/lit/ - Literature

doesn't "redpill" just mean anti-semitic

>>4184266
No, it means you've been woken up from your delusional fantasy land.

I remember my first year of high school.

>>4184266
This is a good post.
Everybody look at this post and take notes

>>4184270
but that's exactly what these bullshitters do: engage in redundant, illegible discourse that is obscure for obscurity's sake to hide their lack of ideas and true knowledge. the true red pill is logic and mathematics.

Socrates and Jesus

>>4184275
"Logic" can't give us values, nor can it critique culture or the status quo. Notice how analytic philosophers fail miserably at everything?

>>4184275
Hey guize, those continental freaks are soooo lame, i'm going to structure all of the paragraphs in my books like math problems bcuz only LOGIC and MATHS mean anything!!!!

>>4184266
So... Heidegger?

Nietzsche for Christianity. Heidegger for metaphysics. Wittgenstein for language. Deleuze and Guatarri for philosophy more generally, e.g. Read about their 'plane of immanence' theory--it'll change your outlook on life in general imo.

Morpheus

When he compared the-thing-that-we-call-reality to Alice in Wonderland I just about shat my pants.

Wonderful

>>4184309
This and Tyler Durden.

>redpill
>covert antisemitism
Zizek

>>4184313
>>4184309
this so much :^O

>>4184308
French more or less mandatory for Deleuze and Guatarri

jesus christ I just finished Capitalism and Schitzophrenia

fucking dense and obscure loops around the actual point

>>4184309
>>4184313
>not picking the ultimate red piller
>pic related

>>4184262
Hume

>>4184262


rene guenon or julius evola.

>>4184262

>mfw i thought they were handing out aids

KARL MARX

Jed McKenna, Laozi

Dawkins or Feser.

>>4184346
Seconded.

Also, he right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing
except what can be said,
i.e.
the propositions of natural science,
i.e.
something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then
always, when someone else wished to say something metaphys-
ical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to
certain signs in his propositions. This method would be un-
satisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we
were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly
correct method.

>>4184284
-1^½

>>4184426


if it can be conceived of, it can be talked about.

>>4184266
what a top bloke

+1

look at this piece of craftmanship

Bourdieu of course

Karl Marx

Nick Land is redpilled as fuck. His blog is like /pol/ if /pol/ was literate.

http://www.xenosystems.net/

>>4184817
>if /pol/ was literate
sounds even worse, at least now I can dismiss them simply on that basis

>>4184819

Depends on whether you accept left-wing views as true a priori, I guess.

>>4184817

> First post compares Al Gore to Hitler and denies climate change

NOPE.jpg

>>4184826

>I take everything I read completely literally!

I bet your interpretations of poetry and philosophy are just super.

>>4184832

>Thinking political blogs should be like poetry or philosophy

>>4184838

>read philosopher's blog
>wtf why is this philosophy

Don't procreate.

>>4184832
So its just a figurative expression of the predicament of modern man?

>>4184523
>if it can be conceived of, it can be talked about.
Ok sure, tell me if my red is like yours.

>>4184840

Joke's on you, I didn't read it.

Can moderators delete this thread? There is another board for this sort of stuff, we all know what it is, and it's not this one.

>>4184308
>Guatarri
He wasn't Basque.

>>4184308
countering something =! seeing through it

Marx.

Seriously.

because he wasn't just someone who took the opposite view to the majority, like with Nietzsche and Christianity.

Marx saw the success of capitalism and praised it to the full extent that he recognised its utter relentlessness.

He tells us of the freedom, the equality, the growth and prosperity that it produces by reducing everything down to sheer simplicity of exchange.

But he also knew that it doesn't stop there. it keeps breaking down social bonds and barriers until it annihilates itself without intervention.

>>4184893
Wow someone on /lit/ has actually read Marx.

>>4184279
I don't think he means philosophy so much as formal logic. There's not much (properly done) formal logic in most philosophy.

>>4184893

muh Hegelian notions of progress

>>4184262
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are pretty good at redpilling people away from nihilism and empiricism.

>>4184838
>thinking philosophy shouldn't be like poetry

stay pleb

Marx and Nietzsche.

>>4184523

if it can be perceived, it can't be talked about (at least not wholly, or correctly)

guy debord kinda invented the red pill

(doesnt mean he's the only one, or the best, but definitely worth reading the society of the spectacle)

alphonso lingus is kinda redpilly, except more like he never took whatever pill we took that made us need a red pill later

>>4185239
>historical materialism
No.

>>4184278

What are the two names that Nietzsche signed his letters with before he became a sputtering lunatic?

>>4185258

> Not adhering to the materialist conception

What are you, a post-structuralist?

>>4185268
I thought that was Dionysus and Buddha.

Max Stirner is the ultimate redpill to take. Once you've fully understood his thought there is nothing left to do but destroy.

>>4184880
What?

>>4184275

If you can't make anything about a Foucault text then you're obviously ofuscated.

>>4185341
To be fair, Foucault did say that he had to write in an unusually obscure style to be taken seriously in France. What he's saying is clear though, once you get used to academese.

>>4184269
That's nice.

Oswald Spengler

actually he didn't think society is ending and it's all a huge misunderstanding because he accidentally titled his book "The 'Decline' of the West" which gave readers the wrong impression

>>4185271
No, I'm not.

Serious question, why do people take maoist philosophers seriously?

>>4184262
> Fagault McAids
No thank you, keep your filth to yourself.

>>4185402
No idea. Gramsci is the only Marxist worth noting anymore.

>>4185416
>Nick Land
Dog given how diverse Marxist thought is that's really a dumb thing to say, yea Maoism is retarded but Tiqqun, post-left anarchism/communism, and the left communist tradition are all intellectually stimulating even if you stubbornly disagree with the foundation of communist thought.
Cammatte and Bordiga are the biggest redpills imo.

Just read Lacan. He's all you need.

>no mention of Noam Chomsky

The Manufacturing of Consent is one big redpill.

>>4185402
I take Badiou seriously, and he's an out-and-out (in-and-out?) Maoist.

>>4186524
>yea Maoism is retarded
roflmao

debord

>>4184840
Actually it was more like
>read "philosopher's" blog
>wtf this isn't philosophy, this is drivel

Also, I wasn't planning to, so I hope your grandchildren enjoy having fewer betters.

Foucault
>that Discipline and Punish

>>4186686
Probably one of the only nonfiction books I've read with a plot twist.
>tfw you discover that we are all in a multitude of overlapping prisons

>>4186614


god you're such a pleb

> “He believed it when Rush Limbaugh told him that climate change is a hoax. He called Al Gore an ‘asshole’ even after watching the entire An Inconvenient Truth …” (Especially funny for me because I knew someone like that once — he thought Hitler was a dangerous demagogue, even after watching Triumph of the Will.)

do you not see whats at play here?

>>4186722

>tfw you realise its actually a guide to escaping the prisons and that they are full of holes

>>4186751
Pretty much. He shows you the matrix, and then offers you a pill.

Damn, now I want to go reread the whole fucking thing.

>>4186758

>He shows you the matrix

anon pls

>Foucault
>philosopher
more like "french bald guy reads Nietzsche and suffers a cognitive dissonance until he dies from AIDS, postmodernists make him a hero"

>>4186816

>not greatest mind of the 20th century

>>4186825
no
That is Heidegger
Foucault was just some obnoxious dude with a lot of free time and a bias towards victimism

>>4186825
Foucault knew he that title belonged to however

Bataille

>>4186842
bataille is the one person more vacuous than foucault

>>4186730
Yeah, and I don't like your shity blog. So what?

Do we really need to get into the failure of satire?

Pierre Bourdieu all the way.

>>4184262

DFW