/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10348123]

Is French theory just a self-referential pile of pretentious drivel? Or the best shot we have at grasping the real world?

[Anonymous No.10348682]

>>10348123
It's fun. Very literary, i.e. free-style.

[Anonymous No.10348690]

>>10348123
For sure it's better than Jordan Peterson and all the avalanche of shit you usually read

[Anonymous No.10348715]

>>10348123
Deleuze is worth taking seriously, Foucault to a lesser extent

Everyone else belongs in the garbage can

[Anonymous No.10348762]

>>10348123
>just a self-referential pile of pretentious drivel
yes

>>10348715
Talking shit seriously doesn't make you worthy of something else than the garbage can.

[Anonymous No.10348790]

>>10348123
it's not even wrong

[Anonymous No.10348797]

>>10348715
>Deleuze is worth taking seriously

>“Schizophrenia is the ideal mental state“

[Anonymous No.10348804]

>>10348797
>is the ideal
the primordial one according to Julian Jaynes..

[Anonymous No.10348833]

>>10348690
How so?

[Anonymous No.10348889]

>>10348762
>>10348797
Hearing you guys insult Derrida is like hearing you insult Jews. You just reach for the top shelf with your insults. It's like when people were calling Obama a Marxist Fascist Zionist Muslim. It just shows you have no idea of what you're talking about and it's a clue for others not to take you seriously. Are you really that scared of what's in those books? If it's all kooky nonsense why fear it? Won't it disprove itself? Are people immidately taken in by the charm of these books as soon as they crack the cover and carry on it's message till they die regardless of what they believed when they came to it? Why you so scared and angry?

[Anonymous No.10348935]

>>10348797
>>10348804
Schizophrenia isn't even an "ailment". It's literally what indigenous shamans induce upon themselves and their patients. It's more akin to having a spiritual breakthrough. Of course, Western society would know nothing about this phenomenon and have butchered the concept so much that people who would have been called to shamanism in primitive cultures are now doped up and called "mentally ill" or "broken"- schizophrenic. A fucking shame really.

[Anonymous No.10348947]

>>10348889
>>10348935
How dare you post interesting content on this website?

[Anonymous No.10348961]

>>10348889
What notable things has Jock Dorito done that would impress someone who isnt working in a X-studies or Y-theory department?

[Anonymous No.10348967]

>>10348935
>>10348123
Schizophrenia is you literally making connections where none exist

so yes, based on that principle, French theory is a pile of pretentious drivel. It is based on the principle of finding spurious connections, imagine praising that shit "I see things where none see any, I am so brilliant! I can predict the future!" -every schizo ever

[Anonymous No.10348985]

>>10348967
>making connections where none exist

So I'm guessing your are unfamiliar with Buddhism and the Illusion of Separation? Everything is connected. When you do it easier, like in a shamanic/"schizophrenic" state, you can find greater connection of yourself to the world and everything in it. Ergo, a spiritual breakthrough state. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

[Anonymous No.10348992]

>>10348935
That’s just an anti-scientific romanization of mental illness. Schizophrenia is a genetic disease that causes lots of discomfort to both the ill and the healthy around them.

[Anonymous No.10348998]

>>10348985
>your are unfamiliar with Buddhism and the Illusion of Separation

No I work in mental health.Being fucking crazy does not help you do a goddamn thing.

If you want to 'break down barriers of seperation' try doing some psychedelic or hallucinogenic drugs like lsd, mushrooms, weed etc

[Anonymous No.10348999]

>>10348961
>Jock Dorito
my sides

[Anonymous No.10349013]

>>10348992
That's because their spiritual awakening is being blocked and stunted, especially by whatever meds they receive and the fact that schizophrenics are told their brains are "broken". It's a vicious cycle that only liberation from the various shackles of the spiritually-retarded society of the West.

[Anonymous No.10349026]

>>10348998
>If you want to 'break down barriers of seperation' try doing some psychedelic or hallucinogenic drugs like lsd, mushrooms, weed etc

Which is exactly how some "schizophrenics" are made, psychedelics are known to be triggers for it. Point in case, psychedelics are some of the most potent tools of shamans and shamanic peoples. How do you think they are unrelated? Shamanism, psychedelics, and schizophrenia are all the same phenomenon basically, the only caveat being that "schizophrenics" are, like I said, warped and stunted in their spiritual growth by Western practices.

[Anonymous No.10349033]

>>10349026
>"schizophrenics" are, like I said, warped and stunted in their spiritual growth by Western practices.

Because being psychotic doesn't help you or anyone in any conceivable way.

[Anonymous No.10349045]

>>10349033
You are misunderstanding my main point: the way the West deals with their "awakening" is what fucks them up and makes them "psychotic". If you gave these fuckers some serious dosage psychedelics, allowed them a comforting set and setting, and had an experienced trip sitter or an actual shaman guide them through it, I can almost guarantee you wouldn't have any cases of psychotic level schizophrenics.

[Anonymous No.10349080]

>>10349013
quick, somebody pass the anti-psychotics, this guy is fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.10349085]

>>10349080
Great non-argument you have there guy. It was really convincing.

[Anonymous No.10349149]

Actual schizophrenic here. What the other annon's said is correct. Schizophrenia is the old way of thinking and it has connections to esoteric forms of "spiritualism". Rather than having a clear sense of self there are fragments and you don't feel like there is a hard distinction between yourself and the rest of the universe.

I think it has potential to be very powerful thinking: Nietzsche, Jung, and Heraclitus all suffered from some private type of what we would now call a mental illness. The thing is it's an unstable type of thinking; I think the original purpose of religion was to try to facilitate the various forms and states in a person. I find religious thinking to be highly useful for myself and the various images and voices that come to me often choose to speak or represent them-self mythological.

[Anonymous No.10349155]

>There is but one moral imperative, and that is to enrich the White Woman's womb
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10349189]

>>10348889
>Won't it disprove itself?
No.

[Anonymous No.10349307]

>>10348715
>when anon peepees on your Baudrillard-fu

[Anonymous No.10349317]

>>10349149
Is there a way to transform my bipolar disorder into schizophrenia?

[Anonymous No.10349333]

>>10348889
yeah dude Derrida is so profound.

>Le nothing has concrete meaning and can be deconstructed and repurposed with semantic tricks

All he's done for civilization is lead it into the fog, fuck him

[Anonymous No.10349339]

>>10349333
t. petersonfag that has never read Heidegger

[Anonymous No.10349344]

>>10349339
I've actually read Heidegger and haven't read Peterson, nice judge of character though

[Anonymous No.10349348]

What is French theory anyways?

[Anonymous No.10349357]

ITT: people who can't understand Deleuze

[Anonymous No.10349365]

>>10349348
Jewish theory but in French instead of English or German.

[Anonymous No.10349423]

>>10349149
You are absolutely right. My best friend turned schizophrenic in high school, and as much as his illness is painful and unbearable for him and his relatives, he has incredible insights into every possible matters. Most of these insights come out as completely chaotic and nonsensical, but through time, effort, a natural inclination towards such states and long hours learning about it, I can fairly make sense of his ramblings. Schizophrenics are plugged to the source, completely electricized by it. But never should one romanticize schizophrenia. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I wouldn't say Jung 'suffered' from mental illness as he successfully integrated his unconscious content. He simply is a mystic. And an incredibly great one as he did it all himself, which one might argue that it puts him closer to prophet status than a banal mystic. Also, Deleuze's definition of schizophrenia is idealistic and not really relevant to its comprehension.

[Anonymous No.10349504]

>>10349317
I have no basis for this. But here's my theory on how you'd do it. You'd want to, as much as you can, not think of your two bipolar states as opposites. You can think of them as parts on a sliding scale or if you can: the same thing. The word for this: Enantiodromia.

Fragmenting your mind isn't a game though. All the skeletons you have will come out of the closet, including stuff you've forgotten for decades. I once had a moment where in a flash I understood something from my childhood and I saw how it affected me for decades. Than I collapsed into tears on the spot and had to cover for the fact that I was crying.

>>10349423
Jung nearly went insane. He kept a secret: it's all in the Red Book that's the documentation of his schizoid phase, it's also where he learned all the big ideas. Mystics and Schizoids keep it a secret, Jung kept it secret. I wouldn't be saying anything if I wasn't annonymous. You don't even need practical reasons to keep it a secret: that's your first instinct, to do otherwise is to betray them. And you don't want to fuck with the gods inside you.

I have not red Deleuize's thoughts on the subject can you reccomend some reading? Also it would be very useful if you could speak about mystical things in plain english. I don't know if anyone wrote how to do it but that would be damn useful. The best I can do is translate it into Jungian psycho-babble.

[Anonymous No.10349586]

>>10348123
That's a stupid question desu. Or is it a shitpost?

[Anonymous No.10349629]

>>10349504
>I once had a moment where in a flash I understood something from my childhood and I saw how it affected me for decades.

How did you manage to dig into that?
I'm neither schizophrenic, nor bipolar, but I'm sure I have some sort of childhood trauma which still affects me.

[Anonymous No.10349681]

>>10349045
t. teenager who watches Joe Rogan and has at least three new age books on spirituality on his shelf

[Anonymous No.10349697]

>>10348935
>t. has never seen a schizophrenic in his life

Like I know what you're trying to get at but the schizophrenia you're talking about is just the result of careful intake of psychodysleptics for the sake of "expanding your mind" in contrast to the actual disease of schizophrenia that will literally drive you to insanity and dementia

If you fail to understand this crucial difference you're welcome to go back to /r/psychonauts or whatever the fuck it's called

[Anonymous No.10349716]

>>10349149
I feel like when I get hardcore into metaphysical questioning I have to keep a very close eye on my thoughts to make sure I don't slip into schizo.

[Anonymous No.10349730]

>>10349629
>How did you manage to dig into that?

You can think of the various parts of the mind as contients drifting on a planet's watery surface. For most people the contients stay still so certain geographic areas never interact. The land mass that has all your darkest secrets, stuff that would cripple you if you found out, never reaches the more conscious parts of your mind.

Schizoids and bi-polar people have the contients shift around. Than a piece that has not ever talked to other meets and BAM. You have an ephinay and 10 years worth of information gets learned all at once. Depending on the information it's either like a thunder bolt from heaven or it's the most horrifying thing you ever experienced.

Ideally the various parts of your mind would drift around in an orderly way. You wouldn't learn the your own dark secrets until you were emotionally ready.

[Anonymous No.10349733]

>>10349504
Sounds like my experience with psychedelics

[Anonymous No.10349736]

>real world
No such thing exists. Fuck off, Platonist.

[Anonymous No.10349744]

>>10349045
psychedelics by themselves don't do much. They let you integrate stuff but you have to actively choose what it is want to connect and if you don't have the intellectual base it's impossible. You also have to be careful not to do them to the point where you destroy your functional ego, since this is necessary to survive in modern society.

[Anonymous No.10349745]

>>10349736
lol

[Anonymous No.10349748]

>>10348967
>none exist
becuz i sed so
Fuck off, Last Man.
>>10348992
Science is cancer. kys
>>10348998
You're a quack. kys
>>10349333
MUH WHITE CIIVLIZASHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN WE WUZ ROW-MANZ

[Anonymous No.10349755]

>We got a call from La Borde saying that a guy had set fire to the chateau chapel and run off into the woods. Gilles blanched, I froze, and Felix called for help to find this guy. At that point, Gilles said to me, ‘how can you stand those schizos’?”

[Anonymous No.10349775]

Cmon guys I want to have visions tell me what to do.

[Anonymous No.10349782]

>>10349775
Go to sleep you fucking idiot. You have dreams for that.

[Anonymous No.10349810]

>>10349045
>I can almost guarantee
schizophrenia right there

[Anonymous No.10349826]

>>10349423
>Deleuze's definition of schizophrenia is idealistic and not really relevant to its comprehension
it is also exploitative

[Anonymous No.10349833]

>mental health """"experts""""

[Anonymous No.10349851]

>>10349697
You still must realize that if those psychotic cases of schizophrenia were to take psychedelics in a guided, comfortable set and setting, they would be able to nullify or even cure their "ailments". Psychedelics have been shown to be able to treat and even reverse such mental problems as PTSD, Bipolar disorder and depression, I can't imagine treating schizophrenics with psys is that far out or far away.

[Anonymous No.10349859]

>>10349681
Clever, but, not really.

[Anonymous No.10349862]

>>10348889
Besides your retarded nonsequiter about "muh innocent jews", what actually discourages me from reading Derrida is the obscurantism. It's the same phenomena as the modern state of string theory, ie once something becomes convoluted to that degree it ceases to hold value. If you cannot express something clearly without excessive self referential terminology, then it is not a valid idea. The best thinkers wrote in very clear ways.

[Anonymous No.10349870]

>>10349504
Modern languages fail to express mystical feelings. Concerning mystical truths, they cannot be shared as their very nature is to be incommunicable. I'm only beginning to dive into Hinduism and its doctrines, but it seems like sanskrit is the 'best' language for this task. Like you said, we only have jungian psycho babble as of today. I cannot point to towards specific Deleuze works, I've only read the anti oedipe and others bits of him.

[Anonymous No.10349877]

>>10349851
citation needed

[Anonymous No.10349888]

>>10349870
>Modern languages fail to express mystical feelings
Why?

[Anonymous No.10349922]

French theory is the continuation of the German romantic idealist project after the German geist was destroyed.

The French are worthy epigones but still epigones. The best they produce is people on par with the original German version, who would/might have been original if they had come earlier. But they never move beyond German philosophy, except maybe Derrida clarifying something already implicit in Heidegger, and that he already knew but never said outright, because he had moved beyond it and onto other concerns.

And most of the time they make things worse by over-elaborating ideas already implicit in the Germans and producing too much white noise.

[Anonymous No.10349927]

>>10349922
Turns out that both the German and the French philosophers were inferior as the Anglos, who’s thought on economics and the nature of reality (market economy, natural science) continue to dominate the world.

[Anonymous No.10349928]

>>10349888
It seems so obvious to me that I might have trouble explaining. Firstly, modern man experiences a strong dissociation of conscious/unconscious. The conscious mind has a very strong inclination towards Logos and everything rational, scientifical etc.. This attitude can be seen and admitted even by the staunchest rationalist. Ancient texts, whether religious or not, can be comparitively studied with modern ones to come up with the same conclusions. Thus it can be argued that language, if not the basis of our perception of reality, is at least representative of our collective attitude. Now you might wonder; Why is modern man's experience so radically different from his ancestors? Well, nobody knows. It could be evolutionnary, cultural, metaphysical... Who knows really, we can't know what forces bigger than us are at the front wheel. Or maybe we could, if only we had a more hollistic approach to language, and life in general?

[Anonymous No.10349939]

>>10349928
I do not find this contemporary exceptionalism particularly convincing, I must admit.

[Anonymous No.10349946]

>>10349922
Why did German idealism die in the first place?

It’s not really to blame for National Socialism or Fascism, that was a product of Darwinism and Italian fascist thought.

[Anonymous No.10349949]

>>10349928

[Anonymous No.10349954]

>>10349946
Gentile, #1 philosopher of fascism, is a neo-Hegelian

[Anonymous No.10350017]

>>10349946
Afaik, it ended after Heidegger, who proclaimed philosophy to be a failure and opted out into "poetic contemplation of life" or whatever.

He gave birth to existentialism and lots of language philosophy, but that is practiced by the French today.

[Anonymous No.10350033]

>>10349928
Read Voegelin?

[Anonymous No.10350117]

>>10349949
hurr durr they dont dun dem science kill 'em all

[Anonymous No.10350122]

>>10350117
They don't deserve to live and die in Plato's cave.

[Anonymous No.10350137]

>>10349859
Anyone have material on tier 6? I came to that exact conclusion a few nights ago after taking mushrooms.

[Anonymous No.10350146]

>>10349155
no way did Derrida make this comment... proof plz

[Anonymous No.10350176]

>>10349949
LIBTARDS BTFO

[Anonymous No.10350219]

"Is E=Mc2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest…”


This is ya brain on French

[Anonymous No.10350236]

>>10350219
Yeah, this is everything wrong with French theory in thirty seconds.

Anglos gave us science, parliamentary democracy, practicable economic systems.

The French gave us 473637th wave feminism, post-post-post structuralism and pretentious cinema. Thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.10350254]

>>10350236
>these thing good becuz i sed so

[Anonymous No.10350264]

>>10350254
In the concrete example of above: the theory of relativity is definitely a better thing than its accusation of sexism (out of all things).

[Anonymous No.10350273]

How condescending is it when someone who has actually read Derrida tries to explain his thought but leaves out the part about how he was a Jew who wanted to kill is all?

[Anonymous No.10350281]

>>10350273
Zero, because your post is propaganda.

[Anonymous No.10350284]

>>10349862
>If you cannot express something clearly without excessive self referential terminology, then it is not a valid idea

Well, derrida for starters would question why valid idea should be simplistic. with this one gesture he blows the fuck out anglo-saxo thinking because it rests on fake dichotomy simple/complicated. If you have noticed, anglo-saxons have a thing for this fake simplicity (for example giving child-like names to serious book, e.g. "How to do things with word" and so on). Anything percieved difficult (continental philosophy for example) is neglected and understood as shamanism.
So no, Derrida isnt as dumb as "everything is subjective lmao xD"

[Anonymous No.10350286]

>>10350264
becuz i sed so hurr durr white civilizashun

[Anonymous No.10350294]

>>10350284
Continental philosphy isn’t even that difficult. It’s simply obscuritantist and often overloaded.

[Anonymous No.10350297]

>>10350286
The most successful by any reasonable account.

[Anonymous No.10350299]

>>10350264
Who accused the theory of relativity of sexism? why would it matter? would it make the theory untrue? at what point do you stop loading your own arguements with misrepresentations of someone's work you didn't bother to read and only want erased from the intellectual landscape?

[Anonymous No.10350315]

Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality.

[Anonymous No.10350322]

>>10350281
>zero condescendings credited
>propaganda
You're cute, you really are.

[Anonymous No.10350326]

>>10350297
>successful
>muh rasins
so this is the power of *nglo thought...
>>10350294
>i dont understand it so its le obscure and le overloaded
Fuck off, colonialist. Go masturbate to Rorty or some other liberal sentimentalist.

[Anonymous No.10350328]

>>10350236

I'd just like you to know that this was the post that made me quit /lit/ for tonight and focus on reading some actual philosophy.

>Anglos gave us science

Jesus fucking christ m8.

[Anonymous No.10350331]

>>10350236
This is kinda hillarious because mostly everyone in france recognizes the stupidity of the anglosphere (rampant hostile feminism, multiculturalism à la USA, relativism, liberalism etc). French people are extremely cynical. I have found only Iranians to be on the same level of cynicism/awareness. Also, how come anglos gave us science if it is descartes who came up with La Méthode? Also, how did anglos come up with parliamentary democracy when its first iteration was seen post french revolution? mmh, anglos sure are a smart bunch

[Anonymous No.10350336]

>>10350294
If you want to talk about uselesness and nullity of ordinary language then you have to invent new concepts. Philosophy does that since the begining.

[Anonymous No.10350348]

>>10350322
cute>propagating falsehoods

[Anonymous No.10350351]

>>10349949
Whites were just as niggerish as niggers some 500-600 years ago. We're not better in any way, simply we had more time.

[Anonymous No.10350359]

>>10348797
you seriously don't understand what D&G mean by schizophrenia at all and you obviously haven't read anything they've written if you think they'd suggest something as an ideal when their whole fucking point is extending the Nietzschean concept of smooth space

[Anonymous No.10350363]

>>10350328
>Anglos gave us science
That's your brain on "I'll say anything to discount postmodernism"

[Anonymous No.10350365]

>>10350331
SHUTUPSHITSKINANGLOSAREWHITETHEONLYTRUEWHTIESANDONLYTRUEWESTERNERSWEARETHEPROGENYOFGREECEANDROMEYOUJUSTFUCKSLAVESANDAREJEWISHFUCKINGWANKERGONNARUNAWAYGANLMAOXDSTUPIDFRENCHKEKKEKEKEKEKEPRAISEKEKFUCKGOD

[Anonymous No.10350373]

>>10350331
The roots of
>rampant hostile feminism, multiculturalism à la USA, relativism, liberalism
can be found in French thought as well. And they're also actually practiced, since France is a highly multicultural society today and elected a (neo-)liberal.

It's pointless to make a binary distinction France vs Anglosphere, cause they both inspired each other and were inspired by Germany all the time.

[Anonymous No.10350381]

>>10349344
>I took an existentialism class at my community college where I had to read The Thing
>I've never READ Peterson, but i've certainly seen his Joe Rogan podcast episode that i am almost directly quoting

[Anonymous No.10350385]

>>10350328
>what is Newton
>what is Leibniz
>what is empiricism
>what is rationalism

[Anonymous No.10350390]

>>10350373
>It's pointless to make a binary distinction France vs Anglosphere
kek

[Anonymous No.10350394]

>>10349927
>being adopted by the lowest common denominator of society by force because you own the institutions that educate the imperialists makes you a better philosopher
is this seriously what Anglos think?

[Anonymous No.10350396]

>>10350331
so youre a racist and hate anglos? my my thats a very binary non-hermeneutic de-polarizing anti-textual decomparmentalized non-objugatoryist stance

[Anonymous No.10350400]

>>10350394
where are you from btw?

[Anonymous No.10350403]

>>10350373
>pointless to make a binary distinction France vs Anglosphere
I was making fun of anglos, but this is not true. We are westerners, yes, but protestantism and catholicism brought on massive differences between the two countries.

[Anonymous No.10350410]

>>10350403
>>10350390
Just consider the fact that the American Revolution and the French Revolution were cheering to each other.

[Anonymous No.10350412]

>tfw Anglophobia is literally the only reason why continental philosophy can't get a hold in modern philosophy departments
pls stop

[Anonymous No.10350413]

If one examines capitalist narrative, one is faced with a choice: either
accept capitalist narrative or conclude that academe is capable of
significance, but only if capitalist narrative is valid; if that is not the
case, discourse comes from the collective unconscious. Several narratives
concerning the role of the reader as writer exist. Therefore, if neosemioticist
semantic theory holds, we have to choose between constructivist subsemantic
theory and the postmaterialist paradigm of consensus.

In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the distinction between
destruction and creation. The subject is contextualised into a dialectic
deconstruction that includes reality as a reality. Thus, Porter[2] implies that the works of Fellini are not postmodern.

Derrida promotes the use of capitalist narrative to read and challenge
culture. It could be said that any number of sublimations concerning capitalist
narrative may be discovered.

[Anonymous No.10350418]

>>10350410
>cheering to each other
what did he mean by that?

[Anonymous No.10350419]

>>10350351
>500-600 years ago
it's too late even by 'muh dark ages meme' standards
>simply we had more time
so you're saying north america and europe were inhabited before africa was?

[Anonymous No.10350420]

>>10350403
french people can't make fun. please cite one example of a frenchman successfully telling a joke

[Anonymous No.10350425]

It's just a way a bunch of communist fanatics found of coping with the failure of their ideology.

>"if reality isn't real, then the French intelligentsia wasn't wrong in supporting Stalinism while illiterate Pousadist peasants opposed it"

That's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.10350427]

I'd like to thank all the Anglos in this thread, on the behalf of the world, for helping us spread the word about anglos lack of self awareness and general stupidity. The fight is getting a bit boring though, as they give us all the ammo to later use against them. Like they do with every islamists group in the middle east, one might note.

[Anonymous No.10350430]

>>10350236
>Anglos gave us science
even if we let this ridiculous bullshit slide, science was also married to the market by Anglos so human society can't benefit equally from innovations in science
>parliamentary democracy
oh yeah, that's certainly worked really well. it's internal system of checks and balances has surely worked in the American experiment, and there has never been any extreme violent reaction to parliamentary democracy's outcomes in Europe or any of the countries of the Global South where it has been "tried"
>predictable economic systems
>predictable
>global finance capitalism crashes every few decades since it started and everyone loses their shit and pulls their hair out all over the place every single time

[Anonymous No.10350435]

>>10350425
>Failure
Project harder subhuman

[Anonymous No.10350438]

>>10350236
I don't know if you're a postmodernist feminist or something and just trolling, but if youre not, then saying stuff like this is just the equivalent of getting mad at a feminist and calling her a bitch. Whatever other lunacy she may be spouting she becomes a sainted martyr. You making silly claims about what 'anglos' gave us is like that. Just mind your p's and q's. Your instinct is right but the words you use are wrong.

[Anonymous No.10350440]

>>10350412
>tfw this thread is exactly why philosophy departments in Sweden and Germany have increasingly become analytical dominant

[Anonymous No.10350444]

>>10350413
This is product of anglo-saxo resentiment not undertanding continental theory

[Anonymous No.10350447]

>>10350420
Oh my god. Anglos need to stop already. I lived in both france and the US, and anglo humor is like your food; too greasy, too sweet, something even kids will like and digest. No subtlety at all. There is like 5 jokes format that gets reused ad nauseam. Not that I don't find it funny, but it's not on the same level.

[Anonymous No.10350449]

>>10350427
Like Opération Chammal?

>>10350430
>everyone loses their shit
Not everyone.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

[Anonymous No.10350450]

>>10350435
Communism as promoted by the French intelligentsia failed. I know this hurts your pretention of intellectual superiority, knowing that John Birch Society retards were right while your kind was wrong, but it's the truth.

[Anonymous No.10350451]

>>10350427
whats your nationality

[Anonymous No.10350454]

>>10350450
Stop projecting
>truth
Fuck off Platonist

[Anonymous No.10350456]

Ultimately, the choice between French and Anglo philosophy boils down to the question whether one approves of the current state of the modern world.

French philosophy is the philosophy of the underdogs. It tells a cautionary tale about the discontents of modernity, capitalism, "postmodern cultural meltdown".

Anglo philosophy is the philosophy of the winners, the de facto state of affairs of utilitarianism, rationalism, Protestant ethics and globalization.

[Anonymous No.10350457]

>>10350451
He's 100% German btw, they do this every time you mention how bad their universities have become.

[Anonymous No.10350461]

>>10350447
fuck off to a french board, we dont deserve your wonderful humor

[Anonymous No.10350468]

guys chill

[Anonymous No.10350471]

>>10350457
Germany blows Anglos and Frenchies out of the water in terms of industrial application of science.

[Anonymous No.10350474]

EXPLAIN FRENCH THEORY TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN FRENCH THEORY TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I'LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOu! WHAT THE FUCK IS SIGN VALUE? WHAT THE FUCK IS TEXTUALITY? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE METAPHYSICS OF PRESENCE? DON'T DUMB IT DOWN OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU

[Anonymous No.10350478]

>>10350457
Defintely. The French generally don't know English well enough to post. I doubt anyone in this thread is actually French. I do feel bad for these postmodernist types though, especially if they're deep in. I mean, its got to be hard to admit that you've spent years of your life caught up in a con-job.

[Anonymous No.10350480]

>>10350471
But this is a philosophy thread, not a engineering thread.

[Anonymous No.10350488]

>>10349877
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psychedelic+treatment+for+mental+illnesses

>>10350137
The caution to power should be taken seriously, and honor and respect for the greater cosm of things which you are a part of is always a good path to take instead of hubris [in search of power].

[Anonymous No.10350491]

>>10350474
>EXPLAIN FRENCH THEORY TO ME

Capitalism is bad
Language is deceiving
Poetry is good
Life is meaningless

[Anonymous No.10350492]

>>10350474
just stfu and learn:

Derrida promotes the use of capitalist narrative to read and challenge
culture. It could be said that any number of sublimations concerning capitalist
narrative may be discovered.

Bataille’s critique of constructivist subsemantic theory holds that language
is capable of social comment. However, Sartre suggests the use of capitalist
narrative to deconstruct outmoded, sexist perceptions of class.

The characteristic theme of Prinn’s[3] essay on
capitalist narrative is not desituationism per se, but neodesituationism. In a
sense, Lacan promotes the use of capitalist narrative to modify sexual
identity.

The example of capitalist narrative depicted in Fellini’s La Dolce
Vita is also evident in Satyricon. However, the subject is
interpolated into a Debordist image that includes truth as a whole.

In Amarcord, Fellini deconstructs capitalist narrative; in
Satyricon, although, he reiterates capitalist narrative. It could be
said that several modernisms concerning a mythopoetical reality exist.

[Anonymous No.10350502]

>>10350454
Look, I know your entire concept of being, the entire basis of your life is about being smarter than peasants and proles who are not into the philosophy of praxis, the glorious tenets of Marxism or whatever thing you guys are promoting right now. That makes you think you are so better than everyone else and, in your view, justifies the political, cultural and social power of you and your caste.

But the thing is, everywhere you have "won" and established government structures according to your great theories, you have to build walls to prevent people from leaving.

So yes, deny reality. Deny truth. This is the only way you can cope. Again, "if truth doesn't exist, then communism can't be bad".

[Anonymous No.10350511]

>>10350438
lmao at the damage control

[Anonymous No.10350516]

>>10350502
Communism is a German invention. Some French merely adopted it. However, French theory in general has little to do with Marxism and is instead focused on issues of existence, language, culture, art and psychoanalysis, not economics.

[Anonymous No.10350517]

>>10350474
French Theory = Klingon
Analytical philosophy = Vulcan
German idealism = Romulan

Was that simple enough for you senpai?

[Anonymous No.10350518]

>>10350451
>>10350478
Hahaha I'm french and shitposting about Anglos on a sunday night. This has been an ongoing hobby predecessing my ancestors, I'm keeping it alive. Au bûcher les Anglois

[Anonymous No.10350520]

>>10350456
It was largely the same between the right Hegelians and the left Hegelians. The right Hegelians thought that the Prussian state was literally perfect and that they had reached the end of history. The left Hegelians knew that this was very obviously bullshit.

Reactionaries of the Anglo variety continue to make this fatal mistake to this very day. They cannot envision an end to capitalism and therefore reflexively reject any criticism of it, along with any criticism of its superstructure. They'd sooner envision the physical end of the world itself. Sad!

[Anonymous No.10350524]

Imagine a day when /lit/ is actually discussing theory and not simulacras of it. Imagine a day when people talk about something instead of talking about each other

[Anonymous No.10350525]

>>10350502
I'm pretty much on board with you but youre off the mark equating pomo shite with communism. Most critical theory types are basically apolitical (unless you count gender/racial nonsense as 'politics'). If you asked the average Lit dept critical theorist what their politics were they couldnt say two sentences. They sometimes use marxist terms in the same way they do scientific terms, but it just all stays in fairy land

[Anonymous No.10350530]

>>10350524
/lit/ is basically Hegel vs Schopenhauer the board, how can you get more authentic than that?

[Anonymous No.10350534]

>>10350478
Fuck off to your PragerU videos.

[Anonymous No.10350536]

>>10350518
This seems unlikely; sunday nights in france are reserved for middle eastern gentlemen to de-virginize white girls:)

[Anonymous No.10350541]

>>10350502
>everywhere you have "won" and established government structures according to your great theories
Fuck off retard, we're anti-state.
>This is the only way you can cope.
Stop psychologizing you idiot.

[Anonymous No.10350548]

>>10350520
Life in Western Europe may not be ideal, but it’s as close to the ideal as we probably can get. Because we’ve already integrated the part of Capitalism critique that made sense into our states - we have central banking, welfare, unions, subsidies, this and that.

Im genuinely surprised, however, how anyone could think of the Prussian state as perfect. It was militaristic, repressive and there even was mass hunger during early industrialization.

[Anonymous No.10350550]

>>10350456
I'd like to know from our reactionary Frenchies when exactly it was "better."

My guess would be when the ideology was strong enough they could still look the other way whenever the Soviet Union would invade another country undergoing a socialist revolution. Somehow the first managed to grow out of the murderous cult beginning with 50s, just in time for Comrade Stalin's death. Others reinvented themselves as maoists because there were less news available on what the cult was doing in China and North Korea, a few kept being tankies all the way through. But most spent the rest of the 20th century losing their mind.

>>10350516
>not economics
You can't the shut the fuck up about capitalism to save your lives. Liar.

>>10350520
>They cannot envision an end to capitalism
No, they cannot envision where you intend to hide. And neither can you.

[Anonymous No.10350552]

This thread is the epitome of frenchness. OP started out as a true frenchman, with an hint of passive-aggressive cynicism. Then the thread devolved into schizo talks and pure literary wankery over whether or not schizos have intellectual merit. Then anglos stopped by and started shitting on everything french because it gets them confused either way. Then by the time the conversation had been going on for a few hours, everyone had too many drinks, and started fighting eachothers over political and philosophical questions.

[Anonymous No.10350553]

They could be very insightful, but they're sometimes a little ignorant when trying to address other fields of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.10350562]

>>10350541
Oh, here comes the second way to cope. "We-re anti-state". So ignore all those states intellectuals like us, our past equivalents, have founded and supported with their theories. We are anti-state. Because we said so.

The author is not so dead, after all, when you are the author, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.10350570]

>>10350562
>state intellectuals
No such thing exists.
I'm an anarcho primitivist. That means no state. Stop being a retard please

[Anonymous No.10350583]

>>10350550
French theory just isn’t about economics. There’s no useful economic advice to derive from it. Not a single major French theorist focused on economics per se. Whenever Capitalism was mentioned, it was more about observing the cognitive and cultural effects it had.

It’s true that many French intellectuals flirted with Marxism in the 60s. But so did the German Frankfurt School, the Swedish Socialist Democrats and the British Labor party at the same time. It had nothing to do with the contents of French theory.

[Anonymous No.10350589]

Can we talk about french theory instead of straw mans and projected fears surrounding it?

[Anonymous No.10350596]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair#Article

[Anonymous No.10350606]

>>10350488
Thank you for the response. Power is nothing of an interest to me. I am looking only to nurture the inkling of what I found to be truth for the sake of my self's being. Having that knowledge appear in such close proximity to my experience is a sign I know of it's validity. Bringing that knowledge further is the end and the end is but an end in itself.

[Anonymous No.10350608]

>>10350589
What you want to know?
There's no reality except what is made by words.
Literally fucking everything is about sexism.
That's it.

[Anonymous No.10350616]

>>10350596
The whole thing surrounding this article just confirms how much anglos are stupid. It has nothing to do with french theory

[Anonymous No.10350623]

I've never seen people on this board be so defensive about a movement of philosophers

[Anonymous No.10350626]

>>10350608
yanasaytya

[Anonymous No.10350632]

>>10350608
>pls dont dumb it down and have a proper discussion
>dumbs it down, creates strawmans

[Anonymous No.10350634]

Guys, Foucault didn't really say E=Mc2 was sexist did he?:o I have to read some of his articles this semester and I just can't force myself to get through this shit if i think the writers are playing a joke on their readers:(

[Anonymous No.10350643]

>>10350634
That wasn’t Foucault, but a French feminist actually argued like that.

[Anonymous No.10350649]

>>10350643
not at all, she claimed the equation was sexed, not sexist

[Anonymous No.10350652]

>>10350616
Am neither anglo nor french (irish), but Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin contributed more to the understanding of the physical world than basically every other human that has ever lived, combined

ps anybody else here very left wing but a science student? I dont know who to hate more here desus

[Anonymous No.10350660]

>>10350652
I dont want to attack you or anything, but I'd just like to point out that we are not talking about biology or physics. We are talking about theory (conceptual apporach to reality).

[Anonymous No.10350662]

>>10350634
Foucault wasnt a brainlet so no, he didnt say that

[Anonymous No.10350666]

>>10348797
>It's important at the start to realize that Deleuze and Guattari do not advocate schizophrenia as a “lifestyle” or as the model for a political program. The schizophrenic, as a clinical entity, is the result of the interruption or the blocking of the process of desiring-production, its having been taken out of nature and society and restricted to the body of an individual where it spins in the void rather than make the connections that constitute reality. Desiring-production does not connect “with” reality, as in escaping a subjective prison to touch the objective, but it makes reality, it is the Real, in a twisting of the Lacanian sense of the term. In Lacan, the real is produced as an illusory and retrojected remainder to a signifying system; for Deleuze and Guattari, the Real is reality itself in its process of self-making. The schizophrenic is a sick person in need of help, but schizophrenia is an avenue into the unconscious, the unconscious not of an individual, but the “transcendental unconscious,” an unconscious that is social, historical, and natural all at once.

[Anonymous No.10350670]

>>10350652
Wrong. Both were entirely wrong and everybody who believes their shit needs to go back to plebbit

[Anonymous No.10350695]

>>10350670
How so?

Newtonian physics are still widely applied as an approximation and were a necessary and right step for the development of more exact theories.

And Darwinism is mostly proven true as a principle, only the exact mechanism is disputed.

[Anonymous No.10350704]

>>10350695
Neither occur. Try again, liberal.

[Anonymous No.10350705]

>>10350331
>Also, how come anglos gave us science if it is descartes who came up with La Méthode?
The credit goes to Roger Bacon, but as per usual, the French can't see past their own borders.

[Anonymous No.10350713]

>>10350704
You were asked to explain.

>liberal
False guess.

[Anonymous No.10350720]

>>10350713
>explain
Fuck off
You are a liberal

[Anonymous No.10350727]

>>10350720
Don't let that stop you from explaining yourself to us.

[Anonymous No.10350728]

>>10350720
So you have nothing but false assumptions.

[Anonymous No.10350732]

>>10350660
err i was responding to some nationalist idiot

[Anonymous No.10350734]

>French theory is the school of resentment of philosophy
Interesting

[Anonymous No.10350748]

I always speak the truth. Not the whole truth, because there's no way, to say it all. Saying it all is literally impossible: words fail. Yet it's through this very impossibility that the truth holds onto the real.

Thread's over, my dudes.

[Anonymous No.10350756]

>>10350728
>false
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.10350757]

>>10350695
Newtonian physics are explained by Einsteinian physics, and even going back to Kuhn, we can see the deleterious effects on contemporary scholarship that scientists won't allow for the replacement of a faulty model by a better one.

Darwinism is clearly correct as a principle, but 1. its contributions to global understanding were really the resolution of ongoing contributions from geology and biology that were undermining a Deistic vision of the world for a more strongly secular understanding of actual process and 2. the rampant application of Darwin to realms like the social, cultural, political, and economic by misguided social scientists has been one of the most negative impacts on social scientific understanding of the world for a century now

[Anonymous No.10350759]

>>10350652
>he thinks it's possible to quantify knowledge

[Anonymous No.10350780]

>>10350757
>Newtonian physics are explained by Einsteinian physics

But it still was a valuable contribution and the right step for its time


>the rampant application of Darwin to realms like the social, cultural, political, and economic by misguided social scientists has been one of the most negative impacts on social scientific understanding of the world for a century now

Interesting
Where, for example?

[Anonymous No.10350869]

>>10350359
>don't understand what D&G mean by schizophrenia
>referring to schizophrenia as anything but actual schizophrenia
>not esoteric horse shit

[Anonymous No.10350888]

>>10349949
Can anyone confirm whether or not this is true?

[Anonymous No.10351301]

>>10350888
no

[Anonymous No.10351387]

>>10350666
>schizophrenia is an avenue into the unconscious, the unconscious not of an individual, but the “transcendental unconscious,” an unconscious that is social, historical, and natural all at once.

[Anonymous No.10351609]

>>10350488
I was hoping you would share sources you trust, not just memes.

[Anonymous No.10351866]

>>10350385
>they gave absolute irredeemable shit
That sounds like science to me.

[Anonymous No.10351889]

>>10348123
>Or the best shot we have at grasping the real world?
>real world

[Anonymous No.10351905]

>>10348935
dumb cunt
schizophrenia can best be explained by saying that is it a hyperactive brain state wherein you make connections where there are none, or rather, where there is little indication. Throw in the usual paranoia that comes with this (especially if you're already very anxious), and you'll see danger, enemies, plots, and the like in every sensory stimuli and elaboration of thought.

Did you read this shit on some blog? Fucking hell.

[Anonymous No.10351922]

>>10351866
Yes, well, while you and your loved-retards stay in simplistic little language games obfuscated into unreadability, commanded by academic interpretation. The rest of the world moves on, and actually does things.

[Anonymous No.10351941]

>>10351922
>language games
Fuck off you sad undergrad.
Logic games are the same trash.
>unreadable
Because you're stupid. That's why you write simplistic schlock that, despite what you think, is actually not applicable

[Anonymous No.10351947]

>>10348992
>That’s just an anti-scientific romanization of mental illness. Schizophrenia is a genetic disease that causes lots of discomfort to both the ill and the healthy around them.

[Anonymous No.10352715]

>>10351941
>is actually not applicable

Are you trying to imply that Newtonian physics and Keynesian economics are less applicable than, say, Schizoanalysis and Deconstruction?

[Anonymous No.10352729]

>>10352715
It's also kind of funny that he that he thinks they're simpler too.

[Anonymous No.10352815]

>>10352715
Yes. Shoo, neoliberal.
>>10352729
They are far simpler. Neoliberal ideology can only be simple.

[Anonymous No.10352832]

>>10352815
>Keynesian economics are neoliberal

The absolute state of French "intellectuals"

[Anonymous No.10352845]

>>10352832
Yes they are. Get over it, dead-eyed black man lover.

[Anonymous No.10352853]

>>10348123
Someday there's going to be a computer that writes just like French philosophers. It'll basically be a random word generator.

[Anonymous No.10352927]

>>10352845
>dead-eyed black man lover

The average Frenchman?

[Anonymous No.10352978]

What the hell is even the rival to French theory the Anglos are offering? Utilitarianism? Blind optimism about progress?

[Anonymous No.10352984]

>>10352978
Basically most things you see around yourself are based upon Anglo philosphy

[Anonymous No.10353012]

>>10352984
This is a vague answer that says nothing and just invites the reader to fill in the blank with whatever they want.

I notice propoents of Anglo thinking are quick to bash other types of thinking but don't actually like to discuss their own thinking: reactivness. Meanwhile proponents of French thinkers can discuss their thoughts clearly and in of themself.

[Anonymous No.10353048]

>>10352927
Why do you think I'm French?
>>10352984
Wrong. Try again.

[Anonymous No.10353109]

>>10353012
The following things are results of Anglo thinking:

Utalitaranism
Multiculturalism
Free market economy
Central banking
Scientism
Taylorism
Pragmatism

These things made the world as we know it today.

[Anonymous No.10353156]

>>10353048
>Why do you think I’m French?

For the same reason you think I’m a neoliberal: it’s easier to burn a strawman then.

[Anonymous No.10353158]

>>10350652
Dude being Irish make you so embedded in the anglo cultural world.

[Anonymous No.10353164]

>>10350888
The author is the anthropologist that wrote Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit

[Anonymous No.10353183]

>>10348967
>>Schizophrenia is you literally making connections where none exist
yes, like rationalists do all the time and become upset when they are pointed to their stupidity

[Anonymous No.10353286]

>>10353164
But has he stayed in Africa for decades and are the linguistic examples he brings up factually accurate?

[Anonymous No.10353306]

>>10353286
Regardless of linguistics, its pretty obvious that African villagers have less understanding of abstract concepts and time-management than urban middle classes.

[Anonymous No.10354112]

>>10348123
French theory is philosphy for people that have no real problems except existential boredom.

Anglo philosphy is for building a logically flawless, Apollonian civilization.

[Anonymous No.10354258]

>>10353156
Because you have the politics of one. You cannot say the same about frenchness.
>>10354112
It's actually logically pathetic, plus logic is cancer, and 'muh white civilizashun' is cancer. It's bad philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10354601]

>>10354258
Im a Keynesian, that’s the opposite of neoliberal.

You also condemn Anglo philosphy for being illogical (to a lesser extent than Continental philosphy, notably), while also denying the worth of logic. Make up your mind.

[Anonymous No.10354617]

COMPLETE CHARLATANS

[Anonymous No.10354652]

I don't concern myself with it despite the effort of several Humanities departments to shove it down my throat. Read the man in OP pic and don't get me wrong there are takeaways, his style is even pleasurable here and there, but as a discipline, or field, no, I don't concern with anything as self-indulgent as 'french theory'.

[Anonymous No.10354833]

>>10350359

>someone criticizes derrida/deluze/foucault etc. etc.
>YOU MUST NOT UNDERSTAND LOL UGH FUCKING RETARDS LITERALLY NO ONE UNDERSTANDS THIS BRILLIANT INTELLECTUAL WORK BUT ME BUT DONT ASK ME TO EXPLAIN IT HAHAHA

every fucking time lmao

[Anonymous No.10354858]

>>10354652
>self-indulgent as 'french theory
what do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10354868]

>>10354652
>self-indulgent as 'french theory
what do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10354876]

>>10354858
There's no internal self-regulating mechanism that governs their works (but you could say the same for anything outside STEM fields), nor is there a desire to subject their work to the rigours of logic and coherence. I see most of french theory as a sort of self-indulgent philosophical poetry or aesthetic. A Rupi Kaur of philosophy. I'm mostly talking about whiny post-structuralists here.

[Anonymous No.10355540]

>>10354601
No, you're a neoliberal. Just because you paint it differently doesn't mean it isn't a dildo.
I have made up my mind. Hypocrisy is filth.

[Anonymous No.10355639]

>>10355540
>rejecting neoliberalism makes you a neoliberal

K.
Do I have to embrace neoliberalism to become a non-neoliberal?

[Anonymous No.10355834]

>>10355639
You don't reject neoliberalism, you just say you do because you have no clue what neoliberalism is.

[Anonymous No.10355935]

>>10349927
>Anglos
>continue to dominate the world

Get ready to suck Mao and Confucius cock.

[Anonymous No.10355976]

>>10355834
t. idiot

[Anonymous No.10356017]

>>10348123
Is Anglo theory just a self-referential pile of pretentious drivel? Or the best shot we have at grasping the real world?

[Anonymous No.10356159]

Worth it?

[Anonymous No.10356343]

>>10350757
>Newtonian physics are explained by Einsteinian physics
Dumbest shit I've heard all month. Einsteinian physics builds on the foundation laid by Newtonian; the former would have never existed without the latter.

Newton was effectively the beginning of real physics

[Anonymous No.10356382]

>>10356343
All physics is fake.

[Anonymous No.10356412]

>>10348715
this is correct

Avoid Derrida, who is the biggest con artist of them all

[Anonymous No.10357396]

>>10349949
huge if true

[Anonymous No.10358108]

>>10356382
Physics and chemistry are the only things to actually advance our being.

[Anonymous No.10358129]

>>10358108
Wrong. Go back to your cult forum

[Anonymous No.10358138]

>>10358129
Which would be?

[Anonymous No.10358151]

>>10356412
Derrida was the only philosopher to gain the acknowledgement of Heidegger, the inspiration for all of French post-War theory.

[Anonymous No.10358179]

>>10358138
/r/samharris

[Anonymous No.10358190]

>>10358179
Im not a friend of vulgar atheism. I acknowledge that religion and science are incommensurables and operate in different spheres of thought.

That said, feel free to comment why physics is „false“.

[Anonymous No.10358200]

>>10358190
>atom bombs and zyklon b are the only things to advance our being

[Anonymous No.10358218]

>>10358200
>muh humanity
back to r*ddit, meatbag

[Anonymous No.10358261]

>>10358218
praise muh iphone

[Anonymous No.10358580]

>>10358200
Science is the very reason we can communicate with each other right now and don’t have to worry about starving and being murdered as much as we had to.

[Anonymous No.10359034]

>>10348123
Both. It's a double movement

[Anonymous No.10359228]

>>10358580
>he fell for the meme
kys

[Anonymous No.10360362]

>>10349716
let go, anon. you'll find yourself in a stable ego in the morning anyways. i think that's why sleep exists. to forget and limit. thinking is a beast unleashed on its own, and we have the blessing to it, but it also needs leashes for us to be together in the long term as a society.

*(aristotle does this getting together in the safest manner but plato's symposium is also a get together, so it's kinda complicated)