/lit/ - Literature

Yes

>>14851908
Whoever made that graphic is deeply confused. The people on the left-hand side are not philosophers -- they are exponents of "cultural studies". Actual philosophers cite the work of people on the right-hand side.

>Each and every one of the French post-structuralists admitted he is only using pseudo-mathematics to explain his non-mathematical points

>>14851908
I don't understand the leap between
>sub atomic particles are geometric structures
to
>reality is simulation/ quantum stuff is immaterial
all very odd to me, just doesn't sound right.

>>14851908
Nicely cropped, dork.

>>14852841
It definitely is a leap, I'm not sure we have nearly enough info to make a judgement on the properties of a "computer universe". Zizek is a popular guy and people listen to him, for the most part, because he's entertaining.

>>14852866
Zizek always mentions that quantom/relativity for him is just a handy metaphor, and he does not actually understand the scientific background.

>>14852866
I think I might be coming around to platonic idealism because it occurred to me that ideas have geometry, and that essentially the notion of a mental universe is much more in line with a materialistic and deterministic interpretation than I had previously thought.

>>14852293
This bait is getting old.

>>14852897
It's not bait, moron. It's philosophy as it actually exists in the real world.

>>14851908
Baudrillard is based.

>>14852293
>>14852907
Kys, faggot. Your metanarratives are bullshit.

>>14851908
>he is so buthurt about pop-sci retards getting BTFO that he made a shitty ms paint image

>>14852920
Dumb modernist cuck

>>14852952
>modernist
Lol, no.

Zizek's quote appears to be from him speaking, they have weird sentence construction, but he said nothing wrong and he is also, as usual, half joking about it, anyone can see.

Baudrillard says nothing wrong either. What's the issue with the Moebius strip analogy? It's a fairly simple one.

D&G first quote I don't get, nor know context. Second one has nothing to do with science, they are all philosophical concepts.

Lacan is pure bullshit right there though. That being said, Lacan is brilliant for other things, he is just obscure and flamboyant and says bizarre nonsensical stuff like that as if it was a walk in the park. I bet if you were to sit and talk to him for hours you'd get his point and you'd say "fine, but why didn't you say it like that instead of making that stuff up?" and he would shrug and light his cigar staring at you.

The scientists on the right are all based.

>>14852977
/thread

>>14852977
Cope.

>>14852872
what in particular should he understand?

>>14853346
Sorry for my shitty syntax, I meant to say Zizek himself admits he (only uses at as a metaphor)+(doesn't understand it fully). I don't know enough about physics to say so myself.

>>14852963
huh? You're saying that metanarratives are bullshit but yours isnt? What kind of logic is that.

>>14853383
>wtf you think you can be right about something when other people are wrong????? like you think truth actually exists??? wtf bro haven’t you ever heard of LOGIC???????

>>14853383
>You're saying that metanarratives are bullshit but yours isnt?
All metanarratives are bullshit that obscure the truth. Literally just read the first chapter of Simulation and Simulacrum by Baudrillard.

PSA: Please speak slowly around analytics and STEMlets so they can keep up.

>>14851908
>Lefty pomo cucks are completely full of shit and do not understand science.

Wow, mind totally blown op

>>14851908
It's literally self refuting. Empiricism can't prove its own pre-suppositions and the tools that it uses to prove everything else.

>>14851908
>>14852911

Baudrillard quote is from Fatal Strategies

>>14851908
>Has empiricism ever been really refuted?
Of course not. Empiricism hasn't even gotten close to proving itself to begin with

>>14851908
Empiricism the philosophy has been refuted multiple times. Science however, isn't philosophy and doesn't care. You don't need philosophy to make fire, build an aeroplane or anything else physical and concrete. Philosophers often mistake science in thinking that the hypothesis, or just what scientists say are really definitive statements, when it is in fact the testing that is definitive, and beyond all appeal. A scientist can therefore be a total ignorant, so long as a consistent result is reached.

>>14851908
Deleuze and Guattari had great views on science. Essentially the "Statistical Physics" of philosphy. There was a passage in anti-oedipus that really nicely forecast the relatively "new" field of stochastic thermodynamics.
The saw "the molecular biological revolution and its consequences..." and the institutionalization of science.

>>14852841
Zizek isn't saying that reality is a simulation, he's saying the structures of reality are incomplete, much in the same way a videogame is constructed. It's an analogy.

>>14851908
Only what Bohr is saying could be construed as empiricist, don’t make bait if it’s retarded

Wow, all the meme replies to >>14852293 .

>Baudrillard, Deleuze, fuckin Zizek
Do people not know these are staple postmodern philosophers, and actually just batshit insane?

All these replies are bait themselves.

>>14852841
He's saying we encounter difficulties because velocity doesn't function fully with us in mind. It doesn't function fully because God did not deem it so, as He did not see us ever getting to the point of needing this velocity in the first place.

>>14853004
Seethe more

>>14852977
This whole post reeks of reddit. Where's your wife's boyfriend? Didn't he teach you how to behave online?

>>14851908
Damn philosophers are dumb

>>14856038
None of them are post-modern. They don't deny meta narratives

>>14852872
Confirmed for hack

>>14852977
Lacan just wants to make philosophy sound interesting. A lot of the time once you figure out what he is saying you will go back to the quote and it will make a lot more sense.

>>14853445
How does he justify that position?

Wittgenstein's private language argument. It is impossible to refer to something that only you have access to in your own experience because the criteria for any act of reference are essentially public.

Both sides are fucking retarded

>>14855919
Well it’s mostly scientists who mistake themselves for having found definitive truth rather than mere descriptions and predictions. The scientists in that image were brought up in the era of classical humanistic education. Hence some of them take a more philosophical view.

>>14857208
>This whole post reeks of reddit.
What the fucks does that even mean?

>>14857682
new bad old good

>>14857256
No one is actually postmodern by this standard

>>14852320
>i was wrong on purpose so it doesn't count

>>14851908
before it was even developed

>>14853445
Including yours ?
no offence meant. anon

>>14858928
I'm glad that's what you took away from that, truly you are an luminary of our age.

>>14859831
lol got his ass

>>14852911
Hmm, SNL right?

>>14858928
The geekification if the sciences has been a disaster for human thought.

>>14851908
God, Baudrillard is so fucking based.

>>14857682
Damn 20th century physicists were too based.

>>14858344
>having found definitive truth
No actual scientist has every though this
Only religious people pull shit out of their as and think they know Truth

>>14856001
This, by the way, was the position of Wolfgang Pauli, so you can't even call him a pleb because of it.
Still, I have no idea what Deleuze and Baudrillard were trying to say

>>14851908
>>14852841
>>14852866

Zizek's point being precisely that "reality" IS "real" despite "subatomic" Phenomena or inferences thereof, much like many video game objects are already sufficiently "real", in games, by their "outside" alone, their "inside" being superfluous and thus often left "empty".

>>14852977
>hey have weird sentence construction, but he said nothing wrong and he is also, as usual, half joking about it

>dude Zizek was just joking duuuddeeeeee, omg he´s so funny XDDDD


kys tankie

>>14861021
As another anon pointed out, Zizek is just giving an analogy for Pauli's interpretation of QM. Was Pauli a retard too?

It has no basis in empiricism - thus it is self refuting.

>>14861021
Are you willing to argue that Zizek would literally and seriously believe God is, apart from all theological and metaphysical discussion, actually be a lazy videogame programmer?