/lit/ - Literature

>>15105904
>Womoid

>>15105904
nah, its not inaccessible enough. Cmon guys, keep writing those obtuse post-structuralist essays, hopefully it will put the dumb-dumbs out to pasture. Academia hasn't gone far enough in deteritorrialising sense into non-sense.

Despite looking like a freak, she's definitely right. Pretentious academics like to use big words. They don't get straight to the point. And they are extremely redundant.
But I've always had a feeling that it was the publisher's fault.

>>15105904
>Just use everyday language bro

>>15105904
"Transnationalization further fragmented the industrial sector. If the dominant position of immigrant enterprises is held to have reduced the political impact of an expanding industrial entrepreneurate, the arrival of multinational corporations possibly neutralized the consolidation of sectoral homogeneity anticipated in the demise of the artisanate."
Colin Lewis, “Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Manufacturing and Industrial Policy in the Argentine, 1922–28,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol. 16, No. 1 (October 1987), p. 90.

>>15105904
Academia is shit though. They deserve one another.

>>15105924
She’s right but it’s her own fault. Her fields of study are so removed from reality and obtuse that academic language to literally be invented to describe the concepts

>>15105924
This

>>15105930
What's wrong?

>>15105904
It's not that it's inaccessible, it's just completely anal about linguistic precision. Arcane language is just a shield against pseuds coming at you with completely retarded semantic takes, which academic philosophy is also rife with.

it's a good thing academics are not trying to sell novels. How much you enjoy reading a paper is irrelevant and disregarding an academic for their difficult writing style is infantile and self-destructive.

as a native german speaker i started reading english translations of harder german academic texts. Usually turns it into a dumb-dumb version. The german language is a nightmare

>>15105904
imagine being phd level and failing to read an article

>>15105987
This is why only people who read academics are academics.

>>15105904
Americans can not deal with complex sentences and subordinate clauses, what else?

>>15105930
Long word is LOOOOOOOONG haha
Perfectly sensible btw

>>15106010
>when americans abbreviate a word because 2+ syllables are too much

>>15106000
because reading for enjoyment and reading for information are two parallel pursuits with two different qualifications for success. Is it nice when they overlap? Sure, but they're not related in goal, method or form.

>>15106056
Anglo detected.

This is a problem and it's more prevalent in the humanities. The math papers I've read generally keep the prose simply and clean.

>>15105904
No. Academic texts are written to be read by other academics and other academics prefer reading this kind of texts. It is not written for undergrads, it's not written for the general public, it is written for the few hundred experts in the specific subfield and the few hundred experts in neughbouring subfields. It is not written for entertainment or being pleasant to read, it is written to communicate as precise as possible within the page limit.

Every field has a few retards that really suck at writing even that, but the average academic article succeeds at what it is supposed to be.

>>15106084
that's because they have actual content to discuss

>>15105976
This.
Being absolutely accurate with your word usage is a defense against pedants so that they have to argue the points and not simply discount you (or undermine you with others) for using a word incorrectly.

>>15105924
agreed

'Mass computer commoditization de-differentiates consumption and investment, triggering cultural micro engineering waves that dissociate theopolitical action into machinic hybridities, amongst increasingly dysfunctional defensive convulsions. Acephalization = schizophrenia: cutting-up capital by way of bottom-up macrobacterial telecommerce, inducing corporate disintegration. The doomed part of intensively virtualized techonomic apparatuses subverts the fraying residues of anthropomorphic guidance. Control dissolves into the impossible.

>>15105904
I went to bschool. The managerial and organizational litterature is full of bullshit words to explain simple concepts. They invent this dumb ass language so that consultants can use words and speak in a way no one else understands so they can get paid fat checks.

These academics have many good points and although the concepts seems intuitive and obvious, people still mess up these things in businesses all the time. But the language is fucking ridiculous. Me and a friend I studied with used to laugh at the fucking stupid ways those articles where written.

I think it's very interesting how "science communicators" are usually just small time scientists/engineers that are good at doing TV while "philosophy communicators" have a reputation for being absolute con-men and would be cult leaders.

>>15105930
it's sensible but in an old timey sense. i don't think this individual was using particularly advanced or obscure terms given the time and place and the audience he had. It does read like an almost fake string of words though.

>>15106056
cringe

I work in academia. 99% of it is just people who skim through secondary source books and posture themselves as if they understood it via commonly accepted built up pseudo-jargon.

>>15105904
I once punched someone in college because he was being a bitch about "fOrMaL wRiTiNg". Sorry fucker, but I write for a specific audience; an audience that hates pretentious bullshit.

>>15106040
>>15105966
Explain it in your own words

>>15105930
It's just long-winded, that's all. It's nowhere near inaccessible as she says. Academic texts are written so that it caters to people who are fellow experts in the field. They aren't meant to be entertainment. It would be a different story if she were talking about academic articles for the general public.

>>15106217
Story?

>>15106217
based
story?

>>15106228
This destroys the pseud

>>15105930
.01 btc to whoever can rewrite this without losing, obscuring, or distorting meaning.

>>15105904
A lot of the post-structuralists openly admitted to being obtuse on purpose. So, yes, she's right in so far as /lit/ is concerned.

>>15106228
Sorry, but in trying to accurately reconvey the information recorded in the aforementioned paragraph I have accidentally recreated it in its entirety. It seems that there was only one way to display that information, and the original author already discovered it!

>>15106244
>>15106256
He kept being a bitch over every single contraction so I punched him in the gut for being a bitch and told him to fuck off, not much to tell about it. I don't believe in pretentious faggotry.

>Professor "You eliminated every contraction to make the minimum word count."
>Guy about to invent formal writing "Oh haven't you heard?"

That's how I believe it started. If you're going to be a little bitch, you get smacked like a bitch. Time is money, and I'm short on both.

>>15106280
What kind of college has a word MINIMUM?

>>15106286
Diploma mills.

>>15105904
>anything approaching philosophy is the worst
femoids were a misstake

>”The imaginary elaboration being the language through which the utterer of a discourse (linguistic entity) fills out the place of subject of the utterance (psychological and ideological entity)”
>Translation: the way people say stuff

The US shouldn’t have dropped the atomic bombs on Jap cities, they should’ve dropped them on Parisian cafes and western collegiate philosophy departments

>>15105921
>Academia hasn't gone far enough in deteritorrialising sense into non-sense.
this

>>15105930
that's just shitty writing, at least there is an actual coherent idea behind it. Not like continental philosophy where it's just pure verbiage which loses any meaningful content when you try to boil it down and analyze it logically.

>>15106228
Anyway, the gist of it is that transnationals have fragmented (as in, broken into pieces) national industries. The long phrase says that if we accept the that foreign companies setting up shop in Argentina have reduced the power and growth of homegrown industries, then we must also grant that multinationals stopped the consolidation of certain homegrown industrues to replace the traditional production methods that were made obsolete by industrialization.
There is, of course some extra nuance that the original had and that I lost. But that's basically it.
We could argue endlessly about how we are to take that if, or what is the very specific sense that the author intended for certain words, but why bother?

>>15106348
At least continentals talk about things that are actually real and not whether or not zombies prove dualism or if statues are actually two objects at the same time.

>>15106389
>not zombies prove dualism or if statues are actually two objects at the same time
those are interesting, real questions. if you don't care about these things are you actually interested in philosophy? wouldn't religion or poetry or politics be better. I don't understand how you can have no interest in rigorous clear, logical writing on these issues but love stuff like >>15106126
or pic related. Then again my interest in philosophy is because specific questions actually bother me, I itch to get at the bottom of it.

>>15106463
From your point of view, why should anyone study epistemology instead of neuroscience or something related?

>>15105976
>>15106104
The biggest problem with this defense is that precision and accuracy are not the same thing. (I quoted both posts because one uses precision and the other uses accuracy, as though they're synonyms). Accuracy is how well a measurement accords with an underlying phenomenon, and precision is how closely spaced the tick marks are on your ruler. Or in this case, accuracy is how good your explanation is at capturing the thing being explained, and precision is how anal you've been in that explanation.
"Precise" language is a game academics play with each other, largely because they're envious of the prestige of science. But a precise explanation that's totally off-base is no more accurate than scribblings on an asylum wall. Indeed, precision goes the other way around: precise (as in mathematical-symbolic) language is all about formal systems, and in establishing a formal system and only being willing to engage within it, you've "rigged the game" in favor of your argument. At the same time, this means that various works generally can't be synthesized, because you can't generally synthesize formal systems. But anyway, precision isn't a defense against pseuds, it's a defense FOR pseuds, since you funnel anyone who cares about your work (and god knows why they would) into arguing on your terms.

>>15106150
Why doesn’t he rob the guy with the sack of money?

>>15106493
there are conceptual difficulties and confusions for philosophy to solve or at least clarify, even big important ones. science and scientists can (must) be very myopic which doesn't mean that philosophers have any right to reject or ignore it.

>>15106217
*unzips dick* back the fuck off???

>>15105930
This isn't even difficult to understand you midwit.

>>15106463
My g zombies don't exist and it is clearly obvious to the naked eye that a statue is one singular object. These questions are just completely stupid and it takes a tremendous amount of pretentious word salad to pretend otherwise. The likes of Zizek, for instance, may also be a pretentious word salad merchant at times but questions like "what's going on in the world" and "are we really as free as we think we are" are actually questions that people ask. The kind of questions Anglo philosophers ask on the other hand have about as much value as Sudoku puzzles.

In those systems of universal self-consistencies, this self-consistency therefore means the self-consistency of cognition as much as it means the self-consistency of the things themselves. Yet this expansion of these consistent determinatenesses, each of which peacefully describes the course of its progress and maintains a space in order to answer to itself, just as essentially passes over into its opposite, into the disarray of these determinatenesses.For the distinguishing mark, the universal determinateness, is the unity of opposites, of the determinate and of the universal in itself, and it must therefore break apart into this opposition.

>>15106228
Multinational corporations have weakened the political attention/desire payed towards industrial diversification. This was catalyzed by the movement of immigrants abroad to engage in economic activity for these multinationals.

It snowballed into the megacorporations that we know today, and the specialization of economies which serve different uses for these megacorporations.

i dobt anyone will read this but I study immunology and conceptually it's all very simple but if you were a layman and tried to read a more dense text it would be totally opaque, purely because there's such an abundance of terminology. 2 my cents

>>15106554
Explain it to me then

>>15106682
And why does that terminology exist?

>>15106502
you think physics would be better off with hand-waving and words than mathematics? if you mathematicize something that's the most precise you're gonna have it, which makes it easier to tease out the exact(!) consequences of your system and check them against some other source or show how it's not internally consistent. I agree with your division between accuracy and precision, and it's important, but you really go to far.
>>15106561
>My g zombies don't exist and it is clearly obvious to the naked eye that a statue is one singular object
if you don't care, fine, you don't have to care about philosophy. go make advertisements and make money.
>These questions are just completely stupid and it takes a tremendous amount of pretentious word salad to pretend otherwise
it's immediately obvious to me that these questions are important and interesting and I'd say the same when I was 12. besides the analytics are the concise ones. they write short journal articles whereas the continentals write 1000 page+ tomes no one reads. It's not the analytics the "tremendous amount of pretentious word salad" criticism applies to.
>The likes of Zizek, for instance, may also be a pretentious word salad merchant at times but questions
if you're talking about "real issues" shouldn't the demand for rigor and clarity be even greater?
>"what's going on in the world" and "are we really as free as we think we are" are actually questions that people ask
if you're going to investigate these questions and you consider them important then you should want to make progress on them. that means clarity and conciseness, not 1000 pages of babble where every single sentence can be interpreted in 10 different ways.

>>15106535
Because he's an amateur.

>>15105904
inaccessible to who?

>>15106692
two people already explained it to you. how many times does it need to be rehashed?

Obeseism lite, rejigging on-message, aponia above-board, chivachie multifactorial, inseam, dry-handed, fire diamond TPM, recognise, accrescent shorthand, gangling Alzheimer oenophile, long distancer, nonuniversality unsustainability discomfiteth, upraiser-phobia, neurotic ideography, calash misspeller, automatic transmission apocalyptica, affixoid thymus, pimp cup enragement, commendam, radiosounding microcythemia, nectosac exceptant, first cousin twice removed temerariousness, waning moon hexameter, ornithic federation, undelivered, fluffy, muriate of soda osteoclast, carrying pole overdiffuse dirty grease, first come first served, pride and joy aggrandizest, unicist disorganize, preheated, idling hyperthermally, parole faxable, scutching, watch your step, jaguarundi, pressed archicarp, tasty sidedish, flavanthrone, nonassignable Sam Hill, ungulate eucrasy, instanter, sunstroke, comtrace, turfen, vulcanise, infratrochlear spadroon, ermahgerd, Snellen chart, dramatology, miss out, consignification, computer program Platonist, lest we forget, bonsho, unhopefully, compose intergene, wingmanship, put your cards on the table, workman, glissando, loppers ulmic, vizarded, tarweed nonjazz, Dionysius corn chip, lepper sulfonal, alehoof virility, individual capitalisation, champion-elect, doubleton, bruschetta interrer, ditrochean schlemiel flother, the finger, mut., defective mimologics, barth, squab pie leadenness intrepidity algebraization, lap up borderless lickspittle fibration, ockard, diandry, gula eternize, undear unimaginable, mother heroine, prelegislative hispidity outbreak, other-sex evac, unspoiled, unpurifying, taken a break, sleepy sand, Pierian spring diaphoresis, territoreal sea nivellate, bibliotaph, Italian beef prolification, microembolism afterpulse, motherkins, SCDMA, everywhereness, gating, keep your knickers on, commuting, vermicelli, Londonward, imbrue, give a tinker's cuss, male circumcision, unargumentatively, mishope isagoge, dwarflike shrive jailership, diapason unvictimized, bleedy cunningness, strepitous, unremitted, asbuilt peasantist brickwork, BCAA sidebearing, double bazinga, egosurfing unrestrictedness, blagger, recompel, featherlessness, tauromorphous, inflexed epistolist, cubical, multiseptate, analogical, baleful, set to work, axled, ass guard computeresque, communicatively, monolithism, ungladness ontogenic, misgovernor, superegoist songbird, swirled cis male trunker, crubeen, Faery Wiccan brach stonebreaker, type interference, mollifyingly, deadhouse, blushfully, permissability, designatum capitulate, haircutting, wristbanding, wow, constringe, auctioneer, retour sans protêt, antinational resistive, fripper escapism, coronary artery disease, sliminess downright, entelechy, ruffler, solidaristic cup-shot geschmozzle, yoga mat, to some extent uncontentious, drop a bombshell, nigger rig, drum belly, on deck, PCC revisal, ifdef agathological, oversmoothed vigilance, vibration, holystone, boonless insularism manipular

>>15106720
the disabled

>>15106502
It's that age old argument: "it oozes" is much simpler to the layman than the heat equation, yet we prefer the equation, not the description in prose.

>>15105904
>>15105904
Honestly reading research papers is fucking tedious because they use longwinded shit like this >>15105930
Instead of just using everyday words and expressions. You're supposed to distribute information not obfuscate it behind big words that I have to whip out my thesaurus.

Why don't they ever write: And after learning about how trees grow we learned that sunlight makes it faster. Instead of Thus after rigorous methodology the conclusion was ascertained that UV spectrum lighting accelerates photosynthesis in single cell plants.

>>15106766
>single cell plants

https://zora.medium.com/the-burning-of-the-amazon-rainforest-is-directly-related-to-patriarchy-ae7edb54595c

>>15106831
Behold, the organism abides!

>>15106715
>you think physics would be better off with hand-waving and words than mathematics?
I'm not exactly sure how you got that from my post, since I was talking about the trend of other academics aping scientists, but sure we can talk about science. The dark side of formalization is a sort of generational reification of abstraction. That is, a group of scientists come up with a name for talking about some complex bundle of ideas, but since they created the abstraction, to them it always carries with it its original complexity. The scientists are also teachers, and they might even try to impart the complexity of abstraction onto their students. But they inevitably fail, because learning an abstraction isn't the same as creating it. Now those students grow up, and the complexity has been lost, and to them the abstraction is the concept. This generation now teaches the next generation, and all hope has been lost--or rather, science has now become lost up its own ass.
Notably, this is a pretty recent phenomenon, since the professionalization and mathematicization of science are both pretty recent changes (in the grand scheme of academia). So to answer your question, would physics be better off with words than formal symbols? I'm basically indifferent to that question, because physics is a pretty sad discipline regardless.

>>15106056
cringe
>>15106065
based

>>15106846
you have to build upon abstraction or else you don't have any progress.
>So to answer your question, would physics be better off with words than formal symbols? I'm basically indifferent to that question, because physics is a pretty sad discipline regardless.
NEET DISCOVERS ONE SIMPLE ARGUMENT PHYSICISTS HATE HIM

>>15106091
>gatekeeping

>>15106261
Transnationalization further fragmented the industrial sector. The dominance of foreign enterprises reduce the political impact of a specific expanding industry, thus arriving multinational corporations may have stopped the demise of the artisan class from leading to a consolidated industrial sector.

It's just a dialect. I like to call it "High English"

>>15106882
So you're saying there was no progress prior to the mathematicization of everything? Kind of makes you wonder how we got to the point of mathematicizing everything, since presumably that requires progress.

>>15106918
>high english good
>ebonics bad
Fuck off

>>15105904
>women's studies PhD
ahh, that explains it

>>15106925
There's nothing wrong with ebonics.

>>15106766
Social sciences I can agree on, but there are very good reasons why the natural sciences use complicated words for things instead of plain english.
If you want to learn more about science you're better off reading a textbook. Papers are for the people who already know what they're talking about.

>>15106942
based

>>15106923
>mathematicization of everything
What do you even mean by this?

>>15106715
>if you don't care, fine, you don't have to care about philosophy. go make advertisements and make money.
This is the thing, I really like philosophy pre-1900. I'm less familiar with contemporary continental philosophy but even that seems somewhat interesting and in the same tradition as the older philosophers I like to read. But postwar analytic philosophy is the gayest shit ever, it's completely absurd to pretend this is the end all be all of philosophy when it hasn't even existed for that long and it's completely localised to one linguistic sphere.
>besides the analytics are the concise ones. they write short journal articles whereas the continentals write 1000 page+ tomes no one reads. It's not the analytics the "tremendous amount of pretentious word salad" criticism applies to.
There isn't a word limit on word salad. A 500 word shitpost can be just as nonsensical as a Parisian doorstopper. And the focus on articles and the general fixation on trying to imitate scientists that Analytics have is another problem. I'd rather read an epic tome on a big, problematic question that tries to offer a satisfying answer rather than a pamphlet about whatever stoner thought is puzzling England's finest this week.

>if you're talking about "real issues" shouldn't the demand for rigor and clarity be even greater?
In some ways, yes. This is partly why I wouldn't rate zizek very highly. Be as rigorous and clear as you can be, by all means. But what's the point in having a clear answer to a completely trivial question?

I think analytics put far too much emphasis on rigour. They're not scientists, tragically. In 100 years for all this rigour exactly nothing has been solved. Late Nietzsche is completely un-rigorous but is still full of wisdom that's worth reading and thinking about.

>>15106923
>That is, a group of scientists come up with a name for talking about some complex bundle of ideas, but since they created the abstraction, to them it always carries with it its original complexity. The scientists are also teachers, and they might even try to impart the complexity of abstraction onto their students. But they inevitably fail, because learning an abstraction isn't the same as creating it. Now those students grow up, and the complexity has been lost, and to them the abstraction is the concept. This generation now teaches the next generation, and all hope has been lost
this isn't specific to mathematization, it's a necessary part of any sort of progress.

What's her PhD in? Just curious

>>15105904
>N

>>15105930
The worst apart about this is that it’s boring. Half a sentence in and you want to kill yourself. Researchers should hire writers to work with them. It would educate writers and make papers more enjoyable to read.

>>15106535
You are learning, comrade

>>15106493
Neuroscience can not and never will solve consciousness.
>Thus whiteness, colours, and all other objects of mentality are deemed metaphysical. Let us delve into the physical to examine the point. A man is seeing a patch of white. Where is this whiteness?
>(1) We cannot say it is in the physical object as such, say a cloud. Here there exist the molecules constituting the cloud, which themselves are not white (akin to Berkeley’s emphasis[iv]).
>(2) Further we cannot say that whiteness is in the certain reflected electromagnetic wave as
>>(a) the wave without a perceiver will not be white,
>>(b) the same wave can be perceived as different colours (inverted spectrum, synaesthesia), and
>>(c) the same perceived colour can have different waves (metamerism).
>(3) The whiteness is not actually in the anatomy of the percipient nor in its functioning. It is not in the eyes, nerves, brain: within the skull pervades darkness. The brain does not turn white when intuiting whiteness, as it does not turn triangular when intuiting a triangle.
>(4) Though the object that is whiteness is correlated with activity in the brain, with the electromagnetic light wave, and with the cloud, this correlate is not thereby determined as identical to any of these. Whiteness is neither an emergent property of the brain, as such a notion commits the Emergence Category Mistake,[v] erroneously presupposing brute emergence and an analogy between nature’s otherwise physical-to-physical acts of emergence (e.g. liquidity from molecules) and a purported physical-to-mental emergence. Emergence is the magic with which materialism is spellbound.
> (5) Whiteness is thus not identical (1—–3) to its various correlates, it is not an emergent property (4) of those subvenient correlates, but nor is it simply the abstracted common feature of white objects as this would entail that those objects had the whiteness from which one could abstract it as such.

>>15106564
I don't remember a damn thing about the phenomenology of spirit, but my first thought reading this was "this is hegel".
Dudes got a really unique style of nonsense.

>PhD in sexual violence and masculinity
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF ACADEMICS, ironic considering her ilk are responsible for keeping obfuscation and word salad in vogue

>>15106846
lol imagine writing this many words to cope with being bad at math

>>15107017
What? This can't be a real degree

The entire point of entry level classes is learning the vocab for a given field. People use terms to describe things that would normally take longer to explain, this sentence being an example ie. jargon. And every concept in a field will have jargon which means you can explain more and more complicated ideas with jargon. If it were simple, the fields would have no progress. If it were easy, everyone would be a doctor or lawyer. If it was accessible, no one would give a shit anyway.

>>15106975
PhD on sexual violence&masculinity

You know I don't think there's any such thing as a meme degree, and I detest the kind of people who put down things like women's studies. People should get their degrees in whatever they're passionate about. But becoming a "Doctor of the philosophy of sexual violence and masculinity" has a really weird connotation to it.

I know it's probably about the study of the pathological components of these things, but when you read the title as I have layed it out above, it's reads paradoxical to that. It sounds like she has studied to become an advocate for sexually violent males. I feel very assured that this is not the case, but I can't help but laugh a little now, having seen it. I wonder if she has noticed this, too.

>>15105930
>Americans think this is inaccessible

>>15106995
But it's this
>(3) The whiteness is not actually in the anatomy of the percipient nor in its functioning. It is not in the eyes, nerves, brain: within the skull pervades darkness. The brain does not turn white when intuiting whiteness, as it does not turn triangular when intuiting a triangle.
The reasoning here is flawed. Just because if you literally looked within the brain inside the skull you wouldn't see white doesn't mean the perception of whiteness doesn't exist in the brain. Even if the brain did turn white this wouldn't prove whiteness existed in it intrinsically as established in (1) of this argument.

The brain is like a TV broadcasting consciousness that's only visible to itself. Smash the brain and there is no whiteness, because there is no consciousness, you are dead.

>>15105904
>I

>>15107049
Look at her profile
>PhD in sexual violence and masculinity

>>15105904
>PhD level
What does this even mean?

>>15105904
>Brazilian monkey doing a PhD in the UK
Lmao the absolute state of English universities

>>15105904
>B-but the language is hard
You could figure out the jargon for entire feilds in ten minutes if you are smart enough. The only reason she is complaining is because she isn't smart enough to do that. The "jargonizing" of language in specialized fields is an essential part of keeping some field afloat in a democracy where everyone has the right to everything.

>>15106965
nietzsche is self-help. he's not trying to answer any important questions.
I don't get why you would dismiss zombies as theoretical bullshit but not justifying ones knowledge starting only with "I think therefore I am".
>it's completely localised to one linguistic sphere.
compare the population of france and germany to the population of america, canada, britain, scandinavia (traditionally analytic), australia, new zealand and south africa. vastly more philosophers are analytics than continentals, analytical philosophy is far more open because far more people speak english.
>But what's the point in having a clear answer to a completely trivial question?
you don't care about philosophy...
>I think analytics put far too much emphasis on rigour. They're not scientists, tragically. In 100 years for all this rigour exactly nothing has been solved.
how is not being a scientist a good argument for not arguing clearly and with well-defined terms?
>In 100 years for all this rigour exactly nothing has been solved
but lacan solves a lot of hard questions?

>>15106995
>Whiteness is neither an emergent property of the brain, as such a notion commits the Emergence Category Mistake,
lol cope

>>15107114
Maybe she just don't know English very well. But then, Americans itt seem to agree with her...

>>15107093
That can't be real... Please tell me it isn't...

>>15106995
Lol neuroscientists are still arguing over consciousness and thought when Spinoza already solved the issue in the 16th century.

>>15107146
>Spinoza
>>>/x/

>>15106995
>where is the whiteness
is not a well-defined question.
>where is harry potter?

>>15105904
>>15105930

This woman is probably earning a PhD in lit or women's studies or something else that's on the soft side of social science or an already female-dominated humanities. She can't even imagine what it's like to be doing an economics or philosophy or math PhD where there literally everything written at a high level is completely indecipherable to anyone that's not at least at the masters level.

>>15107180
Her profile was checked and she's apparently PhD in sexual violence and masculinity.

>>15106564
Had to read it a few times, but I believe I got it:
>Determinateness describes the course of progress and maintains a state in order to answer itself and eventually passes over into disarray since universal determinateness is the "unity of opposites"/duality/becoming.
Basically just repeating Heraclitean philosophy extremely obscurely.

>>15105904

>>15105904
>G

>>15105904
No, just useless. Most academic jargon can be mastered in a few hours of reading, but at that point anyone with half a brain will realize that it's a bunch of shit. The relentless expansion of the social sciences has created a host of theories that all fail to provide any real evidence for themselves, so they shroud themselves in newly invented words so when others criticize their bullshit, they can tell them "you just don't get it" and wave them away.

Simplifying is an art tbqh.

>>15107123
>nietzsche is self-help. he's not trying to answer any important questions.
The question of the good life is the oldest and most important philosophical question there is. 99% of the time anyone has ever opened a book about philosophy it's to learn some wisdom.

vastly more philosophers are analytics than continentals, analytical philosophy is far more open because far more people speak english.
What kind of nonsense is this? You may as well say Marxism is the ultimate school of philosophy since more people speak Chinese. My point isn't that contemporary continental philosophy is the actual end-all be all. My point was it's silly to say "If you're not interested in the specific fashion of contemporary philosophy, in a particular part of the world, for about a century or so then you're not interested in philosophy".
>how is not being a scientist a good argument for not arguing clearly and with well-defined terms?
Because that microsentence wasn't an argument, it was shittalk included within the actual argument that despite spending a full century on this autism analytics have answered nothing while actual scientists have been progressing faster than ever. It's a completely superficial kind of rigour meant to imitate the sciences in an era of scientifically-dominated academia when it doesn't actually yield any results, which is the whole point of scientific methodology in actual science.

>>15107078
Refuted in (4)
>>15107126
>>15107146
>>15107161
No arguments

>>15107060

There's a great part in After Virtue where MacIntyre straight up says that soft social science PhD's have much lower IQ's than natural science or economics PhD's. It's on page 88 of this edition.

>ableism
>I can't understand words, therefore you're the problem, not me.
So rather than rise to the challenge the language presents, it should be dumbed down for her easy understanding?
Are all PhDs brainlets?

>>15107123
>he's not trying to answer any important questions.
Other than the fate of all of civilization (eternal recurrence), a characterization of all action (will to power), a destruction of pessimism and nihilism (only value is power), creating a psychology of ascending and decaying lifeforms (dionysus vs the cross), a destruction of the idea of truth, a creation of an order of rank of every lifeform, recreating an imminent god as the most powerful lifeform, etc. etc. yeah not very important

>>15105904
if you open an advanced book on mathemathics and dont understand formulas, there's no problem. If you open a humanities academic work and dont understand the term is suddenly too obscure. Plebs are just too lazy to involve themselves with a discipline, and pretend that in an ignorant double standard for the "humanities" (why the fuck metaphysics is humanities i still dont know) to be accessible. Git gud you fucking lazy bitch

>>15107210
But /lit/ told me that anticapitalist, white male haters are just an alt right meme

>>15107229
>>15107123
Oh yes, also
>I don't get why you would dismiss zombies as theoretical bullshit but not justifying ones knowledge starting only with "I think therefore I am".
Well because "I think therefore I am" is an observation about the actual world that you can see to be true. P-zombies are a completely intellectual construction that couldn't possibly prove anything that they are meant to. They're the perfect example of the general obsession analytics have with "thought experiments".

>but lacan solves a lot of hard questions?
Dunno, haven't read.

>>15107242
Yes, there is an argument, you just haven't read Spinoza so you are confused. All you have to do is make thought ("mind") an attribute of substance that is parallel with material ("body") which both resolve into one substance, so that any modification of the body would be parallel with some modification of the mind. Psychophysical parallelism has been around for like 400 years, and multiple thermodynamicists have spent their lives studying it to great success (neuroscientists, too, since this is pretty much their job).

>>15107255
>formulas
Kek, open any page of Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry. Even better, open the very first page. Every single noun is a specific technical term that has very specific meaning, many such terms having books focused on them.
If you actually get to the formulas you have gone pretty far already.

>>15107260
The problem with p-zombies is that they are indistinguishable from humans. Hell, if you reject substance dualism (as you should), then there's no such a thing as non p-zombie.

why does every thing have to read at a 6th grade level? Deep down, these people must realize it's a regression.

>>15107123
>how is not being a scientist a good argument for not arguing clearly and with well-defined terms?
They're not well-defined, they are just narrowly and formally defined. I find continental concepts extremely well-defined and so do many other scholars who consistently engaged with these ideas, they're just not narrow or formal like what analytics want. They use everyday language and deep grammar to express these ideas. Maybe if you read Wittgenstein, which you should have, you'd understand that this "clarity" you're talking about is nothing more than arbitrarily choosing one among many equally valid interpretations of a concept. Defining "will" or "meaning" one way or the other doesn't elucidate anything about any real or formal thing out in nature, but only a specific conceit of it. Continentals engage in philosophy for a multitude of reasons. Their use of language reflects their purpose. Analytics aren't relevant in art, history, hardly in politics and in the social sciences (apart from linguistics) because they do philosophy abstracted from any real concern. They're like theologians talking about how many angels fit in the head of needle.

If a person asks "what should i do with my life", the analytic has absolutely nothing to say, because he can even begin to conceive of the depth behind that question.

>>15107229
>99% of the time anyone has ever opened a book about philosophy it's to learn some wisdom
99% of the time people opening philosophy books are searching for self-help or something that can help them btfo their political opponents.
>My point was it's silly to say "If you're not interested in the specific fashion of contemporary philosophy, in a particular part of the world, for about a century or so then you're not interested in philosophy".
most philosophers in history has been interested in consciousness and other questions you seem to think are theoretical bullshit
>zombies don't exist my g
great, go make money. you clearly don't care about philosophy.
>analytics have answered nothing while actual scientists have been progressing faster than ever
russell tried to reduce maths to logic, in the process he discovered russells paradox and we eventually found out the project was pretty much impossible. In addition his work in PM led to type theory which is very important to parts of computer science and mathematical logic today. That's progress. according to most philosophers fundamental issues were discovered in the logical positivists, for instance their naive view of natural science and verification, that led to that school pretty much being abandoned. I'd say that's a sort of progress.
>It's a completely superficial kind of rigour meant to imitate the sciences in an era of scientifically-dominated academia when it doesn't actually yield any results, which is the whole point of scientific methodology in actual science.
how is it superficial? Because we cannot say with the same certainty as in the natural sciences, we should stop trying to argue clearly, concisely and from explicitly stated premises? Besides there is no scientific methodology in philosophy. they're not doing experiments. You think just because you're not doing natural science you should just spew word salad and hand-wave all you want? you didn't go very far in mathematics did you.

>>15106995
It makes me somewhat sad that brainlets can’t understand this post. Let me add something which may blow their minds: visual processing goes on in a little center at the back of your brain. However, ironically, the very location of this (the back of your brain) is being “projected” from the “back of your brain” itself. So everything you see right now is “just neurons firing in a little spot in the back of your brain.” The wall or ceiling you can look up at now is not provably “there spatially where it seems to be”, but is simply “an image being manufactured in the back of your brain” (and who’s looking at this image? the physical material brain itself?)

>>15106150
This, so fucking much this
T. Bschool

>>15107313
>they are just narrowly and formally defined
so you actually know what you're talking about and saying, and so arguments can be taken seriously.
>Analytics aren't relevant in art, history, hardly in politics and in the social sciences
there are deep questions to be investigated, it doesn't have to "relevant" to making money or inspiring teenagers or such.
>what should i do with my life
ask a fucking priest.

>>15107337
>99% of the time people opening philosophy books are searching for self-help or something that can help them btfo their political opponents.
Yeah, because that was what philosophy was about for thousands of years. How to live the good life.
russell tried to reduce maths to logic, in the process he discovered russells paradox and we eventually found out the project was pretty much impossible. In addition his work in PM led to type theory which is very important to parts of computer science and mathematical logic today.
So you mentioned here
>math
>logic
>computer science
Where is the philosophy here?
>You think just because you're not doing natural science you should just spew word salad and hand-wave all you want?
Can you prove that it shouldnt?

>>15107390
>so you actually know what you're talking about and saying, and so arguments can be taken seriously.
So you're incapable of understanding when somebody asks you "how you're doing?" because it isn't set in formal logic? Are those the only things you can understand? maybe you should see a doctor, anon. You might have what's call "autism" which has been proven to lower the social functioning of individuals.

>>15107313
>>15107390
I think you both have your points and are just arguing by this point for the sake of it. You get different things out of analytic and out of continental philosophy. Maybe analytic philosophers won’t inspire artists or even political movements like some continental philosophers will/have, but they’re still fulfilling their own important role (which at times has even contributed to the fields of math and computer science, as noted before) which they themselves like to do. Why argue and condemn each other over your tastes? It’s like arguing about whether apples or oranges are better.

>>15105904
I wish more scholars could write as well as Evola, he as a master of keeping his point lucid and remaining focused but not dumbing down or simplifying for retards

>>15105930
this is badly written but whatever isn't clear about it could probably be worked out with context

>>15107337
Are you stuck in the 50s, anon? You know many analytics today engage seriously with continentals? There's even an analytic hegelian movement in American and Canada. Rorty engaged with Gadamer, Derrida and Heidegger. Wittgenstein called Kierkegaard the most profound thinker. There are even analytic marxists. Rawls was very influenced by continental political thought. Kuhn engaged with Koyre, Feyerabend with Bachelard, Sellars with Heidegger and Hurssel. It isn't a hard divide.

>>15106091
You're right

The analytic/continental distinction is basically irrelevant at this point. Both kinds have more overlap than the average poster here implies and plenty of so-called 'anglo analytic' philosophy is done on the continent just as much 'continental' work is read and written in the 'ango' world. The bizarre lines of battle that this place tries to keep in place over what is basically a historical curiosity is great evidence that hardly anybody here actually reads and tries to engage with contemporary thought. It should go without saying that a healthy intellectual diet is compromised of philosophy of all kinds, the arts and the sciences.

>>15107446
In what language did you read him?

>>15107244
It's closely related to the ratio of women in PhDs.
https://plotly.com/~etpinard/330/us-college-majors-average-iq-of-students-by-gender-ratio/#/plot

>>15107413
Small talk is rehearsed language that is spliced up and re-arranged by the brain to be regurgitated. It doesn't actually communicate meaning in the way normal language does.

Hence why you answer "I am fine" to "How are you doing?" Even when you are not fine.

>>15107471
english. why? I guess it's possible the translators could be why the writing is so clear

>>15107489
>Hence why you answer "I am fine" to "How are you doing?" Even when you are not fine.
This is not a universal, claiming it as such is merely the hegemony of large urban centers like Neuw Yoik.

>>15107495
I thought Evola wrote mostly in English didn't he?

He writes like a fucking high schooler btw, it's clear because it's a simple idiot writing for other simple idiots.

>>15106056
Lol you made the midwits seethe

>>15107516
No? He wrote his works in Italian.
And why would he write in English? The lingua franca of his time was French.

>>15107246
>Are all PhDs brainlets?
just the female ones

>>15107489
>Small talk is rehearsed language that is spliced up and re-arranged by the brain to be regurgitated.
Yikes, anon. You may actually be autistic. Can you not tell that in asking you "how you are doing", the other person is displaying an interest and concern for you that is exo-semantic in nature? That the mere asking is where the meaning is and not in the actual words? Even the analytics talk about this, you might want to read Grice to supplement your social deficiency.

I really want to make an experiment and test analytics and continentals in social literacy to see whether it is in fact true that analytics are just higher in the spectrum.

>>15107501
Small talk exists in all cultures, so while this specific example is not universal, the point stands regardless.

This somewhat works against your point, as someone unfamiliar with such conventions will end up confused by the phrases used in small talk. They will likely give answers that will annoy people engaging in small talk, as the communicated meaning was not clear.

This kind of misunderstanding does not exist in formal languages.

desd

>>15107244
Are modern philosophers still writing about ethics? I thought it was a dead field.

>>15105904
I have an IQ of 92 and have spent upwards of an hour reading single pages of philosophy texts. It is extremely rewarding.

God, I hate women so goddamn much.

>>15107398
>Where is the philosophy here?
you where the one talking about how analytic philosophy was irrelevant and how it had led to nothing. Now you're asking what it has led to in philosophy? well of course analytic philosophy has led developments in analytic philosophy. you're arguing very dishonestly.
>Can you prove that it shouldnt?
you can't prove it, but there are reasons for not doing that. namely that it's hard to see the value in meaningless word salad and in explicitly rejecting clarity and precision if you're searching for truth. And if you're not searching for truth, I wouldn't call that philosophy. other terms describe it better.
>>15107413
no, everyday language has a different use than what you're after if you're doing philosophy.

>>15107549
>Can you not tell that in asking you "how you are doing", the other person is displaying an interest and concern for you that is exo-semantic in nature?
And the blank look they gave you after you return a genuine answer is because you didn't match your belt with your shoes.

>>15107581
>no, everyday language has a different use than what you're after if you're doing philosophy.
According to?

>>15107597
everyday language is very imprecise. the content of a theory would always be ill-defined and you could weasel your way out of any counter-argument by revising the "real" meaning of what you said.

>>15107596
Then you pick up on the fact that person doesn't actually care and was just preforming the ritual to keep appearances. Welcome to social interactions, anon. If you keep this up, you might actually be able to get a job sometime in the foreseeable future.

>>15107549
>Can you not tell that in asking you "how you are doing", the other person is displaying an interest and concern for you
do women really think this?

>>15107621
Glad you agree with me.

>>15105904
Chomsky said it had to do with envy of the hard sciences being esoteric. To sound smarter/emulate them a lot of disciplines adapted redundant and meaningless means of communication. There's also a desire in certain philosophic writing as of late to obscure the authors real intent to mask a political point. Linda Alcoff had a few papers like this, I forget the journals name.

Wasn’t there a quote that said „only one toils himself. The reader or the writer.“

>>15106261
Big foreign businessmen spreading around splintered industrial sectors. Just like immigrant businessmen on top of the hill may have made the increasing number of small businessmen less powerful, the big businessmen's arrival may have stopped industrial sectors from standardising while the number of artisans became smaller.

I'll accept the payment and any other commissions at marqsmal@yahoo.com.

>>15107614
>everyday language is very imprecise
What's your point? How does this affect what im after if im doing philosophy? If I want to know what is "good" wouldnt exploring all of the possibilities of its meaning be precisely what Im after? Also, I think you should be acquainted with how these kind of "well-defined" concepts are just house of cards that stand on nothing but abstract foundations and become useless when applied in the real world. You might've heard it in a science class, it's called external validity. Defining the good as X or Y may be nice and dandy for intellectual masturbation and creating systems, but once applied to the real world it becomes useless because the actual term has a wider meaning and application. And choosing only one conceit of it over the all the others is just arbitrary. That's why certain thinkers decide to use a deeper grammar and ordinary language and intentionally use ambiguity.

>>15107549
>Grice
Nice, not heard that name in a while. Love me some flouting of some maxims.

Every brainlet can obfuscate a sentence, but only true 110 IQ chads like me can express hard concepts in simple words.

>>15107381
yeah, we had guest lecturers from big consulting companies who showed cool powerpoints and diagrams and talked lots of "management-speak". It felt a bit bullshit-y. I still think it would be fun to work in consulting for an MBB firm tho. It is my second-choice path for eventually entering private equity.

>>15105904
you have retarded liberals using the jargon of postmodernism they do not comprehend in a way it was not intended, so if anything its too accessible

Everyday words always have multiple meanings and evoke different thoughts because of their universality. If you make up a word and give it a standard meaning, say in a dictionary, textbook or paper, shit just makes it easier to communicate for people who can just consult what the standard meaning is.
See:
>>15106766
Where UV light is very specific, just "sunlight" brings about a whole spade of uncertainties. If I illuminated a plant with pure green light, it wouldn't survive, even though green light is just as much part of sunlight as UV.
Combined with general lack of writing skill in the population, it's easy to see why specialist works can be very challenging.

I say this for STEM. Humanities have very little excuse and most just want to try to give the most possible interpretations to everything, so they can always claim to be right.

>>15107302
They actually don't, since they have been indoctrinated that you achieve progress through destroying and circumventing whatever is standing in your way
Bitching about your problems and demanding they're solved for you is their rebellion and activism and empowerment

>>15106261
>Transnationalization further fragmented the industrial sector. If the dominant position of immigrant enterprises is held to have reduced the political impact of an expanding industrial entrepreneurate, the arrival of multinational corporations possibly neutralized the consolidation of sectoral homogeneity anticipated in the demise of the artisanate.
Jews have ruined western society. If we assume that immigrants are voting to further tax our boys in Silicon Valley, then the arrival of their Jewish overlords possibly has cucked the white working class out of the homogeneous communities that my shoemaker grandfather grew up in.

See it's easy. What you need to remember is that lefty academics are the same bitter retard incels as the people on /pol/, just more petty and self absorbed.

>>15106150
more like bsschool amirite haha

>>15107017
>>PhD in sexual violence and masculinity
Wow, based beyond belief
What does it take to be a doctor in beating the shit out of women?

>>15105904
>Has academic speak become too inaccesible?

24 years ago, some dude made a postmodern essay generator as form of critic, so it's not a new problem. Here you go:
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

>>15105904
>have a good English teacher
>tells us not to use sources from after the 50's due to it being garbage

I too hate it when I have to effort-read. That's why I am here instead.
I will read your shitposts, anons

Just be lucky you are not in music. Music has already been hard enough over the centuries too describe with words effectively, but recent musicologist papers are basically indecipherable.

>>15106160
Probably because social sciences produce more socially knowledgeable people, who could've guessed it was actually valuable to study ?

>>15105904
She's actually right.

>>15108593
The reverse of APA formatting then
There you can't use sources older than 10 years

>>15108641
Not to mention musicologists have a terrible potency to write cringe lines here and there trying to describe the music like they knew anything about poetry or even esthetics. I remember founding some even in the New Grove

Yes and no.

Philosophical academic speak is inaccessible because philosophers are more concerned with masturbating their ego than making themselves understood.

Real fields like physics and biology have complex jargon because they deal with complex subjects.

>>15106502
This is the best post on /lit/ today.

Fuck formal philosophy. True philosophy occurs in the wild - when ordinary people make decisions about real phenomena. Academics shouldn't be trying to impose philosophy from the top down based on their own conception of morality. They should be identifying the emergent morality of society and codifying THAT so that people can be given intellectual tools to better execute their ethics.

>>15108990
You sound jealous.

>>15105930
As another anon said, this is just long winded. There's no flow to it. Just because one is smart does not mean one can write well.