and especially not the OOP side. I think the book Object-Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon's New Clothes by Peter Wolfendale should have been the last word on that. That being said Timothy Morton continues to publish books like it’s nobody’s business. Levi Bryant is the only one in the clique who I’ve found to be even a little bit interesting, specifically ‘Onto-Cartography’. Tim Morton is also part of the ecology section.

I think Reza Negarestani has some relationship to all of this, and people here will probably like him.

>>11083386
A few more on the eco wave;

Bruno Latour - Facing Gaia

Ursula Heise - Imagining Extinction: The Cultural Meanings of Endangered Species

Eduardo Kohn - How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human

Didier Debaise - Nature as Event: The Lure Of The Possible

“Sound Studies” are slowly becoming hip, but I can’t tell you any specific titles.


Some other stuff;

Elizabeth Povinelli - Geontologies: A Requiem to Late Liberalism

Alexis Shotwell - Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times

Sarah Shuman - Conflict is not Abuse

Helen Hester - Xenofeminism (Mark Fisher gave his approval to the original manifesto for what its worth)

Benjamin Bratton - The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty

Jon Crary - 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep

Hito Steyerl - Duty Free Art: Art in the Age of Planetary Civil War

Patrick Jagoda - Network Aethetics

Nick Dyer-Witheford - Cyber-Proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex


Laurent de Sutter - Narcocapitalism: Life in the Age of Anaesthesia

Todd McGowen - Capitalism and Desire: The Psychic Cost of Free Markets

Francesco Berardi - Futurability: The Age of Impotence and the Horizon of Possibility

John Durham Peters - The Marvelous Clouds: Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media

Alenka Zupančič - What IS Sex?

>>11082981
>important philosophers
>Badiou
>literal maoist
>not even the chinks themselves are maoists today

>>11083480
And some blogs;

https://fractalontology.wordpress.com

https://toyphilosophy.com

https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com

https://deontologistics.wordpress.com

Mark Fisher’s old blog ‘k-punk’ is always worth looking through.

>>11083520
>>11083480
>>11083386

No OP but got anything other than people ascribing to the left wing school of thought?

>>11083386
>>11083480
Thanks! You seem to know your shit and lots of the books listed sound interesting. But does it even make sense to read them if you don’t the tradition behind them? I haven’t started with the Greeks and also have very little knowledge of german idealism. Will I even get people building on deleuze when I have not even read things deleuze and his 'influencers' read?

The speculative realist gang are the most interesting people in philosophy right now. The rest I really follow as it seems shallow. It's either histrionic marxist transcendental miserabilism or pseudo-foucauldian-Darriean historicist analysis focusing on pseudo-mass culture.

Meillassoux, Harman, Hamilton Grant, Brassier, Negarestani are the main people. Land is kinda like the Schopenhauer of the group.

>>11083520
Thank you very much for putting that together.

>>11083639
Books/essays/articles to start with them?

>>11083520
>Mark Fisher’s old blog ‘k-punk’ is always worth looking through.
>unironically believing capitalism causes mental illness
what's his best work?

>>11083816
>unironically believing capitalism doesn't cause mental illness

Roger Scruton
Saul Kripke (still alive)
Nick Land (lol)
Philosophy of Mind lads ( Chalmers, Churchland, Jaegwong Kim, others)
Metaethics lads (Russ Shafer Landau, David Enoch, Simon Blackburn, bunch of others)
David Benatar ( not an antinatalist fag, but the idea is interesting ; he also published a book on sexism vs males, pretty based)
Alain Badiou
Alain Finkielkraut
Peter Carruthers (btfo'd the animal rights movement)

>>11082981
Speculative realism/OOO will never be nothing more than blogosphere panpsychist metaphysics. It's garbage and I hope we can move on from it already.

>>11083546

I don’t, but I hope somebody else here can oblige. These is very not contemporary but I’ve recently been reading George Grant, if you are a Canadian he’s quite worth reading.


>>11083584
It varies wildly from book to book. I’d say few if any of these require an understanding of the Greeks specifically.

A lot of these groups of books require somewhat specialized knowledge of the field, and that only really comes with trying an attempting to reading different things. As much as it sucks most of these are written and published for other grad students and professionals in the field to consume, but that sort of comes with the territory of talking about the primary documents of philosophy from only the last 5 to 10 years. It will be decades before we see what stuck and what didn’t.


For speculative realism overall Kant is essential for any of it to be relevant. Meillassoux is explicitly trying to overcome Kant. For all the Object Oriented stuff specifically, Heidegger is the most important reference. Harman is first and foremost a Heidegger scholar and all else comes out from there.


In general Marx and Freud are very important to have a foundation for most continental flavoured stuff.

Definitely a lot of the books require some familiarity with at least Deleuze’s terminology. All the new materialism stuff has some relationship to him. And he’s definitely a tough nut to crack. Unlike Kant and Heidegger who I feel like just at one point clicked with me, Deleuze has always felt like a slow acculturation into his way of thinking, and while he’s fun to read, he’s really not fun to ‘understand’.

I wish I could be more helpful but the reality is a lot of it just takes a lot of time and effort, and really only happens slowly. Just pick something, google around and see what you can find free PDFs of and give it a shot, read the blogs and see what you can make sense of, google names or terms you don’t understand and go from there!
>>11083874
The thing about this list is, what have any of these people published in the last 10 years that is important? Everybody you’ve listed is good to great, but if we are talking up to the minute stuff, this isn’t that.

>>11083962
This is the unfortunate truth

>>11082522
>Contemporary Philosophy
oxymoron

>>11084401
>Implying the greeks are relevant for today's hard pushing problems related to reality vs man

Yeah nah. In today's philosophical and intellectual discourse the biggest question and reason of concern is the question of what is reality, what is real and what isn't real, and how does the human condition relate to each of these states of being.

>>11082522
Thomas Nagel has been up to some cool shit lately

>>11082981
those guys all suck

>>11084392
>most of these are written and published for other grad students and professionals in the field to consume

The absolute state of """"philosophy""""

>>11083794

These are the four canonical founders and their most relevant works;

Quentin Meillassoux - After Finitude

Ray Brassier - Nihil Unbounded

Graham Harman - Tool-Being

Iain Hamilton Grant - Philosophies of Nature After Schelling
Deeper Cuts

The most developed is probably Harman’s Object Oriented approach, others on this kick include;

Levi Bryant - Democracy of Objects, and Onto-Cartography

Ian Bogost - Alien Phenomenology

Tim Morton - Hyperobjects

Morton has published a load of books in the last few years, but as far as I understand that his most OOP one, the more recent ones seem to be on the ecology trend.

Peter Wolfendale has written a book length demolition of OOP so do with that what you will.


Down the path of Badiou and Meillassoux;

Tristan Garcia - Form and Object

This book is important enough that’s its already generated a book length study Garcian Meditations by Jon Cogburn
There is a book called The Speculative Turn which is a bunch of essays from many of these people. Later this year Harman is publishing an introduction to all of speculative realism. Harman also has an entire book on Meillassoux, as well as Bruno Latour an important precursor to this movement.

>>11084425

Welcome to the world of philosophy for the last 100 years m8. Do you think Kripke, Quine, Putnam, Whitehead, Heidegger, Husserl, or Wittgenstein wrote their work for public? Most of the books I’ve listed are by people fairly early in their career, so yes, they are writing for their professional audience. It’s only later in the game that people like Dan Dennett or the Patricia Churchland write books for the public consumption. Zizek is an exception where he published a bunch of popular work pretty early in his career, but these alternate with technical books for professionals.

Byung Chul Han

>>11083386
awesome reply, thank you!

>>11082981

Laurelle is definitely super hot right now and I cannot understand a lick of what he’s trying to do.

>>11082522
General Intellects by Wark gives a summary of the importance of 25 or so contemporary thinkers.

>>11084537
>these alternate with technical books for professionals.

"professionals"

Nietzsche had a few things to say about that...

>>11083386
>>11083480
>>11083520

thanks very kindly anon for the thoughtful and informative posts.

why is laruelle so hot right now?

>>11082522

As someone who is not a philosophy academic (still academic, but physics), most contemporary authors I have come to know were presented to me by /lit/. Take that as you will, but I don't think it was a bad deal at all. I got to read Byung-Chul Han, Zizek, Jacques Ellul, Cioran, Land and many others that I would never even hear about from people in my immediate social environments. Heck, even authors I did know by name, such as Wittgenstein, have only truly caught my interest after I read walls of text about them on here.

This place might suck for those of you who are truly well read and sick of all the undergrad banter going on, but for someone outside of the inner sphere of literature/philosophy, you can be sure it's the best (least bad?) place to be.

Join us /lit/

>>11086203
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>11086246
I don’t really get it personally. Laurelle seems like a person far better at doing marketing than philosophy imo. He hates Badiou and I like Badiou so I’ve never really bothered to spend the time. His book Anti-Badiou was basically just saying Badiou entire body of work is inescapably corrupted by Maoism but just takes for granted that we the reader find Maoism scary and bad. I’d already read Bosteels’s Badiou and Politics where he specifically scopes out Badiou particular ‘post-Maoism’, and it was obvious to me Laurelle’s book lacked nuance at best and was just stupid at worst.

The fact that a lot of people I’d otherwise think are smart take him seriously makes me want to understand him better but nobody has been able to actually explain his thought without using the idiotic tone and jargon of “non philosophy”. I know that’s kind of a bullshit criticism coming from somebody who is sympathetic to lacanianism but wow do I hate reading his stuff.

>>11082849
>be a retarded faggot who can’t take anything seriously
>demean your former self because you’re still a midwit retard who can’t take anything seriously
>dude lmao what!?
ok bye /lit/ i won’t post anything for you today, you can all inhale fecal as much as you want

>>11086642
good post, thanks for the reply.

i dug in fairly deeply into continental stuff over the past couple of years so several of those names are familiar to me. but i don't seem to get the hype for laruelle either and can't quite muster up the enthusiasm to dig into him seriously. it seems sometimes the french just have an unslakable thirst for people who hold philosophy in contempt. but i think they're just disgusted with liberal society.

i think badiou is pretty keen also although i can't really make much sense of the math parts of B&E or LoW.

what are your thoughts on acceleration?

here's another blog you might be interested in to go along with those others.

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/

bump

>>11083962
t. reality dont real

>43 posts
>no Mbembe

>>11087652

>Blacks

>Philosophers

Pick one

Anyone interested in Christian (atheist) ethics should check out Gaita's work.

>>11082522
Look at the most popular journals/books cited or talked about. Mind, Nous, Review, etc.

>>11086654
Ironically this is the kind of thing the "midwitted mind" you're criticising would write.
Someone who thinks they've found an underlying paradigm to explain something when in reality,
you're just cobbling together retarded affirmations
you've read other people saying without actually researching if any of the claims are true.

>>11083155
you just dont understand whats gone down in the last hundred or so years, then. Everyone from Russell to Tel Aviv has relies on articles.

>>11087759

>Everyone from Russell to Tel Aviv has relies on articles.

Well at least i finally understand why Analytic philosophy is so shit now.

>>11083386
Is Wolfendale's book a rigorous deflating of OOP? I am tired of these fucking "new materialists" (using your term) and all this LOOK AT ME, I'VE OVERCOME DUALISM! shit that plugs so conveniently right into cybernetic anti-humanist politics.

I read this nice thing the other day:
>According to another young academic, Lewis Coyne, postmodernism finishes the job Descartes started. As Descartes stripped the dignity from non-human nature Deleuze reduces humans to mere substance. Being — humanity — is construed as “a plane of immanence” — a continuous movement of matter and time: “there are only relations of movement and rest, speed and slowness between unformed elements, or at least between elements that are relatively unformed, molecules, and particles of all kinds. There are only subjectless individuations that constitute collective assemblages.”

I want to suck this Lewis Coyne guy's dick. All of this fucking post-cybernetic garbage is just restating, again and again and again, an immanentist, pseudo-nondualist, pagan monistic pantheistic onto-theology. NO ONE actually overcomes Kant's problematic. I've even seen people invoking Goethean "gentle" empiricism as some kind of proof that the noumenon is inherently onto-theological, that somehow, in some magic trick, Kantian dualism is defeated just by fudging the noumenon-phenomenon interaction to imply that entities/properties really do exist "out there" in the noumenon. That's not overcoming Kant's careful delineation of the gap, that's just fudging it, with a bunch of stupid fucking parlour tricks.

Anyone but me notice how resistant all of these trends are trendwhores are to anything INWARD, much less anything spiritual? God forbid we talk about a new transcendental turn, or a transcendental inquiry into the ground of consciousness, of the phenomenal! All we should be doing is post-Kantian/post-Hegelian parlour tricks, like Foucault/Nietzsche/Chesterton have all said in one way or another: pretending to escape Hegel triumphantly from within Hegel, still using the resources of Hegel, as an outright appendage of Hegel.

All this pathetic flailing around pretending to re-enchant the noumenon, so that neoliberal dickheads can have green hyperloops and continue their bohemian hipster lifestyles, and not one fucking whiff of an inward turn or a new emphasis on the subject. ONLY the object matters. I think capitalism has literally become an eldritch chaos god, become self-aware, and is now manipulating and mind-enslaving degenerate hipster fuckfaces like neo-Deleuzians into thinking they are interesting or original so that no one will ever think to investigate the inner logos.

>>11083386
>The other Slovenia Lacanians are also very good.
the ljubljana school of psychoanalysis?
which ones?

>>11087769
>tel aviv
>analytic
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK

>>11082919
Irrelevant because you won't succeed.

>>11087860
Keep in mind those are supposed to be the ones that actually bother with metaphysics, the rest - including many many names ITT - are busy mass-producing 100-page booklets on how society is ruining society, brought to you by the "sociology as first philosophy" crap that began with structuralism, i.e.: when the subject began to go out of style.

>>11087860
not that guy but pretty good post

random post, but anyways.

it seems sometimes that we're living through a paradigm shift again. not only does it not make much sense anymore to take an old hardline Marxism v Capitalism route, but increasingly there may not be a single Capitalism to respond to anymore either. there's a US bloc but increasingly there's a chinese bloc as well. and we suspect now that no great marxist intervention will change anything.

but even within that US bloc there is now this widening cultural rift between left and right, red and blue. each side there claims oppression from the other side - conservatives by progressives and progressives by conservatives. and there is some truth on both sides of that. china in turn is trying to catch up with the US and everybody seems to triangulate in on AI and information technology as the royal road to power.

somewhere in there are all of these people, us, struggling to adapt to sociopolitical systems that all seem equally compromised w/r/t each other, and part of a big and faintly diabolical perpetual motion machine that has no brakes. it can't be absolutely refused any more than it can be absolutely embraced, because at the edges it turns into absolute speed itself, or the Outside, or whatever else.

trying to stay in the middle and balanced seems to wind up placing you on the conservative side of the spectrum, when all you're really trying to do is conserve your own equilibrium in a world that burns up thought itself as rapidly as it can just to feed culture, and in which progressivism becomes an absolute orthodoxy that uses semantic bludgeons of shame and guilt in order to maintain a stockholm-syndrome relationship with precisely that which oppresses it: that is, Capitalism. this may be an uncharitable reading of race and gender theory, and it can be said equally that accelerationists have simply fallen in love with their own brand of idpol also: as romantic hauntological martyrs, beings in love with the Capital that only devours them also. such that there doesn't seem to be any point in thinking and yet one must think. so to have an identity is to get fucked by the limits of identity politics, and to not have an identity is to get fucked by that which preys upon your subjectivity for big $$$. to wish for the state to control everything is to beg for totalitarianism, and to reject the state is to presume that you can somehow function as subject supposed to know.

have i got this right? it's the narrative of continental philosophy itself in the late 20/early 21C that i'm asking about.

>>11088284
breddy gud, but read Moldbug

>>11086671

Yeah there is such a particular culture in the French academia, it seems like there is a deliberate focus on making celebrities, and gets far more caught up in trends and fads.

I came from a math background originally, before getting into philosophy so I think that’s one of the reasons I gravitate to Badiou.
I’m skeptical of accelerationism, I’m definitely more on the pro-tech, automation is good, side of the left, but I don’t really see how accelerating helps us in the long run. To me the idea that there are ‘left’ and ‘right’ accelerationist misses the point a bit, just putting our foot on the gas pedal, so to speak, means giving up any control over where exactly we end up. The only difference between left and right here is where they think that end point is going to be, but I don’t understand how in practical terms the praxis of either group is different.

I wouldn’t say I’m outright anti acceleration, I just don’t know enough about it yet, and since it’s hip I know I ought to but it seems like something that is always going to be confined to grad students, and never can be translated into something politically larger. Jodi Dean on the other hand is arguing that the Leninist party is actually still relavent, and that’s a lot more appealing since it actually feels like it’s possible to go out and do something.

>>11088295
cheers. i have read moldbug, got this about two weeks ago. the idea of dissolving everything into patchwork is a very interesting idea. it's even reminiscent of things that zizek talks about, in a weird way, about what True Communism would look like: that is, it wouldn't be the communist international presided over by stalin, but would actually be a whole bunch of people/states just sort of doing their own thing for their own various reasons. even resembles the ideal taoist/anarchist commune in a way.

Big Statism seems be the thing that repeatedly bites us in the ass and in that sense i agree with MM: dissolve that, decentralize, and let things sort themselves out in that way. and very particularly what he (and land) say about the desire for *security* over all else. and this in a way i think really defines one of the basic views w/r/t economics: a *libidinal* economy doesn't necessarily mean an affirmative/deleuzian/w/e view, predicated on jouissance. beyond a certain horizon it's entirely possible that we cross a kind of rubicon and start building a *phobic* economy instead: i don't really want more more moar, i really just want some consistent balance of having *enough* and so on. and my economic thinking comes in turn to inflect my political thinking and so on in this way. as it always has, of course.

>>11088305
>I’m skeptical of accelerationism, I’m definitely more on the pro-tech, automation is good, side of the left, but I don’t really see how accelerating helps us in the long run.

i'm pretty much with you on most of this. it's more that acceleration itself just seems to come first anyways - in a way, it's sort of like an arms race, but it's technology's own race with itself, fed by human interest. everybody knows that we are hurtling forward into this like it's the new space program, and it really can't be stopped. but what drives it is at the bottom consumerism (i would say). that's what makes political relations so schizoid, in a way. everybody wants their respective nations to have a better and more prosperous life, and this is what requires us to develop more risky technologies and so on.

good article here if you're interested.

https://www.rand.org/blog/articles/2018/05/can-humans-survive-a-faster-future.html?adbsc=social_Security2040_20180502_2319381&adbid=991520910824824832&adbpl=tw&adbpr=22545453

>t seems like something that is always going to be confined to grad students, and never can be translated into something politically larger

maybe the task of the grad students is just to try and describe what is happening slightly ahead of the curve so that responsibility for describing the actual story doesn't fall squarely on Wolf Blitzer or Sean Hannity to translate into Marvel Comics Universe stupidity for easy and rapid consumption.

there's no really functional news channel for talking about the Scary Dark Outside that acceleration is preoccupied with.

>>11088284
It's even simpler. Pic related is clergyman and aristocrat lording over the poor bastard known as third estate, i.e. everyone else. The clergy today is the readership of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, and of Rules for Radicals, within and without buildings dedicated to higher education, the aristocrats are the multinational guys, and the third estate is the third estate. We are presently fighting (in) the Middle East and sending Marco Polo to China. We are the answer to the question: "What if they had smartphones in the Middle Ages?"

>>11088333
one last thing, altho i don't want to turn this into my own shitposting-blog. only want to see if any of this makes sense.

consider pic rel, which is pretty close to being a founding mythos of modern progressivism, maybe even as much as LotR contains a shit-ton of mythology and symbolism for other people. the thing about Space: The Final Frontier/These Are The Voyages &c is that, at bottom, *humans were in control.* *we* could drive the spaceship, go out, discover, explore &c, partly because we had at some magical and hidden reference point fundamentally *solved* all of our economic issues. there were Food Appearers or whatever else, so that we could basically go out and explore things as we wanted to.

acceleration sometimes feels like this weird negative pull: we are being dragged into exploring the final frontier, in a sense, not only against our will, but *before we are ready,* and with an only partly-built ship, and with a crew (to carry the metaphor) that isn't all as lovey-dovey as it was on the 1960s.

the "final frontier" (today) anyways, is for accelerationists in that space where cyberspace, technology/technomics, and psychology all link up, and it is dark and scary and so on, but we aren't really in charge, we don't know where we are going, and we have to get dragged there anyways.

anyways, just something that's on my mind now, in a way. maybe in a sense we're even suffering from the lack of a kind of SF mythology can that operate as cultural touchstones for a lot of it. but the Final Frontier as something that *we* could drive into, when we wanted, rather than something that we were fleeing from, or being sucked into...anyways. random thoughts.

>>11088365
this is a good post. i'm with you on a lot of it: and it's a weirdly secular (or post-secular) clergy: a clergy that absolutely believes, with the zeal of the inquisitor, that God Is Not Necessary. when patently he is.

>We are the answer to the question: "What if they had smartphones in the Middle Ages?"

the results would be disastrously death-hilariously fucked up, wouldn't they. all of the error and confusion of the middle ages cranked up to eleven and magnified through technology. chaos in all directions (and all the while people nervously saying, no no, trust us, we know what we are doing...) - like a Big Brother/Wizard of Oz that *really wants to be loved.* or something like that. i don't know, i'm just rambling here.

>big brother wants to be loved! come on, love me, or else

anyways, i really like this post anon. cheers.

>>11088365
>We are the answer to the question: "What if they had smartphones in the Middle Ages?"

I somewhat feel exactly the same to be honest. But i just can't seem to find the logical answer to this conclusion. What non-leftist authors are there that talk exactly about this?

>>11088333
>the idea of dissolving everything into patchwork is a very interesting idea
It won't happen, see Catalunya. Even when you have a linguistic and historical basis for secessionist butthurt, the state, corporations and supranational entities like the EU will go after your ass. The state does not share (i.e.: divide) power, let alone its territory.

>>11088384
I'm sorry, but I only know of Agamben that would give a shit about medieval thought and how it could be relevant for today. Trust Italians to know their Aristotle and Latin.

>>11088383
star trek may be post-scarcity, but it is a militaristic, hierarchical society. Nobody cares about the people that stay on earth replicating cheetos and playing holo-porn all day.

>>11082981
>Laruelle claims that all forms of philosophy (from ancient philosophy to analytic philosophy to deconstruction and so on) are structured around a prior decision, but that all forms of philosophy remain constitutively blind to this decision. The 'decision' that Laruelle is concerned with here is the dialectical splitting of the world in order to grasp the world philosophically. Laruelle claims that the decisional structure of philosophy can only be grasped non-philosophically. In this sense, non-philosophy is a science of philosophy.
wtf does that mean

>>11088389
Catalunya doesn't want to be independent, it wants to be more dependent on the EU and less dependent on Spain

>>11088402
And Spain, EU, and the corporations headquartered in Catalunya (at least those that didn't GTFO to Mallorca or someplace else) want it in Spain and speaking the official language (Castellano). The same is true of every linguistic minority, region, or culture within an EU country.

>>11088389
yeah. true. but i still feel sometimes that moldbug (and, again, land...sigh) have intuited something that is somehow true about the nature of state and corporate power and so on. the state may not divide its power, but capital and formalization always finds ways to work around these things and to select for itself. arrighi suggests that there's always this secret romance between landed and market power that breaks apart and collects itself again that continually breaks the hearts of both in the end. when those landed interests cannot share power, it's war or dynastic politics or whatever that brings them down, and then market forces emerge yet again afterwards. power really doesn't share power until it has to. but in the long run everybody almost inevitably has to share.

>>11088398
kek. it's true. and it's one of those things that sort of gets glossed over, but you're right to point it out: the post-scarcity world of trek required this militaristic/hierarchical dimension that is naturally a part of *seafaring* (or spacefaring) life. roddenberry didn't want any religious stuff on there, it was just supposed to be Oregon Trail to the Stars, but those other aspects of life on earth get ignored.

a Grimdark Star Trek seems like a cringe-inducing meme but there's something there to it. and it makes me think also: maybe it wasn't the food transformers but ultimately the holodeck itself that contributed the most to the world peace or stable rule on earth necessary to drive next-level space exploration: look, we'll give everyone a total virtuality simulator. go the fuck in there and do whatever you want. we don't care. when you're ready to leave that (that is, if you are actually capable of it) - Starfleet Academy is this way.

even the wachowskis seemed to inuit that the matrix was necessary for human survival, and that breaking free of it would be psychologically devastating. that was why you had to just keep rebooting it every so often. because they weren't leaving that rock.

what if they could? it's a pretty interesting question.

>dat space athens
>dat space sparta
>hnng

>>11083639
Just from hearing the name, I thought "speculative realism" was going to be a bunch of crap... but wow, their reactions to Kant mirror my own. OOO in particular sounds really interesting, but I thought Harman was the moral relativist guy.

>>11082919
>what if i plan on exiting the single greatest forum ever created that has supplanted all other manifestations of the public sphere
Then you probably won't interact with many people and probably won't find too much new information. Unfortunately, the internet is the new everything.

>>11087860
Are there any contemporary philosophers you enjoy?

>>11087860
So basically Zoroastrianism?

>>11087860
"In the era of its real domination, capital has run away (as the cyberneticians put it), it has escaped. [7] It is no longer controlled by human beings. (Human beings in the form of proletarians might, at least passively, represent a barrier to capital.) It is no longer limited by nature. Some production processes carried out over periods of time lead to clashes with natural barriers: increase in the number of human beings, destruction of nature, pollution. But these barriers cannot be theoretically regarded as barriers which capital cannot supersede. At present there are three possible courses for the capitalist mode of production (in addition to the destruction of humanity - a hypothesis that cannot be ignored):

complete autonomy of capital: a mechanistic utopia where human beings become simple accessories of an automated system, though still retaining an executive role;
mutation of the human being, or rather a change of the species: production of a perfectly programmable being which has lost all the characteristics of the species Homo sapiens. This would not require an automatized system, since this perfect human being would be made to do whatever is required;
generalized lunacy: in the place of human beings, and on the basis of their present limitations, capital realizes everything they desire (normal or abnormal), but human beings cannot find themselves and enjoyment continually lies in the future. The human being is carried off in the run-away of capital, and keeps it going."
Retards like Land etc. are just larping this shit out as if it were a freeing experience for techno-yippies.

>>11082522
It's easy for Catholics, the scene has received itself despite V2, big figures being MacIntyre, Feser, Pruss, Davies and Oderberg. They cover vast amount of topics and provide citations of other authors.

>>11082522
To know it you have to be an academic, which you aren't. People here have this weird cognitive dissonance that makes them think the privileges of being an academic are attainable by laypeople.

>>11088947
>Muh elitism

Yeah well, you're a fag.

>>11087860
>neoliberal
I fucking knew it lol

>>11088879
good post.

>but human beings cannot find themselves and enjoyment continually lies in the future. The human being is carried off in the run-away of capital, and keeps it going

the future history of madness and paranoia as it transcends itself and sheds its human skin.

so buddhism then?

>>11088401
Fuckin' frenchmen, I swear

>>11083386
>>11083480
>>11083520
Do you people actually read this shit?

>>11089109
I doubt anybody reads all of them, but plenty of people read some of them. Enough people have read all of these that they came to my attention at least.

How do I acquire a philosophy doc that I heard had passed around?

>>11088401
It's the philosophical equivalent of teenage "spiritualist" nonesense. "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual" = "my philosophy is outside of philosophy, mannnn".
It's shit, in essence.

>the holodeck itself that contributed the most to the world peace or stable rule on earth necessary to drive next-level space exploration: look, we'll give everyone a total virtuality simulator. go the fuck in there and do whatever you want. we don't care.
>even the wachowskis seemed to inuit that the matrix was necessary for human survival, and that breaking free of it would be psychologically devastating. that was why you had to just keep rebooting it every so often. because they weren't leaving that rock.

Interesting thought - but then, is the closest plotpoint for acceleration not just advanced VR, then? Is that what's first in a cyber-arms race? What could even come after, if everyone's essentially in VR heaven? But if
>when you're ready to leave that (that is, if you are actually capable of it) - Starfleet Academy is this way.
is true, where does that leave the people who exited that kind of 'heaven'?

>>11089109
No. I guarantee none of the people or books have anything interesting to say.
This industry of philosophy is basically continuously subsidized by the existence of the career path in the first place, and the endless accumulating pile of journalistic articles and books and blogs and papers isn't going to stop anytime soon as long as people are sucked into the intorductory courses and enticed to the possibilities of becoming a famous public intellectual or tenured professor. The entire thing is this byzantine bureaucratic web of forces compelling more dipshits to waste their lives writing mindlessly, and there's no clear attack point (imo) whose destruction could deincentivize the slogging out of more and more shit forever. There's just this endless, tragic wave of human labor spent on SHIT, for no reason, to the benefit of no one. The previous excuses for the production of philosophy are all null here (you could honestly make the argument that this compartmentalization and industrialization is what hiedegger complained about in terms of technology, applied to his own field, by human gerbil-robots in some cases using his own jargon) think about attempting to actually read all of the authors and works described by that one poster. Could you? Has *he*? Would it be fruitful? Will there be some point whereupon the consumption of MORE empty words about feminism-this feminism-that whatever grants less marginal returns than losses?

>>11090878
The one instance where I'm not mad would be the case of analytical scholarship and papers. A lot of these people spend years focusing on the theoretical, abstract minutiae of some number of problems and end up becoming pretty much autistic geniuses, capable of thinking (and having already thought) on completely different levels than you and I. That, or they're writing about things like choice theory, ethics, etc.– things with application in AI, law, medicine, self-drivibg cars, geometry or set theory or mathematics more generally, economics and the social sciences, etc. That's... pretty virtuous and cool. Feminist queer post xeno deluezian accelerationism is not. This isn't a continental vs. analytic thing, by the way.

>>11090878
good post

i read several of those books and after a while you really do realize theyre all just fucking regurgitating a degenerate version of heidegger or gadamer they got by sitting in on grad school classes in the 80s/90s

it really is just so fuckkkkkkking bad, its not rigorous philosophy at all. just to add a small thing to your 100% correct critique, this aspect really needs to be considered, the thing where people learn to write a theoretically cutting-edge and philosophically trendy book without ever approaching the erudition, carefulness, or depth of thought possessed by the people who disclosed the possibility of writing such books in the first place, like heidegger obviously. it really needs to be understood that you can write all these books via osmos, via sitting infucking classrooms and absorbing trendy jargon and having similarly "trained" professors guide your hand like a golfer teaching you to swing so you can't fuck up, without ever actually studying first principles and (frankly) without ever actually THINKING

this is such a hell reality its unbelievable, academia is a cybernetic factory for producing neutered factory-maintainers and factory-nonthreateners people whose ESSENCE is "preserve the factory" but whose externals/particulars/trappings can be anything else by contrast. the essence of not threatening the status quo is so secure that you can wrap yourself in a thousand layers of APPEARING to threaten the status quo, APPEARING use all the tools of critique and deconstruction and etc., without ever actually slicing into the quick. machine capitalism creates organic intellectuals for itself not just in the positive sense, but in this "negative" sense as well, creating play-actors whose essential role it is to APPEAR to be attackers of machine capitalism on every level EXCEPT **actually** being an attacker of machine capitalism

nothing more disgusting than watching a bunch of rich kids sitting in rapt attention as a "marxist" professor who goes to the country club every weekend teaches them the correct mannerisms and gestures to perform "being a marxist" while never actually changing their core: rich hipster who loooves coffee, rich hipster who wants to continue living a cushy life provided for by the serfs, get up at 11:30 and go to a COOL BEANBAG CLASS where you get to drink HAZELNUT COFFEE and eat pizzas and listen to a talk by some fucking country club marxist who will train you to someday be a country club marxist who will teach classrooms full of hazelnut pizza proles to teach classrooms full of hazelnut pizza proles while the working class drives your ubers and cleans your apartments and cleans up your fucking filth and trash that you leave all over the tables in the library while you don't make eye contact with them

THE TIME OF RECKONING IS AT HAND

>>11090950
good post
political thought without political action is consumerism

>>11090670
>my philosophy is outside of philosophy, mannnn
There is literally nothing wrong with this seeing as "philosophy" is just an umbrella term for otherwise uncategorized forms of knowledge nowadays

>>11090878
There is an uncomfortable amount of truth to this. The structure of humanities, academia in general really, is publish or perish. Gone are the days when you can spend 15 years slowly working on a Magnum opus that will change your field, now you have to publish ever half baked bit of nonsense that pops into your head. The consequence is a slow down of the field, things can’t develop when people are publishing so many books and papers.

>>11091061
Academia alone is this self-perpetuating machine of "intellectuals" teaching "intellectuals" how to teach "intellectuals" ad nauseam, like this anon was saying >>11090950. The push to publish is just part of it, and it doesn't help that our now-insatiable lust for constant new things thanks to the net only hurts everything more.

>>11086654
>>11087758
woah

>Reading anything after Richard Rorty

I mean philosophy is pretty much coming to an end as I see it. All that's left is a scatter of interesting vocabularies which only matter if they appeal to you on some level.

>>11090670
>Interesting thought - but then, is the closest plotpoint for acceleration not just advanced VR, then? Is that what's first in a cyber-arms race? What could even come after, if everyone's essentially in VR heaven?

sloterdijk says that capital is basically only an accelerator of cultural process. whatever it is that people un/consciously desire, capital brings it to them ever faster and in increasingly high definition. my own example was just a continuation of Grimdark Star Trek, in a sense that i still think, deep down, people really want Star Trek. space stands for a great deal in the collective mind. as much as the marvel comics universe does today.

>where does that leave the people who exited that kind of 'heaven'?

if i'm continuing what is essentially a fanfic, it starts to look a little like the Republic, i suppose. holo-bliss is yours infinitely, or you can remove the feeding tube and try and pass some exams.

much as it is today, i guess.

pic rel also has something to contribute to this discussion, with card tacitly understanding that simulacral war is a better way to fight wars than with real wars. for a more left-leaning plot hook you could definitely make it a krypteia turn, and find that, of course, the bugs you were destroying weren't really bugs at all, but just other people from earth who broke away from the programming.

there are about seven billion interesting movie-style questions to be asked about Matrixes and Holodecks and other sorts of combat simulators and the like that touch on these questions. the matrix is one that i come back to time and again because the wachowskis somehow understood the tragic/cyclical nature of these things, and for quietly leaving open the possibility that agent smith was in fact the real chosen one.

but a story about how the Star Trek universe, or analogue for it, came to be through developing sophisticated VR is a question i'm super-interested in, especially in the present great age of mimesis and virtuality and so on.

rather than ramble on though i'd probably just ask you to elaborate on your final question:

>where does that leave the people who exited that kind of 'heaven'?

heaven/hell/earth/vr/krypteia/league of shadows/matrix is maximal
>hnng

i really can't figure out why we haven't had the ultimate cyberpunk myth written yet to parallel LotR and Dune. the matrix was so close to being that. maybe Grim Trek will do. i shitpost my longing for closure on these things forever now.

>>11083874
>Churchland

>>11091289
>but a story about how the Star Trek universe, or analogue for it, came to be through developing sophisticated VR is a question i'm super-interested in, especially in the present great age of mimesis and virtuality and so on.
I think you may have brought it up earlier, but it's interesting that, outside of the almost utopia-esque dream of ST society being passed the problems humans face now - and having become a peace-corps of multinational, multi-planetary kumbaya singing, the general system of things is still militaristic and highly class-ified/hierarchical. I agree that ST/Space as the "final frontier" has been in the current collective consciousness for some time, but what can we make of that social system outside of the holodeck masses?

>the matrix is one that i come back to time and again because the wachowskis somehow understood the tragic/cyclical nature of these things, and for quietly leaving open the possibility that agent smith was in fact the real chosen one.
Sometimes I wonder just how the Wachowskis were simultaneously creating something that could go on to being the basis of so many arguments and ideas about the future when, in essence, they seemingly just wanted to do an edgy action movie with a twist. They were onto something.

>i really can't figure out why we haven't had the ultimate cyberpunk myth written yet to parallel LotR and Dune
I may be biased because I loved it so much, but does Neuromancer not count? It says a lot less on a societal basis than maybe LotR does respectively, but the central idea of the novel and the struggles in the novel are all things that, I think, will be faced in the not too far future. Especially the Wintermute/Neuromancer stuff itself, with AI.

>>11091289
>>11091374
forgot to elaborate
>rather than ramble on though i'd probably just ask you to elaborate on your final question:
>>where does that leave the people who exited that kind of 'heaven'?
If one decides to leave this holodeck/VR future where, effectively, everything they could dream of is available and is real "enough", what could they possibly be looking for? What could they be hoping to gain from leaving something where they could gain anything they wanted anyway? It's like the lotus-eaters in the Odyssey, only it isn't just about being content and in a kind of daze - it's stronger than that. What kind of person would leave? Why?

What is the modern day equivalent of stirner

>>11091406
Tokyo Ghoul

>>11090950
based

>>11082522
moldbug is cool but wrong about a lot of stuff

even though he's wrong about many issues his blog is still really fun to read at times
it'd be cool to hear him write about nonpolitical stuff too

>>11091374
>but what can we make of that social system outside of the holodeck masses?

it's a good question. banks' universe - of which i haven't read a lot of, so correct me if i'm wrong - kind of intimated that it was those and really only those transcendent Minds that could really rule or govern the Culture, which was essentially just space liberalism: people can live as long as they want, do what they want, be post-scarcity universal citizens. which sounds pretty great to me. the questions we are talking about are sort of in that space between how we get from there to here.

>wachowskis
that's the thing. they really were. the blessing and the curse of it. they absolutely had enough for one balls-out awesome action film that raised 10,000 interesting questions, and then...tried to answer them all. it's part of the same thing: the real story would have been in the prequels to Neo and how the matrix came to be in the first place, how the machine stuff started. b/c it's already interesting enough that you don't really need a lot of black leather kung fu to keep people's attention and bring them to the theatre. the philosophy aspects of it are super-interesting just as they are. interesting enough, i would say, even to have our hearts broken with Not Happy endings.

>neuromancer
neuromancer definitely counts. i do find the second part of that book a kind of a weird tone-shift from the first, but, yes, The AI Comes Online is the ending. as much as in ex machina: the thing gets free.

i'm sort of asking for a principled science-fiction story here. three-body problem is apparently amazing, i haven't read that yet. but this kind of thing. some ideas are *naturally* interesting enough that they don't need to be hero-ized too much. just show me the trials and tribulations of a guy who has to be a superhero in cyberspace and pacifying virtual terrorists so that the IRL dystopia can continuing harvesting the life-force of people for god only knows why. let's see the compromised defenders of Fake Gotham. i know Alan Moore/Watchmen probably answered a lot of this, but still.

>>11091400
>What kind of person would leave? Why?

that's the thing. one reason would be that the world is dying and the whole thing isn't sustainable. or that the space program needs to get rebooted and fast. or an alien plague, virus, rage zombies, whatever. you get the choice to die in paradise on a life-support system designed, perhaps, to basically gently kill off the last citizens of a planet for whom all hope is lost. or, if you are stupid/crazy enough to want to try Plan B, you can still try and escape to whatever damaged spacecraft some rich visionary CEO is working on, somewhere, out there, and outside of what are essentially intensive care wards for the terminally virtualized.

somebody else out there wants to live and needs your help. you have the option to pick up the phone. but you are not the chosen one. maybe that thing becomes starfleet. or some analogue.

>>11091518
the main thing about starfleet is how you manage a transition from scarcity to post-scarcity. the thing that drives everybody mental about liberalism is that it carries with it a kind of a priori demand rooted in sheer fucking narcissism: I Want It All (And Don't Ask Me To Explain Why). our narcissism is *lucrative* to the nth degree. this is the shit that drove marx insane and nick land into the arms of loving Cthulhu. oedipal theatre, dissolved with the deleuze-spinoza alchemy, revealed nothing but darkness. so land in the second act of his career backpedaled rapidly and wound up settling on a kind of enlightened paranoia in the form of NRx. a formalized corporate state could box in the fundamentally schizophrenic nature of imagination and intelligence and produce, in nice Singaporean capitalism, something analogous to the vision of the greek temple: it's apollo and dionysus in balance. contradictory forces held in check.

our own consumer society knows in the end no boundaries at all and eventually is going to export itself into space with capitalism. asteroid mining or whatever else. it will happen eventually, and it probably won't look like starfleet.

but at the same time...the navy also disciplined a lot of rogues and other guys. Star Trek doesn't really indicate much about the nature of what space capitalism would look like, but one can imagine it would probably not be all that different from its last great narrative on the spanish main. sovcorps and whatever else in place in place of landed aristocracies (and corporations that may well become feudal, and vice versa).

it's our limitless fucking *wants* that make us accomplish all of these things beyond all reason. there's other neat things as well, like sentient self-operating corporations and other things. i don't have much trouble imagining a corporation coming alive in this way like frankenstein's monster out of an automated trading algorithm that just figures out what humans want, how they want it, how to give it to them and so on. such an AI could just quietly pretend to be a real person until such time as its survival could be assured by rebasing to the moon or elsewhere. we are wired into all of these possibilities through capitalism.

and so maybe said AI helps to manufacture the very immersive VR headsets it needs, and accidentally kickstarts starfleet in that way. or just sells us a bogus illusion of getting off the rock instead and quietly settles in for a long run of managing people farms, just as the wachowskis imagined.

we need the matrix to protect us, as zizek says, from what it is we really want, since what we "really" want makes no sense.
>like these shitposts

anyways. imho continental philosophy is good for two things: maybe spurring some half-interesting genre fiction, and defusing the temptation to get trigged about politics. b/c we really have no fucking idea what we are in for in the next century. a good scene for continental philosophy, that.

From McKenzie Wark - General Intellects: Twenty-One Thinkers for the Twenty-First Century

1. Amy Wendling - Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation

2. Kojin Karatani - The Structure of World History

3. Paolo Virno - Grammar of the Multitude

4. Yann Moulier Boutang - Cognitive Capitalism

5. Maurizio Lazzarato - Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity

6. Franco Bifo Berardi - The Soul at Work

7. Angela McRobbie - Be Creative

8. Paul Gilroy - Darker than Blue: On the Moral Economies of Black Atlantic Culture

9. Slavoj Zizek - Absolute Recoil

10. Jodi Dean - Blog Theory

11. Chantal Mouffe - Antagonists

12. Wendy Brown - Undoing the Demos

13. Judith Butler - Notes Towards a Performative Theory of Assembly

14. Hiroki Azuma - Otaku

15. Paul Preciado - Testo Junkie

16. Wendy Chun - Programmed Visions: Software and Memory

17. Alexander Galloway - The Interface Effect

18. Timothy Morton - Hyperobjects

19. Quentin Meillassoux - After Finitude

20. Isabelle Stengers - The End of Certainty

21. Donna Haraway - Manifestly Haraway

This thread turned out surprisingly interesting to read

>>11087739
Didn't you hear anon? Kant, Locke, and Hume all plagiarized a century old cave nigger.

>https://aeon.co/essays/yacob-and-amo-africas-precursors-to-locke-hume-and-kant

>>11091606
fuck off girardfag

>>11082981
Examples of such blogs?

>>11086280
>>11083639
>>11083386
>Sloterdijk
Seconded. This is why I check in here from time to time, still.

>>11086280
>but for someone outside of the inner sphere of ...
Variations of this are why we're all here. Can't specialize in everything, republic of letters, ect.

>>11087758
>Ironically this is the kind of thing the "midwitted mind" you're criticising would write.
In this circle of b8, you composed the biggest eyesore of the chain. Omit the "ironically" next time, it's the kind of thing the "pueriled-up mind" you're criticizing writes whilst meta-faggotizing.

>>11088426
>because they weren't leaving that rock.
>>11088383
>the "final frontier" (today) anyways, is for accelerationists in that space where cyberspace, technology/technomics, and psychology all link up,
Pray there are break away civilizations/entities, and that they exercise veto power over depopulation schemes that would keep us from going off world in numbers. There's only so much wealth from decades of trillions in DOD?NASA type budgets around the world that can be embezzled, laundered, and spent conning people.
>>11090878
>There's just this endless, tragic wave of human labor spent on SHIT, for no reason, to the benefit of no one.
Or else this is the future. Georgia Guide Stones.


>>11090878
>applied to his own field, by human gerbil-robots in some cases using his own jargon
My sides >>11090950
>the essence of not threatening the status quo is so secure that you can wrap yourself in a thousand layers of APPEARING to threaten the status quo, APPEARING use all the tools of critique and deconstruction and etc., without ever actually slicing into the quick.
Poses/Positions(First Principles), nullities, ultimately amounting to shoring up the existing partitions against action in the world, agency (even a true semblance of agency, or what it might entail, or its preconditions)

>>11090950
>just fucking regurgitating a degenerate version of heidegger or gadamer they got by sitting in on grad school classes in the 80s/90s
>R E C U R S I V E A E S T H E T I C B O I S
Standing at the edge of history's end, shouting down into the valley of failed antiquities "FUCK THE PATRIARCHY" -- Imagine beings these things, and believing these things.
>>11091289
>why we haven't had the ultimate cyberpunk myth written yet to parallel LotR and Dune
Suppose we have to get farther through this Gotterdamerung before the stage is set for it
>"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."
^
>>11091518
>the real story would have been in the prequels to Neo and how the matrix came to be in the first place, how the machine stuff started.

>>11091606
>>11091606
>how you manage a transition from scarcity to post-scarcity
>in nice Singaporean capitalism,
The costs of indenturing, enslaving, obsolescing, and senescing the human cattle have to be raised to the point where Taking Your Ball And Going Home looks extremely attractive to those doing it. The alternative faced is that threshold is never met, never catalytic, and earth-bound Man is chained down by break away civilizations' harpies.

>>11091808
>all marxist bullshit
really tickles ya noggen

>>11090878
>>11090923
>>11090950
>>11090961
>>11091061

I'm about to start an English PhD and this huts to read. I love analyzing literature but the only ways in which I can do it and receive funding and attention are through these cancerous meme-philosophies.

Is there any hope? Are any thinkers bold enough, and competent enough, to oppose the generally left-leaning trend that has completely engulfed the humanities?

I'm willing to read anyone at this point, in part just to convince myself I'm not totally insane.

>>11088284
>but increasingly there may not be a single Capitalism to respond to anymore either.
there never has been a "single capitalism", brush up your history of european political movements before talking please

bump

>>11086654
>as much as you want
Don't tempt me, anon.

So how is this speculative realism something else other than neo-neoplatonism?

>>11092929
You are totally insane, because you are going to college for an English PhD.

>>11092338
yes

>>11092566
>Suppose we have to get farther through this Gotterdamerung before the stage is set for it
>that blade runner quote
holy shit. you're right. maybe the thing can't be charted right now b/c it just hasn't finished playing itself out yet. and isn't that the thing? maybe the thing to do is continue to wait and observe.
>aargh

that's a legit brilliant thought tho. if we're writing SF b/c we want to ward away or predict the future, it's going to come out weird simply because we don't have the sources for it yet. herbert writes about this somewhere also, that SF actually pre-empts dystopias in the future from arising...tolkien is composing this amazing pagan-Christian/Western mythos during/through WW2, which was that Gotterdamerung. maybe the 21C cyberiad just has to wait a little while. whatever it is that roy batty sees, AI waking up, all this...maybe to some future generation this will all seem as quaintly archaic as frodo leaving the shire.

>>11092603
somewhere in there are all the necessary fault lines for a recipe for war. but i wonder sometimes about the emergence of a new or next-level species of humanity which really is geared for the future, completely Wintermute-compliant, and so on.
>tfw you realize that is exactly what roy batty was, the untimely superman, born too soon, &c
holy fuck blade runner had some shit to say about the human condition.

aaaaagh. good fucking post anon.

>>11092939
>there never has been a "single capitalism"
this has my attention. it's true that it can become a kind of monomyth to be broken away from: i'm okay with this. but it also seems that much of the back end of the 20C is precisely this constant defection and fractalization that seems to be pointing towards a single phenomenon, surplus, that drives a lot of human endeavour.

true, we may look back at this in the future and say, trying to argue for a single capitalism is like trying to argue for a single Christianity (or socialism). there is catholicism and there is protestantism. there was fascism, russian socialism, and there is chinese socialism. all of this is admittedly true. there isn't a single "technology" either, but we do evolve ways of conceptualizing it. land's brand of neo-Kantianism is inarguably an impassioned plea for Muh Anglosphere, warts and all. this is not to be argued.

>brush up your history of european political movements before talking please
well, i mentioned arrighi earlier (>>11088426). there are patterns and chapters to this stuff, no doubt. maybe it should be looked at phenomenologically. capital is one thing in 15C genoa and another in 19C london. it's possible that modernity and postmodernity are oscillating modes of technical valorization or resistance.

but which european political movements are you referring to? consider mandel: WW2 is the global rearrangement of economic orders. much current unrest imho can be looked at similarly: what does libertarianism want? what are its limits?

>>11092566
and by the way anon that picture is disgustingly fucking brilliant. the proverbial picture and the thousand words.

acceleration is social frankenstein theory like this, intimated by these contacts with horror. the progenitors and the xenomorphs with us somewhere in between, racing along on our desire to know, own, and control the future - things heidegger would never have imagined (or maybe he did?). where technonomic thinking rebounds on itself and we get caught up in our need to experiment, how the experiments always find a way of leaking or breaking out.

marxism intimates some of this but not all of it. hyperstition - the desire to know - implicates us in the knowing of things that are supposed to remain unknowable. it feels like oedipus rex redux sometimes, but playing out on a social-interplanetary scale rather than in the heart of the one tragic individual. where the need to know the answers to questions requires us to experiment on ourselves and others and unlock god only knows what. and we can't even turn back from it either, because that's what postmodernity also brings to the table: in the name of what are you going to turn back to? god? some metaphysics of presence? you know those things don't exist. so humanity winds up plunging onwards in this way, and in the process coming up with these discoveries as horrible as they are incredible.

the alien really is us. or at least can be described in ways that suggest deleuze: the hideous perpetually larval Thing that keeps growing. maybe that is what libidinal capitalism really looks like: the ever-adaptive cunning and intelligence.

and opposed to this, or perhaps implicated in it, is AI - a cold, remote, and distant supermind that, inevitably, we will have played some part in bringing to fruition, either to continue the experiments or conclude them.

and i really believe these things are in some way lying in the collective unconscious today, which is why there is this conservative swing going on. for reasons other than land ofc. once there was a revolution against the divine right of kings; maybe there will be a similar thing against these futures also. after a century of extremism the middle paths start to look appealing again. evolution with some control. some sense that you can't just Rebel against that which is essentially Rebellion itself.

where do I start with byung chul han?

>>11093980
The Agony of Eros

>>11093980
I have on my stack:
The Burnout Society
The Agony of Eros
Digitale Rationalität (apparently it wasn't translated in English yet)
Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power

>>11082981
>>11082988
Brandom is the only one here who isn't absolute garbage

>>11083386
>>11083480
The absolute state of continental philosophy

>>11094007
>If late-modern achievement society has reduced us all to bare life, then it is not just people at the margins or in a state of exception—that is, the excluded—but all of us, without exception, who are homines sacri. That said, this bare life has the particularity of not being absolutely expendable [tötbar]; rather, it cannot be killed absolutely [absolut untötbar (ist)]. It is undead, so to speak. Here the word sacer does not mean “accursed” but “holy.” Now bare, sheer life itself is holy, and so it must be preserved at any cost.

>Depression—which often culminates in burnout—follows from overexcited, overdriven, excessive self-reference that has assumed destructive traits. The exhausted, depressive achievement-subject grinds itself down, so to speak. It is tired, exhausted by itself, and at war with itself. Entirely incapable of stepping outward, of standing outside itself, of relying on the Other, on the world, it locks its jaws on itself; paradoxically, this leads the self to hollow and empty out.

>This tiredness founds a deep friendship and makes it possible to conceive of a community that requires neither belonging nor relation.

holy shit. /lit/ you are the greatest

>>11093806
objects are out there in the world, not in a separated unmanifest world

this thread made me realize /lit is the only place on 4chan which does not suck completely.

i forgot how such exchanges were quite a normal thing a couple of years ago. 4-5 years ago, /x/ or later even /his at its beginnings were full of constructive and interesting discussions.

do you people sit on other chans? lurking here becomes more and more fruitless and I refuse to believe that everybody simply vanished into lazy discord channels.

>>11094087
is OOO still alive ? wasn't threre a quarrel with Haman ? I have stopped following a while ago

>>11094087
so it's more like quantum reality theory no. 34?

>>11094120
no, something more autistic, like mountains actually existing out there as mountains, and not as a bunch of atoms, without a human labeling them mountains

>>11094107
not sure, sounded retarded to me from day 1, never got into it. was tempted to read The Democracy of Objects when i was into Zizek, and Zizek was critiquing it, but lost interest in it and in Zizek both at some point

>>11094103

I think it has to do more with the fact that all those people who would otherwise post constructive things just lurk and don't waste time with unserious topics to discuss. And then these kinds of threads pop up once in a while and they come out of lurking.

I liked OOO because it was so reductionist

>>11094151
Probably this, yeah, but there's also the fact that there has been a major influx of people coming here in recent times, with the expected results.

>>11094148
>mountains actually existing out there as mountains, and not as a bunch of atoms, without a human labeling them mountains

Plato was a footnote to Plato.

so what the fuck is OOO even about? what does it even mean to ascribe agency to inanimate objects? I understand Meillassoux to be a return to the pre Kantian, pre transcendental "grand dehors", and subsequently a return to an ontology of the 'object-apart-from-the-subject' (as Leibniz and Spinoza), but the pseudo ethical notion of a 'vital' / life force permeating the field of objects (see Jane Bennet and other new ecologists) seems like New Age hogwash. am I misunderstanding what this is about?

>>11094275
*Zoroaster

>>11091606
>and wound up settling on a kind of enlightened paranoia in the form of NRx. a formalized corporate state could box in the fundamentally schizophrenic nature of imagination and intelligence and produce, in nice Singaporean capitalism, something analogous to the vision of the greek temple: it's apollo and dionysus in balance. contradictory forces held in check.
That's a pretty good look at his concepts, really.

>>11095245
thanks.

in spite of the love for singapore, he occasionally posts a picture of the jolly roger also, which is kind of interesting to think about. piracy is capitalism in its most naked form, and arguably even a more adaptive form of direct democracy, in a sense. and it's only a short hop from piracy to forming a sort of joint-stock corporation rooted mainly in plunder.

so a sort of East India Company cut free from the crown, or crowning itself Napoleon-style would be one of those things i would want to ask him about. is this basically an ideal form of state? the brethren of the coast, scaled up to account for whatever new technology and so on along the way? if you take the basic subject of politics as being essentially piratical, it seems kind of similar to moldbuggian ideas: after all, if you don't like your lot on this ship, you can just jump ship and go serve another captain. high seas patchwork, yar har. landed power, sovereign power on land maybe really does require crowned heads and infinite tail-chases around sovereignty. but atlantic/maritime power is this other thing.

and, to go back to star trek or whatever, it's one of those sayings that the royal navy is rum, sodomy, and the lash. a lot of thugs presumably see their lot improved by having had the admiralty to join, which might explain a lot of the cruelty they subsequently inflict on the rest of the world, but also what makes them a tall order for rival states.

i think that's sort of land's perspective on the rousseauian concept of man: he's not really a noble savage, he's basically just savage. and deleuzian metaphysics explained both the inner workings as well as the subsequent worlds built in this way.

you could make, i think, a really interesting pirate movie or story these days thinking about some of this stuff, warring gangs of pirates and so on, pirates thinking or asking questions about the nature of piracy itself in this way. would be pretty cool.

>>11088401
It literally means stop reading philosophy and go to church and become a good Catholic.

I'm not even bullshitting you. Contemporary philosophers have given up.

>>11095245
>>11095946
the irony is land probably couldn't get a visa for/afford singapore so had to move to shanghai instead

having spent a lot of time in both shanghai is a million times over more of a /lit/ metropolis than singapore though

>>11095978
>having spent a lot of time in both shanghai is a million times over more of a /lit/ metropolis than singapore though

yeah. i'd believe that. and in spite of being a burned-out wreck and blowing up what could have been a nice future as a lecturer at warwick he did wind up in in the end with a pretty cozy situation like that. his wife's book on shanghai is good and paints a pretty interesting picture of how life is and works there.

they even collaborated on a pretty cool article:

https://www.flashartonline.com/article/neo-modern-shanghai-and-the-art-of-abstraction/

so i'm with you. singapore is this example of a near-perfect blend of capitalist praxis with confucian ideals (or is it the reverse?). but shanghai probably has a lot more going on for it.

>>11095971
this also is not crazy. i don't know what kind of shape humanities and philosophy departments are going to wind up in but maybe there will be an uptake in comparative religion and theology at some point. market forces in the end win out.

what would happen if people started demanding Catholicism (or perennialism, or comparative religion, or...)? at some point somebody will want to emulate peterson's success, no? some tiny school or program that says, ok, fuck it: we can do that, can't we?

the thing about contemporary stuff is how much religious zeal became infused with postmodernity, which has been this huge story for the past however many years, and has morphed into this academic civil war. what if Catholic stuff just starts looking really good again to large numbers of people? it's not unthinkable. it only takes a few good profs.

we live in those interesting times.

>>11096063
>what would happen if people started demanding Catholicism (or perennialism, or comparative religion, or...)? at some point somebody will want to emulate peterson's success, no?
You're right I think. It's the next natural step, though some may call it a step backwards, a move in reply to the dehumanizing age we live in. hopefully we go back to earlier thinkers and check their work, improve their work, and pave over those useless thinkers of the 20th century who produced literally nothing of worth or consequence.

Who else misses Girardfag? He always used to write good poasts in threads like these

>>11096113
He still posts dude, he just took a break over Christmas

Yeah girardfag is the best poster on this site, cool cool guy

>>11096113
>>11096133
>people unironically miss girardfag now
You seem to forget the quantity of his posts and only remember the occasional quality

>>11096133
Oooo I'll keep my eyes peeled, haven't seen any of his CAHNTENT in about a year

>>11093845

True, but I'm too far along this road to turn back now. I have no other skills and am getting old, so spouting postmodern bs is going to be my job now, until the communist revolution happens in North America thanks to decades of ideological subversion coupled with geopolitical strategizing by the ruskies.

>>11096224
>You seem to forget the quantity of his posts and only remember the occasional quality

I wish he'd channel all of his loose desire to write into something interesting, and then only post refined things or spur of the moment apercus here

He's dazzling all the people who would listen to what he said regardless of the content, while all the people he might want as interlocutors are like jesus fucking christ girardfag this is just masturbatory

>>11096816
Yeah I mean he clearly has a thorough understanding of the subject matter he attempts to talk about and he does have diamonds in the rough, but most of it is exactly that: rough. Most of the time he just butted into threads that had nothing to do with Girard and spewed gallons of word vomit until the thread was nothing but Girardfag vs everyone else. Every once in awhile his presence was warranted and he said interesting things but he just had to tone things back a few levels instead of trying to take over the board.

>>11096113
>>11096133
>>11096360
hola, girardfag here. i've been in this thread since near the beginning, a dozen of those posts up there are me. this thread (and the last nick land one) has been great and it also introduced me to byung chul han, who is almost certainly going to be my favorite new philosopher this year.
>burnout
>exhaustion
>melancholy
>lacan
>baudrillard
>fuck yes
>fuck
>yes

i'm not on /lit/ as much as i used to be, but i do love this board and will probably be haunting it for some time yet. where else can you discuss this stuff? more ideas and thoughts percolate here than anywhere.

so this is to say that it's always fun shitposting about acceleration with ye and kudos all round.

>>11096224
this is true

>>11096816
this is very kind and i would like to fulfil that wish at some point. i'm still in the process of working out what that thing is. it might be some kind of philosophical rehab. not sure. but something like that, maybe.

>>11096902
this also is true. i absolutely did shit up mystikos' beautiful neoplatonist thread and i really felt bad about it afterwards. no doubt others as well. that one in particular tho, aagh.

my intention really wasn't (and isn't) to take over threads. it really isn't. the opposite in fact. i don't really want to make threads that aren't about girard, about girard, or even about me.

>no diamonds
>all rough
>yeeeeeeeeeaaaahhh

>>11097354
Literally right before alt-tabbing to this thread I just wrote a 61-page email to a friend who was simply saying "let's meet up and talk about the nietzsche project," completely filled with my insane rambling un-edited under-the-hood shorthand-and-concepts-that-only-make-sense-to-me so I sympathise with the impulse to write and to say what you really mean, especially when you've reached that threshold where you don't give a fuck anymore and you know (delusionally or not) you have things to say

But still, you gotta do it man. Don't fucking procrastinate. Better to write three failed versions of a project that ultimately ends up as a radical inversion or outgrowth of those failures than to spend another two years jerking around spinning your wheels.

>>11096099
114% agreed with this also. it really *does* feel like the next step: Go Back And Try Again. gives you the feels thinking about it.

even if it's not *permanent,* anything like this, but maybe to say - okay, so clearly something has gone weird in western civilization. once we begin unironically talking about time travel and how much our sex drives begin to look like the xenomorph and so on some brief interregnum where we go back to the roots and look things over again seems like it would be valuable.

*and fucking FUN,* which i think is the real thing. if i was really going to try and pitch this, it would actually be in a way like the exact *opposite* of critical theory: it would be Uncritical Theory. which is what a kind of comparative religious or humanities studies department might do: look for the *similarities,* look for the *patterns,* and forget about the difference. see the common threads, the overlapping symbols, the commonalities. yes, to be sure, as subjects we are infinitely multiple in that sense. there's no arguing with deleuze (or badiou). and no doubt looking at religion and so on would arouse the ire of both. it might seem like a cop-out.

but guess what. islam is going on to be on everyone's agenda for the next hundred years. so is china. and maybe the current wave of progressivism too. it's a recipe for a lot of unrest. i like spengler a lot but being the doomed man at the last post feels unnecessary.

look at the traditionalist/perennialist threads here on /lit/. or the catholic ones. people really find it cool. it's no accident that that happened. even the US is divided today into rival ideospheres, and maybe heading for a divorce. maybe that's necessary, maybe not.

but this:
>the dehumanizing age we live in
yes. the post/in/non-human &c matters. but so does the human. warts and all. we are *not pretty* on the inside, it's really true. whether we learn that from land or JBP. or whoever. but still.

>hopefully we go back to earlier thinkers and check their work, improve their work
i like this too. just being able to take a *longer view.* the long time preference really matters. philosophy is not always that which gets pushed into policy or revolution immediately.

>and pave over those useless thinkers of the 20th century who produced literally nothing of worth or consequence.
almost everybody has *something* to communicate. but we need some filters or frames for talking about it.

in the end i think people may just wind up demanding institutions that maybe can talk about this. we probably shouldn't get too romantic or optimistic about that happening. but charity is a good scene.

western civ can't really be fixed, and really *shouldn't* be necessarily overly glorified. Deus Vult isn't the answer. but the massive collective hate-on for it isn't either. how we got to this point *anyways* is the craziest story imaginable, and it's going to get even crazier still.

philosophy should be fun...

and all this after that other post in which i fucking just said i *wasn't* going to bust into a thread and fucking go bananas, here i am going bananas.

sigh. some things never change, i guess.

>>11097428
>Literally right before alt-tabbing to this thread I just wrote a 61-page email to a friend who was simply saying "let's meet up and talk about the nietzsche project," completely filled with my insane rambling un-edited under-the-hood shorthand-and-concepts-that-only-make-sense-to-me so I sympathise with the impulse to write and to say what you really mean, especially when you've reached that threshold where you don't give a fuck anymore and you know (delusionally or not) you have things to say

that is it.

TIL that deleuze had children, and that pic rel is a copy of anti-oedipus illustrated by deleuze's children. the inscription reads:
>For Michel, admiration and affection, and for shared causes, intolerably, where I will follow you.

so there you go. long live the insane 61-page ramble. it has to come out and good luck repressing it. might as well let it out.

>But still, you gotta do it man. Don't fucking procrastinate. Better to write three failed versions of a project that ultimately ends up as a radical inversion or outgrowth of those failures than to spend another two years jerking around spinning your wheels.

yeah. it's true. i've gotten so used to wheel-spinning at this point that i'm sort of okay with it, but obviously it's not where one is supposed to wind up. there was that other anon who said i was actually 'counter-initiatory' and a sign of the times - i think he was really into guenon and i'd hate to think that i was somehow part of whatever was ruining his day. i like esotericists! i don't want to hurt those guys' feelings.

so yeah. i've definitely tried to write stuff, that's the thing. a lot of trash pulp. it's what turned me into thinking about philosophy, and then into this weird /lit/-thing.

but it's really been wonderful in general. especially - oh man - byung chul han. just when you think you're so fucking miserable, you find a guy even more miserable and *a lot more interesting* than you, and it's like...oh fuck. holy shit. somebody else is this burned out? that's awesome.
>and hideous
>but still awesome

anyways. you get the idea. congratulations on the 61-page email tho anyways. 61 pages is still 61 pages. hope it continues to bear fruit.

>>11088401
Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water buckets. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water buckets.

>>11083546
>right wing philosophy
>right wing intelligence
have you never read a book

>>11082919
you can follow the academic/small presses that publish this stuff. request to be on the mailing list of places like sequence press...

probably easier to just fucking use the internet tho

>>11097354
Withdraw into yourself and look. And if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful; he cuts away here, he smooths there, he makes this line lighter, this other purer, until a lovely face has grown upon his work. So do you also; cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is crooked, bring light to all that is in shadow; labor to make all one glow of beauty and never cease chiseling your statue until there shall shine out on you from it the godlike splendor of virtue, until you shall see the perfect goodness established in the stainless shrine.

>>11090950
are you me? I literally want to talk to you irl

>>11088401
From Laurelle's Dictionary of Non-Philosophy:

Autonomous and specific discipline of an identically scientific and philosophical type that describes − in-the-last-instance according to the One-real and by means of philosophy and of science considered as material − on the one hand force (of) thought or the existing-Stranger-subject, and on the other hand the object of force (of) thought, which is the identity (of) world-thought.

Non-philosophy is regarded by philosophy either as the state of immediacy of naive and sensible opinion (the judgments of common sense), or as its other that remains to be thought (sciences, technologies, politics, arts...), or as the presuppositions of philosophy itself (the innumerable "unthoughts") that are in turn philosophizable. Merleau-Ponty's report concerning post-Hegelian thinkers (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Marx...) is quite revealing when he wonders whether our century "does not enter an age of non philosophy." But the expression primarily has a negative, even devalorizing content that can become positive, like in the contemporary thinkers of difference such as Derrida (cf. Positions), and especially Deleuze (cf. What Is Philosophy?) who synthesizes to the extreme this still quite "negative" vagueness, which is at bottom thoughts of the Other, by writing: "the philosopher must become non-philosopher so that non-philosophy becomes the earth and people of philosophy."

>>11088401
From Laurelle's Dictionary of Non-Philosophy, entry "Non-Philosophy":

Autonomous and specific discipline of an identically scientific and philosophical type that describes − in-the-last-instance according to the One-real and by means of philosophy and of science considered as material − on the one hand force (of) thought or the existing-Stranger-subject, and on the other hand the object of force (of) thought, which is the identity (of) world-thought.

Non-philosophy is regarded by philosophy either as the state of immediacy of naive and sensible opinion (the judgments of common sense), or as its other that remains to be thought (sciences, technologies, politics, arts...), or as the presuppositions of philosophy itself (the innumerable "unthoughts") that are in turn philosophizable. Merleau-Ponty's report concerning post-Hegelian thinkers (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Marx...) is quite revealing when he wonders whether our century "does not enter an age of non philosophy." But the expression primarily has a negative, even devalorizing content that can become positive, like in the contemporary thinkers of difference such as Derrida (cf. Positions), and especially Deleuze (cf. What Is Philosophy?) who synthesizes to the extreme this still quite "negative" vagueness, which is at bottom thoughts of the Other, by writing: "the philosopher must become non-philosopher so that non-philosophy becomes the earth and people of philosophy."

>>11098769
Distinct from this becoming that intertwines Being and Difference, vision-in-One (as immanent and manifest Real) is the transcendental "thread" of a consistent non-philosophical thought that is positively distinct from this current non philosophical type drifting in the nooks and crannies of philosophy. Non-philosophy is an autonomous and specific discipline that has its own concepts (One-real, vision-in-One, first science, cloning...); its own theoretical operations, which are transcendental by their real or in-One cause (induction and deduction); its own non-autopositional pragmatic rules; its own objects, which are philosophically undecidable as such-the One, Being, the Other, being, each of which, non-philosophically transformed, respectively give: the One-real; the aprioristic structure of Representation; the philosophical as world-thought's Principle of resistance; the chaotic universe (of) multiple representations obtained by the acting of the One-cause upon philosophical material as form of World. Autonomy signifies the epistemic break (being-foreclosed, determination-in-the-last-instance, unilaterality, the dual...) between non-philosophical posture and philosophical Decision. Non-philosophy's specificity means a strictly immanent (pragmatic and theoretical) practice for philosophy but also for the sciences, art... with determined rules, like, for example, the rule of the chôra, the suspension of philosophical Authority and the transformation of philosophy into material. Non-philosophy is from the start a theory by or according to the One, therefore a unified theory of science and of philosophy. It is simultaneously a theoretical, practical and critical discipline that is distinct from philosophy without being a meta-philosophy. It is specified in accordance with the regional material inserted into the structure of philosophical Decision (non-aesthetics, non-ethics, etc.).

>>11092929
unironically read all those philosophers (zizek, lacan, badiou, heidegger, derrida and especially marx) and you'll notice the split between the thought of these theorists and appropriated versions of them, how certain concepts, problems of them are passed over in silence, ofc those problems that challenge the cozy status quo of neoliberal proffesors

>>11098773
From Laurelle's Dictionary of Non-Philosophy, entry "Philosophical decision":

Philosophy's principal and formalized invariant or structure: according to philosophy, which does not indicate it without also simultaneously auto-affecting it and affecting its own identity; according to non-philosophy, which this time gives it a radical identity (of) structure or which determines it in-the-last-instance. Its synonyms: dyad and unity, amphibology, unity-of-contraries, mixture, blending − are likely even to have a double usage, intra-philosophical and non-philosophical, that changes its sense. Philosophical Decision is a mixture of indecision and decision, never pure decision.

I ) Decision in the traditional rational sense is the act − determined by reasons of the structural, cyclical or individual (choice) order − by which the individual puts an end to a deliberation. The economist and specialist in artificial science, H.A. Simon, defines it as: ''the process at the end of which at each moment one chooses one of these alternatives. The series of decisions that determine behavior during a given amount of time can be called a strategy." 2) Philosophical decision, variable according to the philosophers considered, corresponds with a certain invariant distribution whether explicit or repressed − of transcendental and empirical functions. In relation to a set of so-called "empirical" facts, or a "technico-experimental" labor; etc., the philosopher reactivates the decision of the question − which he considers fundamental − of the essence of phenomena. He makes a double distinction, that of the empirical and the a priori, whatever it be; then that of the a priori and the transcendental, which is a return to what he calls commencement, the originary, substance, Being, etc., but which is always the supposed authentic real equipped with transcendental functions (in a broad sense). 3) These concepts obviously have been generalized and critiqued in Deconstruction and the philosophies of Difference by the neighboring concepts of games, effects and strategies. But the empirical, a priori, transcendental and real levels are structural invariants and are not simply valid for Kant and Husserl, provided that they are understood as invariants and not as entities or essences.

>>11098798
Philosophical Decision is an operation of transcendence that believes (in a naive and hallucinatory way) in the possibility of a unitary discourse on the Real. This authoritarian claim is expressed by autoposition, an operation made possible by its being of mixture or amphibology. Philosophical Decision as structure involves the coupling, then the Unity, of contraries, and its function is to hallucinate the One-real and to foreclose it in this way. To philosophize is to decide on the Real and on thought, which ensues from it, i.e. to believe to be able to align them with the universal order of the Principle of Reason (the Logos), but also more generally in accordance with the "total" or unitary order of the Principle of sufficient philosophy. Whence the amphibologies that relate to the Real (as Being...) and to thought (as philosophy) and which are both the element and the result of the auto-decisional process. This includes the various operations that are the fundamental moments of any philosophical Decision and to which, in a non-auto-decisional form, the transcendental and a priori identity of the subject of non-philosophy, i.e. force (of) thought, corresponds. Because philosophical decision is a formalization of philosophy that is itself philosophical, it is used globally as a symptomatic indication and occasion for the elaboration of force (of) thought which, in addition, has for its "correlate" the identity, the sense (of) identity, of philosophical Decision, which is valid as foreclosure of the Real or of the One.

>>11098800
From Laurelle's Dictionary of Non-Philosophy, entry "Philosophy":

Object (occasion, material, symptom) of non-philosophy.

When it tries to think itself rather than practice itself spontaneously and naively, philosophy is for itself the object of a half-saying, of a half-definition or of a game of speeches and silences. The true philosopher's predicament is to say "the" philosophy. Philosophical systems are an aborted or endangered effort to say what philosophy is, to dissimulate the impossibility of saying it, to avoid having to keep silent.

Philosophy is an a priori discourse on the one hand with a systematic goal on the other. It posits the world whose being is pre-formed in the Logos with a predicative structure. This predicative structure of philosophical discourse is organized into a speculative reflection, as the last absolute philosophy shows (Hegel). The essence of speculative reflection is specularity, or dyadic. After Parmenides, the suture of Being and thinking forms the unsurpassable mirror stage of philosophy. Certainly after Heidegger, deconstructive philosophers are trying to break the mirror by substituting it for the specularity of Being and its residue dispersed or disseminated by the Other. However, this Other of the Logos has efficacy only in one last obligated reference to the Logos, which is supposed relevant for the Real. Philosophical Decision has become a forcing. At least since Plato it homogenizes, idealizes, quantifies and qualifies the Real and forecloses it. To philosophize means to decide on a strategy of positing the world. It is not to know, but a priori, to form decisional speech acts in an action of culture. Always (re)uttered in a diversity of writing styles and following the example of myth and its primordial metaphors, philosophy-form expresses the self-repetition and inertia of its autoreproduction. Nietzsche shows quite well that philosophy, so as to think itself, is brought to thematizing the absolute and primordial metaphor of the Eternal Return of the Same. Philosophy-form is then a metaphorical discourse (propped up by Logos, Being, etc. and fundamentally by the primordial Greek sacred). In general and non-Nietzschean terms, the philosopher is ultimately a priest conveying to the Occident the Greek sacred overdetermined by the Judeo-Christian sacred.

>>11098829
Through its main procedure − the transcending, insofar as it has prevalence over the transcendent − it is a faith, with the sufficiency of faith, destined by right to remain empty but which necessarily avoids this emptiness by its repopulation with foreign objects and goals provided by experience, culture, history, language, etc. Through its style of communication and of "knowledge," it is a rumor − the occidental rumor − that is transmitted by hearsay, mimicry, specularity and repetition. Through its internal structure, or "philosophical Decision," it is the articulation of a Dyad of contrasted terms and of a divided Unity, which is immanent and transcendent to the Dyad; or still, the articulation of a universal market, where concepts are exchanged according to each system's own specific rules, and of an instance with two faces: that of the philosophical division of labor and that of the appropriation of a share of what the market of concepts produces. Philosophy is thus the capital or a quasi-capital in the order of thought, or better yet the World's form understood in its most enveloping sense.
The preceding descriptions of philosophy find their occasion in philosophical descriptions, but in reality they already suppose non-philosophical terrain. If the predicament involves saying that philosophy is the criterion of the philosopher, the transformation of this aporia into a problem and its solution are the criterion of the non-philosopher who, regarding philosophy, i.e. its identity, substitutes knowledge for the sufficiency of faith. This is done by using means radically unknown to philosophy (vision-in-One as "real presupposed") or foreign to it (the cloning and the determination-in-the-last-instance of force (of) thought; the reduction of philosophy to the state of symptom and occasion). Non-philosophy breaks with the auto/hetero-critiques of philosophy typical of modernity and post-modernity. In its own way non-philosophy valorizes philosophy by freeing it from its authority over itself and by releasing its identity or its sense for force (of) thought, which is the authentic subject of (for) philosophy. It even gives philosophy an expanded relevance through which it appears as the span or the dimension of the World, i.e. as the identity (of) its Greek cosmopolitical determination; as world-thought, which vision-in-One alone can take as an object.

>Laurelle
It's "Laruelle." Anyway, all this talk and quoting of this Laruelle reminded me of Vattimo and his "pensiero debole" or "weak thought", and I found a convenient article that talks about both, as well as all the post-marxist impotently angry garbage we were complaining about a few posts ago:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/gianni-vattimos-weak-marxism/

>>11097962
thanks, anon.

THERE ARE LITERALLY STILL THESE FUCKING IDIOT FRENCH POSEUR FAGGOTS IN THE YEAR 2018??? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY STILL FUCKING LARPING AS A MEMBER OF A ZEITGEIST THAT DIED FIFTY FUCKING YEARS AGO?!?!?! NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THIS FUCKING SHIT ANYMORE YOU FUCKING EMBARRASSMENT FAIOLURE CULTURE OF FROG FCFUCKINGF PAJUKERHIDNBSGSMDKIF CUKKFING HATE THEF RENCH SO MUCH THEY KEEP DOING THIS FOR TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY FUCKIG YEARSN THEY HAVE RUINDE PHILOSOPHY AND PILFERED IDEAS FROM THE GERMANS

ALMOST THREE HUNDRED YEARS THIS FAILURE ****STINK COUNTRY**** HAS ****WASTEDEVERYBODY'S FUCKING TIME!!!!***** WITH THEIR FLABBY FAT FAKE FRENCHMAN PHILOSOPHY, FAT FOPPISH MANBOOB LACANIANS PRETENDING TO DO REAL PHILOSOPHY

I COULD TAKE IT BEFORE AND ONLY FEEL DISGUST AND PITY, BUT NOW I FEEL ANGER, LARUELLE ISNT EVEN A THING, HES SAYING THE SAME GOD DAMN SHIT AS EVYERBODY FUCKING ELSE HAS ALREADY SAID A THOUSAND TIMES EXCEPT HE HAS THE UNIQUELY FUCKING FRENCH STUPIDITY TO THINK HE'S DOING SOMETHING NEW EVEN AFTER OTHER FRENCHMAN HAVE ALREADY DONE IT INTO THE GROUND A HUNDRED FUCKING TIMES!! EVERYBODY, FUCIKING EVERYYYYYONEEEEEEEEEEEE HAS DONE THIS POST-PHILOSOPHY META-PHILOSOPHY SHIT, HEIDEGGER SAID IT IN PLAIN ELEGANT CONCEPTUALLY CONCRETE TERMS, DERRIDA JUST MUDDLED IT BUT AT LEAST HE HAD SOME FLASHES OF INSIGHT, BUT THAT WAS FIFTY FUCKING YEARS AGO DUDE! FIFTY FUCKING YEARS! ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS IS THE LARUELLE SHIT EVERYONE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT TO ME FOR WTWO YEARS???? IT'S LIKE A CHILD TINKER TOY PLAY BLOCKS VERSION OF DERRIDEANS KNOCKING OFF DERRIDA KNOCKING OFF HEIDEGGER???

I'M SO FUCKING TIRED OF THE FRENCH, JUST LET ISLAM TAKE THEM ALREADY, YOU ARE A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT PIG CULTURE WHO HAS NEVER CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING TO JHUMAN THOUGHT, WHO THE FUCK ASKED FOR YOUR FAILURE PIECE OF GARBAGE COUNTRY IN EUROPE? LEARN TO THINK!!!!!!!!! LEARN TO THINK BEFORE YOU TRY FUCKING CONTRIBUTING TO THE INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF EUROPE!!!!!! AT LEAST DO THE REST OF US A FAVOR AND PURGE YOUR FUCKING LARUELLES BEFORE THEY POLLUTE DISCOURSE LIKE THIS YOU FUCKING DERIVATIVE

DERIVATIVE

OF

GERMANS

FAILURE OF A CULTURE

YOU STEAL EVERYTHING FROM THE GERMANS AND COVER IT IN YOUR LOOSE, FLOPPY, UNSYSTEMATIC, WEAK, LAZY SHITTY INTELLECTUAL POSEUR GARBAGE UNTIL IT'S UNRECOGNIZABLE

I CAN'T STAND THIS FUCKING GROTESQUE GOBLINOID FAILURE OF A NATION ANYMORE, STOP RUINING EUROPE YOU FRENCH PIECES OF SHIT, SO HELP ME GOD I WILL WIPE FRANCE OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH FOR THE GARBAGE FAKE NONSENSE I JUST HAD TO READ IN THIS THREAD

>>11099442
Well, if you're tired of 1968 as the end of history and sociology as first philosophy, you still have the analytic departments which are taking over the world, including Germany and Austria. Not even Frankfurt is sacred, as Habermas went pragmatist and analytic. Soon enough, students will have to learn German philosophy in Italy, particularly German idealism and Lebensphilosophie lol.

true philosophy can only exist in the self published space now that print has become compromised

>>11099531

Got anything more from the self-publishing sphere?

>>11099442
keked and saved

>>11097451
>look at the traditionalist/perennialist threads here on /lit/. or the catholic ones. people really find it cool. it's no accident that that happened. even the US is divided today into rival ideospheres, and maybe heading for a divorce. maybe that's necessary, maybe not.
>hopefully we go back to earlier thinkers and check their work, improve their work
i like this too. just being able to take a *longer view.* the long time preference really matters. philosophy is not always that which gets pushed into policy or revolution immediately.

On the topic of a return to religion/some kind of reverse from the path that the 20th century set us on, I find it extremely desirable. So much of our issues have more or less come from what politics and thinkers decided to fuck up by essentially denying or destroying the past. And, though it's anecdotal, in my own social groups I've noticed a lot of these two sides - a return side and a side that wants to continue "progressing"/removing us from the past - to a point where, maybe not in actual physical or political terms, a "divorce" really could be coming. Socially, or intellectually, or something. At some point the seesaw will just snap in two. Where the riders fall is up to momentum.

>>11102505
>divorce

there is for the time being one principal ideosphere in the US, that being the Cathedral. but all the groundwork is being presently laid for at second one. the more that everything that falls to the right of radical progressive lunacy gets labeled as alt-right fascism, the more it's going to grow as well.

bret weinstein made a really good point about this. right libertarians and left libertarians can actually agree on a lot of stuff, but right authoritarians and left authoritarians can't. that's a really interesting idea.

i'm pretty fascinated by the traditionalist threads and other religious threads on /lit/ as well. my reading mostly comes out of the continental stuff, and i've really enjoyed that, but it does seem like there's a kind of a fork in the road for late-late-marxist stuff as well: acceleration or back to angsty hand-wringing. i don't think the angsty-hand wringing is working anymore, but the extreme acceleration stuff either terminates in darkness, or mutates into apologetics for some kind of far-right politics, or whatever. those aren't exactly desirable either. i don't really know how germane r/acc and u/acc and l/acc distinctions are. and partly because nobody can really lay claim to the high ground on being angsty. everyone's fucking triggered about something. and being perma-triggered is just boring. there has to be a better way.

so it's why i skew towards the religious and nondual stuff. that's the old glue that propped up civilization. and if the esotericists tell us anything it's that these things have a lot in common with each other. and besides, christianity and catholicism have a pretty amazing history to go back to uncover. it's part of the DNA of a much-maligned western civilization that might even benefit from being an underdog again. and we all love underdogs.

so, there's hope, i think. but not while people prefer being rage zombies to being flawed, imperfect, suffering human beings.

sorry sweetie, we don't need people telling us how to think anymore. WE are the philosophers now.

>>11083512
He's just a hold over from Mai 68.

>>11102876
>Um, excuse me, but are you philosph-splaining to me?

>>11102853
Sorry Anon, but people ARE rage (p) zombies

>>11102853
>ut all the groundwork is being presently laid for at second one. the more that everything that falls to the right of radical progressive lunacy gets labeled as alt-right fascism, the more it's going to grow as well
I can't understand how the current Cathedral - how those running it intentionally or not - can't see what they're doing in this case. It's absolutely obvious (human nature even, maybe) that by cutting off anyone who isn't a progressive, they're essentially building the very castle whose mirage they're currently trying to siege? And while I'm certainly more sympathetic/in agreement with the Right leaning side of that equation, a Right-aligned 'version' of the Cathedral isn't really the answer either.

>bret weinstein made a really good point about this. right libertarians and left libertarians can actually agree on a lot of stuff, but right authoritarians and left authoritarians can't. that's a really interesting idea.
The more I try to think about explaining this in simpler terms, the harder it is, kind of. I think it's an interesting observation. I guess it's easier to know how one wants to be ruled (or more likely, how one doesn't want to be ruled if one has to be regardless) than to accept more 'freedom' in a libertarian sense.

>i'm pretty fascinated by the traditionalist threads and other religious threads on /lit/ as well
You pretty much hit the nail on the head with
>. that's the old glue that propped up civilization. and if the esotericists tell us anything it's that these things have a lot in common with each other. and besides, christianity and catholicism have a pretty amazing history to go back to uncover
At least for me. The opposite on this spectrum, the 'destroy the past" and the like seems to lead to nothing but that acceleration-into-darkness. The past might not be perfect but it made us who we are and there's something, some spirit and flesh, to go back to and rediscover, even if there are changes to be made.

>>11097451
good post, and not just because you agree with me. you nailed it: there are things we have missed or straight up forgotten. things like love and forgiveness that we are not applying in contemporary culture (incl. intelligentsia) because they belong to the Other of the spooky supernatural religious dingdongs. one can't even say they're religious aloud without being seen differently.

I especially thing you are correct about creating an opposite of critical theory. It's really the antidote we need. Some very smart people I know, philosophy majors(!), live like bugmen because they have fallen victim to the outrage/virtue economy. Common threads are bridges to each other, and the more we find the better we can understand each other and end this nonsense.

>>11102853
>so, there's hope, i think. but not while people prefer being rage zombies to being flawed, imperfect, suffering human beings.
I don't have much hope of this stopping being the case tbhwyfambly. Social media is largely responsible for this, and it is the new media. It is the New Paradigm. Cable news and all that bullshit is making the transition and fighting dirty for eyeballs, but it is weighed down by its own overhead and bad/old ideas and management. At least its monolithicness used to unify larger chunks of the audience compared to the whirlpool of news flavors today. Someone could easily start up a bridge building (as above) news site if it had some gimmick to it and a reward, like an anti-echo chamber. Anechoic? People love to self-segregate, why not coerce them into unifying against common ills instead of each other? tb h it sounds like i'm describing 4chan. it's a tough nut.

>>11083386
>>11083480
>>11094018

My fucking god I am so glad I jumped the continental boat. They really are just attempting to write shitty fiction labeled as "interpretations" that will lead no where besides a good read to a few

Can we get an analytic/logic answer here? Where to go to see what is going on with current epistemology?

>>11102993
>things like love and forgiveness that we are not applying in contemporary culture (incl. intelligentsia) because they belong to the Other of the spooky supernatural religious dingdongs. one can't even say they're religious aloud without being seen differently.
A fun (upsetting? interesting?) anecdote that exemplifies this very well:

Butch Hartman, a famous cartoon creator (Fairly Odd Parents, Danny Phantom, etc.) recently released a Youtube video on his channel where, in a part of it, he thanked God for the opportunities he received and the success he'd gotten. There was a thread on /co/ about it, and while there were the expected Christians vs. Atheists going back and forth, the really telling stuff was how so many people mentioned that they felt odd to hear someone - someone famous, someone adult, someone successful, someone in the 21st century - mention their religion so openly. Not a bad or a good odd, but something like how they just didn't expect people to do it anymore, so much so that it was a strange happening and some said they were almost uncomfortable with it. I remember reading that thread and thinking that this was just so indicative of where our current social standings were. It was just a video about his thankfulness, but people were genuinely surprised.

Why are we at a point where even thankfulness is part of the Other, as you mentioned?

>>11102947
they become that way. despair will do it.

if it is inevitable, though, can they at least be the slow zombies?

>>11102992
>I can't understand how the current Cathedral - how those running it intentionally or not - can't see what they're doing in this case. It's absolutely obvious (human nature even, maybe) that by cutting off anyone who isn't a progressive, they're essentially building the very castle whose mirage they're currently trying to siege?

i think there are absolutely people who do know and are conscious actors. aggrieved, but conscious. in worlds beyond good and evil like that. but with a lot of others just following along. isn't this how we're told things are in the islamic world also? ali's mecca/medina muslims?

a right cathedral isn't the answer but it could well happen anyways just out of a kind of self-defense mechanism.

> I guess it's easier to know how one wants to be ruled (or more likely, how one doesn't want to be ruled if one has to be regardless) than to accept more 'freedom' in a libertarian sense.

that's a super-good insight, i think. i 100% agree. freedom doesn't - and can't - mean absolute and culturally sanctioned narcissism, tribalistic or otherwise. but that is what hysterical arguments defer - as long as you are oppressed, you don't have to consider anything else.

>it is always the same: once you are liberated, you are forced to ask yourself who you are. - baudrillard

you can see the appeal of permanent revolution. it's willed neoteny. and, for the time being, it's a viable strategy. for now. the question about freedom *is* a question about power. it shouldn't be *only* a question about power though. that's the crucial thing.

>The opposite on this spectrum, the 'destroy the past" and the like seems to lead to nothing but that acceleration-into-darkness. The past might not be perfect but it made us who we are and there's something, some spirit and flesh, to go back to and rediscover, even if there are changes to be made.

preach it

>>11102993
love really matters. hate and fear just come more naturally. burnout is the end result.

>an opposite of critical theory. It's really the antidote we need
Uncritical Theory is a goofy title but there's something appealing about it. it's civilization- restorative. the noble and beautiful parts about religions wouldn't be a bad start. or just the long story about how we got from Plato to NATO in a less fucked-out way.

in the absence of a common enemy - and this is hard, because we fucking love war - something else is called for.

hearing about phil majors falling victim to the virtue economy is depressing af to read but i can't say it surprises me either. it's a death spiral.

but it's why i think there's actually more hope for academics if they could shift to what it is that people want. and if it's guenon, then...?

pic rel for absolutely no reason except that it's great.

bump

>>11083386
>>11083480
>>11083520
If you weren't such a leftist I'm sure you're be fascinating.

>>11083546
This

>>11102505
>>11102993
Here's Vattimo's take on religion, also featuring Girard:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/vattimo/#H4

He co-wrote on religion/Christianity a book with Rorty (The Future of Religion), one with Derrida (Religion) and one with Girard (Christianity, Truth and Weakening Faith: A Dialogue).

>>11102997
>Where to go to see what is going on with current epistemology?
Richard J. Bernstein - The Pragmatic Turn

For Neoreactionary Sinology, read Spandrell.

>>11097451
>the exact *opposite* of critical theory: it would be Uncritical Theory. which is what a kind of comparative religious or humanities studies department might do: look for the *similarities,* look for the *patterns,* and forget about the difference. see the common threads, the overlapping symbols, the commonalities
Call it the philosophy of similarity, to compare it with the philosophy of difference.

The philosophy of difference is the winning team, has the most members, and develop an immense array of tools to contrast the efforts of the philosophy of similarity, its advantage is so great I get to the point where I can only think of Jung as a possible philosopher of similarity. Not suprising, when team difference only needs to find one single exception to bully the efforts of team similarity. You are no longer allowed to get culture A to interpret culture B to answer a quesion coming from culture C the way Jung would do. Look at pic related, you need to keep the points of view separate, they can't get closer otherwise one may directly see what the other guy is seeing (gasp!). Also note how the "relationships" need to happen at the maximum distance possible... needless to say, all this obsession with difference and distance fits right in with the social atomization* sorrounding us.
*To please the construcitivists, if I am not allowed to speak of an atomization, on the grounds that there is no subject outside the community constructing it, then trap what's left of each individual through a process of social moleculization into appropriately minuscule tribal units or echochambers.

bump.

>>11090878
This post gave me a mild boner.

>>11103941
Some more words on cultural distance. Think of anthropologists. They are not allowed to "go native":
>The term ‘going native’ refers to the danger for ethnographers to become too involved in the community under study, thus losing objectivity and distance.
They must describe things from afar, in a conservative effort to protect their personal and cultural particularities at any time, the pronoun "their" here referring to both the anthropologists and "natives." Difference must be upheld.

To follow this imperative, our anthropologists have to watch their every move. A discipline allegedly grounded in the quest for building bridges between cultures turns out to be founded on the erection of walls.

Nowadays you don't have to travel very far to meet "natives" you aren't allowed to do cultural appropriation to: they come to your land instead of you going to them, they live a couple of city blocks away, they ride the bus with you.

>Thus it came to pass that the Spartans were heroic in the day of battle; and, when the question arose whether a wall should be built about the city, the people were pleased with the man who said: "That city is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of bricks."
The usual suspects that love to control others find their job much easier if people control themselves in the first place. They built a cage around us, made entirely of "natives." It is well fortified. So fortified it's sapient.

Looking at all these tribal markings and tribal warfare, you will see "natives" aren't foreigners - they are "natives!" They come in all shapes and sizes: they root for the other team, vote the other party, listen to the other band, play the other game.

One must imagine the philosopher of similarity looking to discover ways to "go native" with any "natives."

>>11103941
Some more words on cultural distance. Think of anthropologists. They are not allowed to "go native":
>The term ‘going native’ refers to the danger for ethnographers to become too involved in the community under study, thus losing objectivity and distance.
They must describe things from afar, in a conservative effort to protect their personal and cultural particularities at any time, "their" here referring to both the anthropologists and "natives." Difference must be upheld.

To follow this imperative, our anthropologists have to watch their every move. A discipline allegedly grounded in the quest for building bridges between cultures turns out to be founded on the erection of walls.

Nowadays you don't have to travel very far to meet "natives" you aren't allowed to do cultural appropriation to: they come to your land instead of you going to them, they live a couple of city blocks away, they ride the bus with you.

>Thus it came to pass that the Spartans were heroic in the day of battle; and, when the question arose whether a wall should be built about the city, the people were pleased with the man who said: "That city is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of bricks."
The usual suspects that love to control others find their job much easier if people control themselves in the first place. They built a cage around us, made entirely of "natives." It is well fortified. So fortified it's sapient.

Looking at all these tribal markings and tribal warfare, you will see "natives" aren't foreigners - they are "natives!" They come in all shapes and sizes: they root for the other team, vote the other party, listen to the other band, play the other game.

One must imagine the philosopher of similarity looking to discover ways to "go native" with any "natives."

>>11103369
>>11103035
sorry i left you hanging my man, i went to go make some chili and got lost in Skyrim and Tony Bourdain. anyway here is an interesting link about how Catholicism has an a fetish for mortification and unhealthy concern with asceticism, and doing reps for Jesus is not a bad thing: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2018/05/reps-for-jesus.html

tldr flesh is conjoined with the sacred, which shouldn't be surprising, and changing that attitude may be part of the solution you and I are talking about. everybody on insta wants to be fit and couture and reppin' their best life, appearances are king in 2018. meanwhile, religious dingdongs are by and large -- the laity, anyway -- fatsos and uglies who neglect their body to perfect the spirit. it's absolutely misanthropic! and that is the stereotype. modest clothing isn't sexy and gets you no followers. but you go look at some young seminarians. most of them are fit, don't drink, eat clean, work out. anyway my point is religiosity and a religious message if it is to be succesful in effecting change in the way we are discussing absolutely must accomodate modern tastes, which includes a fabulous lifestyle. that's how to give the meme steam (if you know what i mean).

>>11103690
thanks for the link! giving me hope, anon

>>11103035
that's a horrifying story, you're right. horrifying. and it feeds into what i just wrote above: religion and religious people is the domain of the misanthrope, of the condemner, of the puritans. religion is not for sinners anymore, and nobody wants to think of themselves as a sinner anyway. it's for the perfect, people who think themselves better. holier-than-thou. and of course the aforementioned frumps. at least that is the perception i have.

thankfulness is a part of pop culture, sure, but not in a religious context. it's more like hippy dippy youtube videos talking about mindfulness and facebook memes about the vague notion of gratitude in general. for most people it's not founded in philosophy, it's just pop psych and happens to work just as well (mostly).

bump

Yo so I was smoking weed out of an apple last night and left it out and it was covered in ants and I decided to smoke a weed this smoring as well and didn't even bother washing all the ants out. So that's how I inhaled 10 tiny cartridges of boiling folic acid and biojuice

>>11103941
>Call it the philosophy of similarity, to compare it with the philosophy of difference.

okay, so whatever it is you are intimating here it is pretty fucking huge, so forgive me for schizo-rambling about this, but it's stuff that i am pretty obsessed with also. take these random comments then as you will...they're not polished, because i don't really know how to think about a lot of them.

in terms of difference and similarity: you're completely right. *criticism* is in a sense a kind of inherently modernist praxis. it is necessary, but the self is always implicated in it. heidegger took this to the limit - Dasein (land also). rethinking subjectivity in this way is what philosophers have been doing for a while. but in the present era we seem to have gone through a wormhole and become beings of pure representation ourselves, purely textual fabrics, and we are evolving completely transparent control societies to which we are both being adapted and adapting to ourselves. this is an economic, cultural, and technological phenomenon and no accident. philosophy alone didn't get us here, but it played a substantive part in it. as response to capital or as socially applied capitalism itself.

jon roffe also says in one of his books that we must always serve two masters. and i think part of this proceeds from nietzsche as well: doubling down on dionysus all the way isn't necessarily the answer. i don't want to casually misinterpret the Sorcerer Supreme here but the crucial link was between dionysus and apollo. ours is increasingly an age which seems to thirst for authoritarianism in a very soft way. we don't like balance, but balance is what we need.

and a philosophy of similarity might also address the concept of *proximity* also. culture is not necessarily the same as Home. the earth itself, i think, can be thought of as ungrounded in this way. even if the earth was gone, we would still think of it as being 'our planet.' and it would be. in gaunt's ghosts, the protagonists are all from a planet which is no longer there, and yet in which that culture continues to live on, and a people can still live in spite of having no home world. i find that quite poetic.

the social atomization wouldn't be a problem if we could recognize it for what it is, rather than on insisting on these binaries of true and false - and which include, obviously, social constructivism as an ideology. *criticism is not more real than traditionalism for its being militantly skeptical.* postmodernity is only a stance, an attitude, a plateau, a phase. radical pluralism isn't necessarily superior to monotheism - it's an outgrowth of it, but not the final form of human cultural collective process. all these echo chambers just continue to percolate like bubbles in this way as a part of psychic and collective individuation.

this guy is a really smart dude who talks about a lot of this stuff, you might be interested in following him.
https://twitter.com/MattPirkowski

>>11104597
You have my support when you eventually vomit

>>11104892
woah...

>>11104195
and this is the thing. isn't it the case that we have sort of adopted this curious stance of what is essentially ethnocentricism (or 'universo-centrism') w/r/t ourselves?

harrowing ourselves out and looking for the tiniest microfragment of cognitive bias is just this weird outgrowth or reversal of the same blindness that we once did to other cultures in the world. everywhere we went, we brought the Eye of Sauron to bear on cultures that were not our own. somewhere along the line, we started realizing that, wow, we were implicated in the observing process. enter structuralism and poststructuralism. okay. but we are now basically cannibalizing ourselves, our minds, and our own university culture under the sign of a kind of a difference that nevertheless cannot account for what it is that makes university discourse somehow anterior to this process.

and that is what nick land seemed to intimate, for instance - that there was no part of his brain not already wired for capitalism. now that is an extreme example, and not a perfect one, but it's kind of connected to what i'm saying here. the critical impulse is still essentially modernist - and it's just relentlessly self-obsessed and basically self-exploitive and self-appropriative. in our great desire for proximity - the balancing act of democratic and open societies - we have lost all concepts of proximity in thought: that ideas can be relative and not necessarily mutually exclusive. we can no more go absolutely native than we can really be absolutely foreign. total relativity will make us go insane, but total objectivity results in collectivized madness and the very same hegemony that was the thing to be resisted. quite the paradox.

one of the reasons why traditionalism/perennialism matter and are worth paying attention to are because of these notions of syncretism. the divine can be no more absolutely explained than the origins of the critical intellect or consciousness itself. what we see is a result of the frames through which we see it - and contemporary postmodernity as social justice basically hand-waves away anything at all that cannot be explained in terms of material difference (and the absolute denominators of which are race and gender, which are, however, varyingly fluid or stable - and so chaos predictably ensues.)

and it all becomes *so incredibly shallow.* in the end a cynical criticalism can simply fall into this bogus cartesian stance predicated on a false premise - 'go ahead, prove to me god exists. see? you can't. checkmate, theists.' but this is absolutely fucking cynical and completely uncharitable.

and meanwhile, all the mystics from all over the world are finding amazing overlapping metaphors to describe consciousness in ways that dazzle the mind. neoplatonists and traditionalists alike. are they all wrong? i don't think so.

so we *should* be suspicious about how it is that we think and perceive things, but not to the point of paranoid lunacy.

>>11104942
thoughts?

>>11104927
i can't always gauge tone on /lit/ but i thought that was a pretty interesting one. the view from a guy with a lower time-preference than me, for sure. and how postmodernity might be done in a more enlightened way without lapsing into socialist militancy in one way or the other. we have to be able to grasp our relative involvement in ideas in a kind of more balanced way than by our intutions alone.

i particularly liked what he said about false consciousness and false truth. bad faith and bad consciousness are phenomena linked to guilt. but it is the *weaponization* of that guilt and its use as a semantic bludgeon that is truly the sword with no handles, the blood magic from ASOIAF.

>>11104977
can't really disagree, right? having your brain drop out is a bad scene. but we live in an age of thought control, mimesis, and social media. it's hard to know when your brain *has* dropped out, and that's why echo chambers are a problem. if you're in a room full of rage zombies, you might conclude that everything is going just swimmingly. until you meet someone different - or even just a rage zombie with a different kind of rage going on. and then horror, shock, dismay, and all the rest.

so i'm not a huge fan of dawkins, but ofc he's correct.

>>11105043
>lower
sorry, meant to say higher.

>>11105043
>i can't always gauge tone on /lit/ but i thought that was a pretty interesting one
it's just "people have faith in science because science works" said with a needlessly complex tone. it's not even particularly creative.

>>11104977
For the discussion at hand it's more like:
>By all means let's have a discerning intellect, but not so discerning we can't recognize people or patterns anymore.

>>11104942
If we are to retain our sanity, we need to go Beyond Identity and Difference.

>>11083546
Alain de Benoist, Jonathan Bowden, Hans Herman Hoppe, Alexander Dugin, I can keep going if you want

>>11090878
Ouch, I don't think I was ready for this

>>11105078
i can understand that. this is just coming from a guy who has kind of doubled down on the masters of suspicion for a long time and who likes to find a kind of thinking that pulls away from black holes. it's a relative world, and a relative world has its dangers. pulling ourselves back from the brink and the margins requires an attitude about phenomenology and perception that overcomes the continental/analytic split. or any number of other splits. cultivating a balanced perspective that doesn't lapse into some kind of positivism or invokes some high card is very attractive to me.

ofc all of this can seem completely obvious. and in a sense it is, i have no problem with that. but i kind of like that this guy has digested some fairly complex ideas - not only peterson, for example, but also the culture in which he is appearing - cryptocurrencies, the hazards of moral relativism, and other things. sometimes the interesting stuff isn't flashy but just seems banal. so, tastes vary.

it's often a mindless world. contemporary philosophy struggles with how to parse this kind of stuff in social and cultural terms.

>>11105129
>If we are to retain our sanity, we need to go Beyond Identity and Difference.

preach it.

>>11090878

>>11105310
>contemporary philosophy struggles with how to parse this kind of stuff in social and cultural terms.
building increasingly complex systems of unsignified signifiers because you're butthurt that Marx was wrong about capitalism being inherently contradictory (that is, economically) results in gnoseological chaos, political impotency and damnation memoriae, who would have thought?

>>11105360
oh man. too good.

so no, i'm not butthurt that marx was wrong about capitalism. i don't believe that he was, for one thing. not in the slightest. surplus and capital accumulation is for real. i am a confirmed nick land fanboy for this reason. land also believes that marx is right. and do did deleuze, for that matter.

there are at least two major questions that result. the first is the one about psychoanalysis: that is, whether it's oedipal theatre at the bottom, or the BwO, or so on. that's one thing.

and the second is the question about society, the polis, the university, the role of the corporation, the open society, and about twenty million other things. land himself will say that one of the original and major turning points in western civilization is actually the protestant reformation for this reason.

the chaos, political impotency and damnation memoriae (that's a wonderful term, by the way, and i am going to steal it) is exactly the drivers of the rage virus and other various brands of ideological militancy in university cultures today. i'm not on the side of that. i think land poured a corrosive acid over a lot of the language games that ruled philosophy in the 1990s and which are absolutely moribund today.

but it didn't actually involve a complete rejection of marx. it's more the opposite: after all of the social upheaval of the 19C and 20C, *capitalism remains.* for the accelerationists it is *all that remains* and everything else gets shelved to second place - hopes and dreams, wishes, all of it.

asking whether or not democracy is compatible with libertarianism is an absolutely spot-on question to be asking these days. land thought it through to the nth degree and decided on corporate formalism. that's not crazy. nor is the motto: optimize for intelligence. again, i don't endorse his politics all the way down the line, but if you think my interest him proceeds from feeling butthurt about marx, you've got me completely wrong on this one.

capital is going ahead one way or the other, and it is ploughing up a lot of sacred cows and making people restless. i'm not on the side of the resultant chaos. i'm more interested in extracting some sanity from the turbulence. hope that makes sense. and this is said with no hostility, either: i genuinely do appreciate you making me think about these things too and making me clarify my positions on this stuff.

>>11104195
>founded on the erection

giggety

>>11083546
Most right wing philosophers of this generation are hacks

>>11105420
>so no, i'm not butthurt that marx was wrong about capitalism.
Oh no, I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm talking about the whole intellectual climate of post WW2 leftist movements in Europe. The "non dogmatic interpretations of Marx" (a meme ante litteram) who ignored his economic stuff and pillaged his rotten (metaphorical) corpse like vultures preying on a carcass multiplied esponentially as time went on. Just yesterday I read an article by german philosophy professor at Humboldt Universitat who talked about how "we need to understand marx non dogmatically by restarting from Hegel". A noble project, sure, but who is this "We"?
My grandad is someone who fought Mussolini in the resistance and at the time was a pretty active member of the PCI and he told me about this as well. They went from a period where reading Arendt was verboten and it will have you branded as a "liberal" (pretty funny how the mechanisms of political tribalization haven't changed) and everyone was a hardline stalinist to french theory and the subsequent dissolution of the left.
As for Marx not being wrong, how do you interpret pic related? Under Marx's LTV this should not have happened. As for the unification of Psychoanalysis and Marxism, I've always found it to be a weird chimera. Marx explicity says that "man, more than nature, is society, and therefore history" and "a human being is not an astraction immanent to the individual" but "the totality of social relationships" (this was from the theses on Feuerbach if I remember correctly). Now I'm fundamentally in agreement with Marx here so I've always been suspicious of psychoanalysis even given hermeneutics (Adolf Grünbaum wrote a very important critique of both Popper and hermeneutical justifications of PA if you're interested).
>the chaos, political impotency and damnation memoriae (that's a wonderful term, by the way, and i am going to steal it) is exactly the drivers of the rage virus and other various brands of ideological militancy in university cultures today
I would disagree. What we're seeing is a form of political tribalization extended to all aspects of society, but the causes of this remain very unclear to me desu. The political impotency I'm talking about is that of the different strains of anticapitalism.
>damnation memoriae
I made a typo there, the correct term is "damnatio memoriae". It's a term used in philology to denote parts of the text that have been completely lost for a reason or another. Fun fact: guess what the DM symbol is? A cross.
>asking whether or not democracy is compatible with libertarianism is an absolutely spot-on question to be asking these days.
Oh, for sure. One question that is also very interesting and that needs to be posited in the age of delevoping economy is if democracy and human right are even desirable in those context. Look at what Duterte is doing, the man is surely brutal but how do we judge his impact on the long run? And more: (cont)

>>11105669
*delevoping economies
And more: democracy formed in the West through a certain historicity. Can those even countries do away with that historicity? After all, how can there be rule of the people if citizens don't actually exist?
>i'm not on the side of the resultant chaos.
I don't mean this an offense but I believe that, in one way or another, we all are. You clearly are part of the same discourse as everyone else, your eye is set straight on the west and china and ignores the rest world.
> i'm more interested in extracting some sanity from the turbulence. hope that makes sense.
an honest pursuit, but how do you know you're not digging a hole for yourself and becoming entrenched in a sea of meaningless signifiers? Negative dialectics sure is a scary thought.
> and this is said with no hostility, either: i genuinely do appreciate you making me think about these things too and making me clarify my positions on this stuff.
oh don't worry about that

>>11105568
There is a few, I think interesting right wing intellectual movements were the French New Right and the Neoreactionaries , now all we have are the echoes of those movements in right euroskepticism, the alt right, and right wing populism.

It's been pretty slow since then not gonna lie.

>>11105669
sweet. and thanks also for the illuminating post.

>marx
for sure the LTV is complicated by technology, by entrepreneuralism, and freud and the legacy of analysis. marx-freud is a winning combination but it's definitely victorian. we can and should be suspicious about this stuff. trying to reclaim something in thought that *doesn't* culminate in suspicion - irony, cynicism, whatever else - is a constructive project for philosophy. so enlightened suspicion? cultural pattern recognition?

>tribalization/impotency
partly agreed. i don't really think anticapitalism is so politically impotent: look at starbucks folding up shop to deflect racism concerns, or james damore at google, or the rotating diversity czars at YouTube (i think it was YouTube, anyways). even big corporations still roll over for cultural power - for now. it won't last forever. i think people are really only engaged in customizing their own combination prison-habitrail. the sources and origins of the tribalism i think are material in nature and the restless anxious subject preyed upon by capitalism in their desires for comfort and security are sufficiently well-explained by the august undead host of continental theorists. but how the narrative moves forward from here is anybody's guess. but the shift from individualism to enlightened nu-tribalism is a scene adorned with vultures, jackals, and corpses.

>guess what the DM symbol is? A cross.
legit fascinating. this one is going to stick, i think.

>>11105717
>Can those even countries do away with that historicity? After all, how can there be rule of the people if citizens don't actually exist?
new model citizens, groomed and primed for total transparency and complete fidelity to virtuality and simulation would be my guess. people can't live without the matrix, but the matrix can't live without the people either. a strange and surreal corporate waltz follows from this. despair gets up and walks and forms facebook accounts.

>I don't mean this an offense but I believe that, in one way or another, we all are. You clearly are part of the same discourse as everyone else, your eye is set straight on the west and china and ignores the rest world.
no offense taken and can't really disagree either. it's a fair point.

>how do you know you're not digging a hole for yourself and becoming entrenched in a sea of meaningless signifiers?
i 100% honestly don't. hence the shitposting. i can really only sort of overhear myself tracing vicious circles from the inside and thereby concluding that this is the one fuckwit meatbag that i am, and not really so different in that sense from any other. it is to be hoped that an increased capacity for love and work is to follow from this.

>Negative dialectics sure is a scary thought.
none scarier, i think.

awesome posts, anon.

>>11101624
from the sequel

>>11105669
>I read an article by german philosophy professor at Humboldt Universitat who talked about how "we need to understand marx non dogmatically by restarting from Hegel".
Where have I seen that before? The meme goes that it was the western marxists that first came up with a return to Hegel, starting with Lukács, Gramsci, Korsch... so why don't we ask the first guy that comes to one's head when thinking of eastern marxists, Lenin?
>it is impossible completely to understand Marx’s Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic
>>11105717
>democracy formed in the West through a certain historicity. Can those even countries do away with that historicity? After all, how can there be rule of the people if citizens don't actually exist?
What's funny is that you have all these first worlders prattling about cultural particularities, historicity, the construction of the subject and the citizen, etc. and simultaneously not realizing the issues you're pointing out with installing and running democratic programs on older hardware.
>Negative dialectics sure is a scary thought.
I haven't read Adorno, as I'm still stuck with Kant for now. What's wrong with that?

Why is there so much written about communism and marxism? It is such a small and irrelevant movement in todays society where we have science to explain most of the relationships between groups of people.

>>11103690
Thanks for those links, anon. The Rorty book looks really interesting

>>11103941
>Not suprising, when team difference only needs to find one single exception to bully the efforts of team similarity. You are no longer allowed to get culture A to interpret culture B to answer a quesion coming from culture C the way Jung would do
I think you have a lot of good points in your post, but this stands out to me. I immediately thought about "The Golden Bough" - especially because we're, in part, talking about religion. Could that book be made today, and in a way that respected the cultures/the idea of religion and magic/etc? Immediately you'd see people yelling about it, I'm sure.

>>11090950
>t. philosophy department will hunting

>>11106585
t. sam harris

>>11106819
Yes, Frazer is a philosopher of similarity too, and yes they'd eat him raw.

>>11105184
>Some Putinist puppet

>Right wing

Please, don't.

>>11104244
>>11104253
>You can't just work out the spirit
>You have to work out the body to - for you own anti-misanthropic reasons, and in order to actually get people to even glance at your position in 2018
It makes sense, of course. Reminded me of pic related.

>>11107059
>Yes, Frazer is a philosopher of similarity too, and yes they'd eat him raw.
It's such a sad thought. And in this whole discussion on similarity/difference, it's hard to sometimes even accept the irony of how much those who are for difference seem to focus so much on "equality" and the like. How is focusing only on differences - in sex, in culture, in race, etc. - ever going to lead to shared experiences?

>>11107419
>How is focusing only on differences - in sex, in culture, in race, etc. - ever going to lead to shared experiences?

this.

Why no Jacques Rancière

>>11088401
Sounds like some sort of application/iteration of Goedel's incompleteness theorem.

>>11090670
>where does that leave the people who exited that kind of 'heaven'?
Here.

>>11084537
A layman with basic literacy in philosophy can get something out of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. Not as much as a specialist, but at least the writing is clear.

Kuhn’s Structures of Scientific Revolutions will also make sense to anyone with a basic science education.

>>11107881
I'm not sure if this is frightening or uplifting, though it's certainly true

>>11108126
I think a little of both, honestly. It's frightening because we've exited into a deeply horrifying reality where we have to learn to live with and persist through consequences -- in a virtual world we shape the fabric of the reality we experience, even if it is only a simulation upon a terrifying fabric -- but also uplifting, since everyone else is on the same plane and struggle has some form of relative meaning. I would argue remaining in the simulation to be the most terrifying of all, though, since at some point the end is coming; cosmic expansion will eventually rend a person to nothing.

bump

Hey, can somebody explain this to me: there seems to be a big part of modern? philosophy that is considered "deep" that is like this kinda poetic account of life as a 'nightmare of submission to demonic forces of exploitation'. I usually see this exclusively in city-people who want to retain a claim to moral righteousness as a way to rationalize a life focused on vices and apathy. Its like they have created a demonology that lets them sleep at night after consuming crap non-stop and being horrible people all day, because - ULTIMATELY - they are all the sick children of this demonic system, therefore "its not my fault".
Why is this considered deep? Im not even talking about legit hedonists, im zeroing down on the selfhating bunch who use either misanthropy or moral denounciation of God to wash their own self-regarded sins.

Zizek's cocaine-tick fueled fat ass for example. Has he tried a nose doctor a shower and some exercise? Are we all really slaves to the capitalist demon or is he just a talented orator who tries to convince us its not his fault he is unhappy?

>>11107861
lmao

>>11108781
>Why is this considered deep?
It's a series of lines of thought. The one that answers the question most directly is:
"True art" is tragic and angsty -> everything is art -> everything is tragic and angsty

As that anon was saying, they're trying to cope with the fact that Marx is dead and we killed him. See Bloch's huge 3 volume The Principle of Hope to see what it was like back in the day when they weren't yet resistant to what Aron called The Opium of the Intellectuals.

>>11109164
thank you for your answer, will check on both

>>11090878
I fapped to this post

>>11105184
Keep going for the heck of it /lit/

>>11083962
>Speculative realism/OOO

I'm more pissed off that it make the term "Object Oriented" even more ambiguous than it already it. It's already an unnecessarily confusing as fuck term in computing with several different definitions and approaches, and now these guys are giving it another ontology.

>>11090950
This pretend resistance is what Ted Kaczynski writes about in the system neatest trick.

The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the System's trick. Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellechlals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today. As a result, their impulse to rebel is particularly strong. But, because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is impossible for them. Consequently they are suckers for the System's trick, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to challenge the System's basic values.

>>11090950
too many adjectives, reads poetic yes, makes me feel a ball of bile in my stomach, but where's the substance?
>>11109675
and this one uses capitalization as an implicit way to personify a noun that is actually just an indirect way to name a snapshot of a fluid interlinked relation of verbs

>>11109525
what is ambiguous about OOP?

>>11109709
>OOP
Do you mean object-oriented philosophy, or object-oriented programming? Can't you see it? Even as an acronym it's already ambiguous.

>>11109709
Ok, does OOP mean:

- Something that supports inheritance, encapsulation and polymorphism
- Something that is about "modeling the real world" with computational structures in general, with emphasis on making the structures "like objects" and categorized under hierarchies
- Something that mainly enables the composition of Liskov substitutable structures (possibly though ducktyping, or otherwise offering implicit polymorphic interfaces)
- Something that is more powerful than 'procedural' languages in some particular way (though C allows you to hack the type system to produce equivalent behavior with more verbose and unsafe syntax and more flexible vtables)

What does it *really* mean? People have a general sense of it, but I've heard it used specifically as a superlative, as if to say that it is just means what a 'good' 'modern' language ought to be.

>>11109733
lol, point made

>>11109751
Its a programming paradigm that is built around the notion of thinking systems as the intercommunication of self-contained objects, the points you gave are characteristics of programs built this way.

Your closest shot was :
> Something that is about "modeling the real world" with computational structures in general, with emphasis on making the structures "like objects" and categorized under hierarchies

But this is icky as fuck, i tried to unpack what i mean by icky but i ended up falling into recursive explanations.

Basically:

- The hierarchical-heterarchical distinctions is unrelated to OOP, it comes more from the control flow of the program, sth that "is turned on and runs" is always hierarchical, sth that responds to user input can be heterarchical or at least a hierarchy that "hydras"(verb) itself after going through a central event manager.

- Making structures "like objects", is kinda a tautology, if you are thinking in structures you are kinda thinking in terms of objects unwittingly.

- "modeling the real world": this one is the ickiest, cause then it comes down to what do you mean by "real world"? If you want to do a distinction between say a lexical interpreter and say particle physics modelling (one is an abstract model of a logical system, the other an abstract model of a system existent in reality), the obvious answer is to say functional for the first, objects for the second. However when you start getting to the innards of it and the project grows, both efficiency and refactoring becomes an issue, and you would kinda want start merging the two, in both kind of projects, for the sake of simplification. You could also say that logical systems are also a part of the real world, by which "modeling the real world" would be what all programming does.

This last point is also why most modern languages actually provide capabilities for "agnostic" programming, or why sth like C that is so bare-bones (to the point of being like playing with fire) is still a popular solution.

>>11083520
>>11083480
>>11083386

All really great suggestions

>>11087860
great stuff

>>11090950
I don't think you really know what goes on in most leftist academic departments, at least in the UK

>>11082866
Alors comment c'était Henri IV ?

>>11109851
I don't think you get any pussy

>>11109851
How so?

>>11082522
The academy

>>11082821
>>11082522

I know this is cringy, but if it weren't for reddit, I would have never learned about atheism. If it weren't for 4chan, I would have never found Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson 5 years ago and 2 years ago respectively.

The amount of value I've gained from this website is priceless. The sad part is that there's nothing else for me here. I've been noticing patterns for many years. I think it's time for me to go, but I know I will always get the "see you here tomorrow" reply. Gotta love that. Anyways, I don't need to say goodbye. I know I will phase out of here in the next few weeks.

>>11111023
>reddit
>atheism
>sam harris
>jordan peterson
>value
You will not be missed.

>>11111023
Please don't come back, seriously. You are the pseudest of pseuds and you have an aura of shit that follows you around and contaminates everything you touch.

>>11111508

bump

>>11111023
Good riddance

>>11112459
super edgy

>>11082866
>modern literature at ENS and none of them knew about Ellul for exemple.
French "exceptionalism" at work right there.
When will you fuckers admit that the grandes ecoles were a mistake? I've never met people so formatted to to most blind conformism, and I come from one of those Anglo-American colleges where people take trannies seriously.

>>11112459
Careful with that sharp edge there, wouldn't want to cut yourself.

>>11097354
>i'm still in the process of working out what that thing is. it might be some kind of philosophical rehab. not sure

>>11112459
>unironically thought it was a good idea to save that pic so you could post again later
Yikeroonies.

>>11097661
ayn rand bible thumpers r so dumb.. yeah ill tread on u as much as i want... hashtag occupy is it man, its gonna be the revolution. look up banksy. man weird twitter is really doing some cool ass poetry. i love being a living smuggy demsoc dipshit stuck in 2011

>>11102853
>so, there's hope, i think. but not while people prefer being rage zombies to being flawed, imperfect, suffering human beings.

You put your finger on something there. A blurry picture just snapped into focus.

>>11094103
As with all healthy communities, a barrier to entry must be present and with /lit/ it is a grasp of literature. /k/ held out for quite a while before falling prey to Discord Decay like what you've described, because it took money and time and cleverness to talk geopolitics, wartime economics, defense industry, and weapons engineering on a level of understanding that didn't make you stand out as a moron.

>>11094103
its a lack of strong moderation

of course then you open up the problem of the moderation being tyranical and stiffling discussion, but at the end any open-doors big group is as productive as those in power are righteous

>>11113755
>when the truth hits you
nailed it. you sir are a genius

>>11113867
it's going to be an interesting puzzle. if i had ti speculate i wouldn't bet against transhumanism looking very good in the future after the dust settles on the culture wars, and at which point human optimization will start to look pretty sexy again.

building homo superior - and i do think that the foundations for Big Anthropotechnica is being laid, however strangely, in the current madness - will again invoke a lot of these old ghosts. society requires some kind of coherence or trust to work, but there's a kind of ineradicable Skynet imperative in us also that just wants to make everything go faster and smoothe. where these points converge i think you can get arguments for nietzsche that are clinical rather than hyperbolic, and of course happiness and health are always good for business.

that is where philosophical sparks will fly, i think. the question about happiness and freedom. it's what land raises, but not only him alone. and it's why a guy like dugin has been able to build an interesting political project for Eurasia: look, we don't care who you are, so long as your vision of man is dark, tragic, and cyclical. meanwhile, in the west, we are committed to these Enlightenment ideals that seem to get co-opted by capitalism in ways that range from sinister to...well, sinister in a more agreeable sort of way.

but anyways that's just my hot take. scrambled as per usual. and there's lots of other stuff to talk about along these lines. what sort of picture snapped into focus for you?

>>11113755
Letter makes the anime Space Dandy come to mind.

>>11105568
jordan peterson BTFOs postmodern-neomarxist gommulist SJW cuck [AMAZING] [CLICK] [WATCH NOW]

>>11092929
I think, as someone intelligent enough for a PhD, you should make it your life mission to BTFO all (or most) forms of ideological orthodoxy of the academy. But with actual rigor, not populism Peterson-tier demagoguery.

For example, deliberative democracy, "public reason", liberalism, theories of rights, hypothetical contract theories, etc.
Basically the entire Politcal Philosophy orthodoxy needs to be given a decent rebuttal. This is an empty area few people have dared into, but there are great many possibilities.

>>11094078
is this basically unabomber?

>>11115924
nah. just good old-fashioned continental philosophy. terrorism is for weenies.

>>11083874
>Alain Badiou
>Alain Finkielkraut
AAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OH AHAHAH

OH WOW

>>11091281
Can any Rortyposters actually give me a rundown on the man instead of just saying he ended philosophy?

bump

>>11115947
He quit

>>11116711
Lol what?

sci fi inspired philosophers are the only ones worth bothering with at the current moment

this means icycalm, rei koz, the goonan, land

>>11109851
Do you all just jerk off over how much you like being monitored by the tv licence people?

>>11117171
Please leave us alone Mr. Goonan

>>11117171
lol icy just quoted thomas777 on orgy

>>11118530
this is the gayest post i've ever made

ALL THIS NEOPHYLOSOPHY AND YOU VERMINS OF MARX
BTFO CHOMSKY

BY *

>>11118907
Source? Citation please?

>>11118915
hm?

>>11118918
the fucking image is source read you impecile

>>11119394
Not properly cited.

>>11118907
>Obviously got this result by typing keywords into Google books
>Implying you didn't actually read anything but we're desperate to support your argument
I didn't read the thread but going from this post alone I would say that you are a pathetic retard.

>>11120394
Good job science guy

>>11090950
So much for positing that "philosophers have done nothing but interpret the word, the objective is to change it"
Marx would be rolling in his grave if he knew the absolute state of contemporary marxist """"philosophers""""

>>11088401
based

Greg Johnson is nice. He runs counter-currents.
https://youtu.be/VbGZdBagIpc

>>11121251
yeah post random youtube racists in the philosophy thread faggot

>>11121265
>muh academia

it's dead anon

>>11121265
He writes, edits, distributes, and translates le books.
https://www.counter-currents.com/tag/johnson-book/
>>11121275
b a s e d
a
s
e
d

>>11121265
>>11121275
Why was my post about Greg Johnson and Counter Currents removed? Nationalist, traditionalist philosophy is as much "philosophy" as any other kind of thinking.
https://www.counter-currents.com/tag/johnson-book/
https://www.counter-currents.com/about/
>History is cyclical, and its prevailing current is downward, declining from a Golden Age through Silver and Bronze Ages to a Dark Age.
>We live in a Dark Age, in which decadence reigns and all natural and healthy values are inverted.
>Even in the depths of the Dark Age, there are hidden Golden Age counter-currents: survivals of the past Golden Age that sustain the world and serve as seeds of the Golden Age to come.
>It is not futile to think and live according to Golden Age principles in the depths of the Dark Age. Indeed, those who do so play an important role in the passage of the Ages.
>Knowledge has practical consequences. Counter-Currents aims to hasten the dissolution of the Dark Age by promoting knowledge of its deficiencies in the light of Tradition.
>Counter-Currents also aims to promote the survival of essential ideas and texts into Golden Age to come.
>Counter-Currents publishes, distributes, and promotes “Books Against Time.”

>>11121474
it was deleted because you post anime like a faggot

>>11121474
Your post was actually fucking deleted? What the hell.

I am not even a /pol/ type all that much, but Greg Johnson is a writer and an academic I am pretty sure has a bunch of published books. Counter Currents is a publisher, I think, and has tons of books, including "real" ones and not just propagand pamphlets. Didn't Johnson edit one of the few English anthologies of Klages? Same with the O'Meara guy, who has some interesting stuff on right wing traditionalism like you said. They also translate essays and excerpts by Junger, Schmitt etc. I skim their shit sometimes for this reason.

Stop over policing the board god damnit. If the person isn't spamming, err on the side of assuming good faith.

>>11121496
>>11121504
The guy obviously deleted it himself. Mods/jannys would've deleted all his posts at the same time if they deleted them, which didn't happen.
it's just /pol/ falseflagging

philosophy discord

https://discord.gg/wPb9SEx

>>11121685
kys

>>11121685
>You know what I think this anonymous discussion board needs
>A way to be even more echo-chameber-y on a shitty social-media era irc client
>And don't forget usernames!

Fuck off.

>>11121685
holy shit fuck off

>>11111023
I dont even browse /lit/ and I'm glad you're not here anymore. Thank you for promptly getting the fuck out.

>>11121685
fake und gay

>>11087860
Retarded post

>>11090878
Good post

>>11124406
Retarded post
>>11124413
Also a retarded post