/lit/ - Literature

>>14772059
Stop posting in Guenon threads idiot.

>>14772175
I don't, but unfortunately I post on a Guenon board

guenonfag's english is bad, he meant "preemptively"

>>14772235
fuck

>>14772241
so guenonfag means he preemptively refuted whitehead? isn't whitehead a generation older than Guenon?

>>14772248
originally it was about parmenides

>>14772261
but the problem is the same, right? at least "retroactively" would be technically correct, if stupid as fuck

>>14772267
what do you mean? he was saying parmenides refuted whitehead before whitehead even came along. retroactively wouldn't be correct, it makes no sense. the normal meaning of refutation already implies a response to something that has already happened. if he said "retrospective" refutation that would at least just be redundant, but retroactive makes actually no sense whatsoever.

unfortunately when someone mentioned this to him he went completely insane and made it his favorite catchphrase.

>>14772277
sorry, didn't look at your image. to say that guenon retroactively refuted parmenides (which I thought is what you meant) would be technically correct, but redundant like you say
>retrospective
how would that work?

>>14772287
retrospective would at least work because all it means is backward-looking, which is what a refutation already is by definition (which is why the joke of a "preemptive" refutation sort of works, because it contains the silly idea that parmenides was so smart that he already accounted for whitehead's ideas and cut them off at the pass before whitehead was even born, he was refuting hypothetical ideas he could already anticipate despite their never having been articulated openly yet)

retroactive implies some kind of interaction with the thing in the past, changing the thing itself or its interpretation/reception so that the outcome is different. a retroactive prosecution under a new law would be one in which the new law was used to prosecute a crime carried out before the law was instated, "retroactively" assuming the law held good for past instances when it actually didn't. to say that you retroactively refuted something not only doesn't make sense, it almost implies something bad about your refutation, namely that it had to modify some condition of the thing it's refuting or the context it's being considered under in order to be effective.

>>14772322
i am not sure whether we agree. "retroactively refuted" is redundant, but not necessarily incorrect, right? in your example, a law can retroactively apply to activities considered illegal under the new law before the law was enacted. that seems more or less analogous to the use in "retroactively refuted" if it were used "correctly," but I may be missing some of the flavor of the usage

Yes. It shouldn't really exist, because why the fuck would someone argue something that has already been refuted.

>>14772322
>>14772277
you're being a pedant. if someone told you true love is about being "alone together" would you not understand that words don't have to abide by logic? Look forward to you stringing this one along.

Yeah, that’s why it’s funny. It’s a meme, retard.

>>14772235
can someone explain the joke here to a non-simpsons-viewer

>>14772420
it's funny because you've considered it? how I was I supposed to know that? I don't even know you

>>14772426
It’s funny because it’s stupid, smartass

>>14772425
in case of parmenides retroactively refuting whitehead, he lived thousands of years before whitehead, so it would make no sense for anything parmenides thought to retroactively apply to whitehead
more generally, most refutations already are "retroactive" in the sense that they apply to an argument made in the past, although >>14772322 this anon seems to disagree

>>14772440
bro, i just want to know about the simpsons not this complicated logic stuff

>>14772459
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llE7wT1BKt8

Are you retroactively refuting retroactive refutation?

retroactively refuted is one of my favorite /lit/ memes. I fucking hate Guenon fag but his broken English is hilarious.