/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10744876]

Who is the biggest fraud in philosophy?

I'm going with Badiou and his obscurantist pseudo-mathematical prose and his retarded Maoist political beliefs. Pic unrelated, it's just a mediocre philosopher.

[Anonymous No.10744900]

Lukacs

[Anonymous No.10744901]

>>10744900
pls elaborate

[Anonymous No.10744909]

>>10744876
Probably some Lacanian like Kristeva or Iringaray or some Derridean like Avital Ronell. Can't think of any male ones that come close (Peterson does not count as a philosopher). Badiou has some decent ideas if you set aside the stuff you mentioned. The books which don't include maths or Maoist politics are perfectly readable and productive, such as his book about St. Paul.

[Anonymous No.10744919]

>>10744876

[Anonymous No.10744920]

[Anonymous No.10744924]

[Anonymous No.10744925]

>>10744909
Why not Lacan himself?

[Anonymous No.10744926]

[Anonymous No.10744931]

[Anonymous No.10744944]

I dont know any of these people

[Anonymous No.10744975]

>>10744925
Lacan was a Chad, not a philosopher

[Anonymous No.10744988]

>>10744975
Then why do people treat him as if he's a philosopher?

[Anonymous No.10744992]

>>10744876

The biggest fraud in history isn't a specific person but the French philosophical tradition since the end of world war 2.

It is constantly *tiraillée* between liberal grandstanding and marxist elitism as they can't fathom the fact that they may be wrong. It is merely *tergiversations* and gonzo historicism: they weave narratives to fit their worldview, that they are the intellectuals and, by a handwave, the deciding factor of the world's coming revolution.

It is merely narcissism and rejection of structure like children fall into tantrums.

It is shame and villeny veilled in a dress of good manners, activism and moral superiority.

[Anonymous No.10745006]

>>10744992
why do the french make you feel so inadequate?

[Anonymous No.10745011]

>>10744992
There are exceptions (pic related) but i agree. It's just filled with meaningless jargon meant to hide the emptiness and ridiculousness of the theory.

[Anonymous No.10745020]

>>10744992
but french philosophy gave us this! i'd say this is worth all the intellectual terrorism

[Anonymous No.10745023]

>>10745006

I am one myself. Call it self-hating but it is not. I just despise our self-centered, reproducing cast of intellectual inheritors.

[Anonymous No.10745033]

All philosophers who's name/title begins with B.

[Anonymous No.10745036]

>>10745033
Even Baristotle?

[Anonymous No.10745037]

>>10745023
don't worry, the americans have destroyed your intellectual legacy by adopting it and taking it into autistic overdrive, there's no way the french can get it back on track now

[Anonymous No.10745040]

>>10745033
jordan B peterson?

[Anonymous No.10745049]

>>10745020
Who is this and why do i keep seeing him?

[Anonymous No.10745051]

>>10745037

I am working on regarde juvenating a French school of thoughts. But it is hard with the Badious, Lordons, Friots, Henry-Levys, etc. reproducing like cockroaches on a kitchen floor.

[Anonymous No.10745052]

>>10744992
then, what modern philosopher should i read?

[Anonymous No.10745065]

>>10745051
>Henry-Levys
i thought he was just a run-of-the-mill liberal globalist, didn't know he was an intellectual meme as well

[Anonymous No.10745068]

probably lacan. Kristeva for sure. though i like baudrillard. he writes meaningful things about seduction and pornography.

[Anonymous No.10745071]

>>10745068
Baudrillard actually has meaningful stuff to say about technology as well, and he raped Foucault harder than AIDS did

[Anonymous No.10745077]

bourdieu for sure. He took everything from norbert elias made it banal. However, all the people at the university love and teach him.

[Anonymous No.10745085]

>>10745071
yes, also about media. reading mcluhan and baudrillard is informing. i don't know what you mean by raping focault, can you explain? just know that foucault regardet fistfucking as something wonderfull.

[Anonymous No.10745087]

>>10745085
I mean his "Forgetting Foucault" article actually demoralized Foucault pretty badly.

[Anonymous No.10745090]

>>10745087
I will read into that. focault could have said what he said by writing fewer books. and it is really obscure. though, i liked the history of sexuality.

[Anonymous No.10745092]

>>10744876
Is she one of (((them)))? The nose always gives it away.

[Anonymous No.10745098]

>>10745092
yeah she is

[Anonymous No.10745100]

>>10745098
See, I was shitposting but saw the nose and was curious. I really hate this website for what it does to me.

[Anonymous No.10745101]

>>10745085
>And, to go even a step further, is the practice of fist-fucking not the exemplary case of what Deleuze called the "expansion of a concept?" The fist is put to a new use; the notion of penetration is expanded into the combination of the hand with sexual penetration, into the exploration of the inside of a body. No wonder Foucault, Deleuze's Other, was practicing fisting: is fist-fucking not the sexual invention of the twentieth century, a new model of eroticism and pleasure? It is no longer genitalized, but focused just on the penetration of the surface, with the role of the phallus being taken over by the hand, the autonomized partial object par excellence. And, what about the so-called Transformer or animorph toys, a car or a plane that can be transformed into a humanoid robot, an animal that can be morphed into a human or robot. Is this not Deleuzian? There are no "metaphorics" here; the point is not that the machinic or animal form is revealed as a mask containing a human shape but, rather, the existence of the becoming-machine or becoming-animal of the human, the flow of continuous morphing. What is blurred here is also the divide machine/living organism: a car transmutes into a humanoid/cyborg organism. And, is the ultimate irony not that, for Deleuze, the sport was surfing, a Californian sport par excellence if there ever was one? No longer a sport of self-control and domination directed towards some goal, it is just a practice of inserting oneself into a wave and letting oneself be carried by it. Brian Massumi formulated clearly this deadlock, which is based on the fact that today's capitalism already overcame the logic of totalizing normality and adopted the logic of the erratic excess:

[Anonymous No.10745103]

>>10745100
She's an atheist Jew, though. So keep that in mind.

[Anonymous No.10745107]

>>10745101
Zizek should really stick to Hegel, he comes across as a rambling idiot.

[Anonymous No.10745111]

>>10744992
Come on Jordan, why don't you just relax already

[Anonymous No.10745113]

>>10745101
wonderfull. lol. i actually don't know why i like this style. it is like a bizarre joke

[Anonymous No.10745116]

>>10745101
>expansion of a concept

[Anonymous No.10745131]

>>10744992
na, they map the neoliberal cultur and subjects quite interestingly. overall, which tradition does that better?

[Anonymous No.10745136]

>>10744876
Ayo, fuck you mang. U dunno shit nigga.

[Anonymous No.10745139]

>>10745116
>The conception of the expansion of the concept can also be applied daringly to the idea of an open-marriage or "cuckolding" as it has now become known on internet sites as reddit and so on. Here we see the application of what Badiou would call "the One is not" (indeed should not be), finds its logical conclusion in the realm of love, where one can no longer stay with "one" but must share this "one" with the Hegelian Other. Yet we must not confuse this with the erratic excesses of one like Foucault, who did not dialectically engage with the Other, but instead distanced himself by delegating the role of sexual agent to one of his young attractive students.

Zizek really writes some crazy shit. How is he a respected scholar?

[Anonymous No.10745144]

>>10744876
Wittgenstein. The madman didn't know any philosophy at all!
Kripke is jewish theology in disguise.
But they have a very good camouflage.
This guys didn't even try >>10744909

[Anonymous No.10745150]

>>10745139
he is a self-described meme, he has acknowledged many times that he hasn't even seen most of the movies he uses in his work, and that sometimes when he is asked to do a lecture about something he just improvises from bits he has without checking anything

and his articles are just copy/pasted from previous articles and books. he is just a master intellectual capitalist

[Anonymous No.10745151]

>>10745144
>Wittgenstein
You shut your whore mouth, Witty was an actual philosopher, even though he started as an engineer.

[Anonymous No.10745154]

>>10745150
But how does he keep getting away with it? Why do people take him seriously when he himself admits he's a clown?

[Anonymous No.10745157]

>>10745151
If you start curing cancer by denying the existence of cancer, without knowing what cancer is to start with, does it make a doctor?

[Anonymous No.10745158]

>>10745139
i don't know, but all this seems meaningful to me. it speaks about the current human being and his attempt to deal with the world. It is a mixture of phenomenology, psychology and political theory.

[Anonymous No.10745160]

>>10745157
How does this analogy apply to Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.10745162]

>>10745065
>Henry-Levys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KP5kldLCfM

[Anonymous No.10745163]

>>10745158
But it's just word salad that i made up to frogpost.
Are you saying i could be a continental philosopher?

[Anonymous No.10745164]

Any psychoanalyst or philosopher who derives his work from Freudian psychonanalytical assumptions that have no empirical weight. Not because of falsifiability.

Speaking of which, Popper is a massive fraud. Falsifiability discounts structure-agent relationships that are inherent to our society. And it makes no logical sense either. To use a /pol/ analogy, if a person can explain every political event because of the Jews, then it might be an indicator that the person emitting these theories may be bullshitting. However, it doesn't mean that you can discount a theory entirely based on falsifiability theory. The irony is Popper's own theory is unfalsifiable from a sociology of science perspective.

And Popper in general is the scientific equivalent of the edgy libertarian.

[Anonymous No.10745168]

>>10745103
So, a crypto

[Anonymous No.10745172]

>>10745154
the clown has always been an importand figure. the good old jester.

[Anonymous No.10745173]

>>10745154
He is like Degrasse Tyson for marxists. Edgy teens find him cool at first, like when I thuoght at first he was cool when he was guest on Croatian television.

[Anonymous No.10745178]

>>10745160
Read him and you'll know.

[Anonymous No.10745183]

>>10745178
Where to start with Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.10745184]

>>10745163
you sure could write books that would sell. it is a certain jargon. if you keep it interesting and witty, i'm sure people would read it. i would not, because /lit/ serves me well enough for this kind of entertainment.

[Anonymous No.10745189]

>>10745183
Usually by the first page of his books.

[Anonymous No.10745192]

>>10744944
Most are french media pseuds
>>10745051
I know how you feel, frère. But you won't rejuvenate anything outside of a youtube format

[Anonymous No.10745233]

>>10745189
do you skip the intro?

[Anonymous No.10745236]

>>10745233
Yeah, because the intro is normally around the last page.

[Anonymous No.10745237]

>>10744876
Sartre

[Anonymous No.10745239]

>>10745237
why?

[Anonymous No.10745278]

Yes Badiou is insufferable, trying to gain legitimacy for his philosophy and politics by shoehorning set theory

[Anonymous No.10745288]

>>10745103
It’s not that I hate Jews or anything. It’s that this site has trained me to look at any intellectuals nose and go “Jew or Gentile”. I don’t think this is a normal, healthy way to live.

This >>10745168 isn’t me btw.

[Anonymous No.10745313]

>>10745288

[Anonymous No.10745347]

Sartre

[Anonymous No.10745354]

>>10744876
Dunno about her but those are some excellent headphones

[Anonymous No.10745366]

>>10745354
Yeah i'd pay to see her give a BJ with those on

[Anonymous No.10745421]

>>10745347
elaborate famalam

[Anonymous No.10745443]

>>10744876
Evola and every theosophist.

[Anonymous No.10745445]

>>10745366
cuck

[Anonymous No.10745448]

>>10744931
i want her to tounge my nigger asshole

[Anonymous No.10745497]

>>10745448
/lil/ has waifus too? lmao

[Anonymous No.10745503]

>>10745497
Not for long. /lit/izens tend to scare them so much they delete their channels and go into hiding

[Anonymous No.10745507]

>>10745503
As long as that one guy who has piss bottles don’t post pictures, I’m happy.

[Anonymous No.10745509]

>>10745443
evola was not a philosopher and the theosophists neither

[Anonymous No.10745518]

>>10745507
>one guy

oh sweete summer childe

[Anonymous No.10745524]

>>10745509
t. simple-minded materialist

[Anonymous No.10745527]

>>10745507
Doesn’t post pictures rather

[Anonymous No.10745573]

>>10744925
He had some decent concepts and was very influential even on those who disagreed with him because of it, his biggest mistake being bad starting points in every domain, but he did push all of them to theur limits. Besides, his followers were far worse in every way.

[Anonymous No.10745597]

>>10745139
That's not a real quote, is it? Not that Zizek needs to be imitated to be a weirdo, as that other genuine quote shows.

[Anonymous No.10745730]

>>10745573
What kind of decent ideas did he have, and how are his followers worse?

[Anonymous No.10745735]

>>10745597
No, i just made it up. The other quote (about the Transformers toy) is real, though.

[Anonymous No.10745738]

>>10744876
>women
>philosophy
choose one

[Anonymous No.10745759]

>>10745150
>he has acknowledged many times that he hasn't even seen most of the movies he uses in his work

Any source on that?

[Anonymous No.10745772]

>>10745730
he conceptualized the subconsciousness as something structured through language. It is all about signification and significant. His ideas are often contained in obscure "formulas". However, he is very popular. and i must say, hes concepts can be thought provoking. Reading freud is for sure a better idea than reading lacan.

[Anonymous No.10745810]

>>10745759
couldn't find a direct quote, but it's a well know meme, i've heard him say it on some youtube video

anyway here's an indirect mention to it
https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/04/09/fatema-ahmed/stalinist-self-criticism/

[Anonymous No.10745844]

>>10745144
>Kripke is jewish theology in disguise.
How? I know he's a practicing Jew, but most of his work seems completely areligious.

[Anonymous No.10746009]

plato

[Anonymous No.10746048]

Tie between Heidegger and Derrida

[Anonymous No.10746125]

>>10745023
>Call it self-hating but it is not
lmfao

[Anonymous No.10746143]

>>10745810
>It's a well known meme
>it must be real
go back

[Anonymous No.10746153]

>>10744876

So I looked up Julia Galef and apparently she's a Sam Harris tier meme rationalist utilitarian?

>I still would tho

[Anonymous No.10746260]

>>10744876
Not Badiou, it’s more complicated than that. He does indeed understand the math that he uses, mathematicians just say he doesn’t because he doesn’t write in their style and they hate that. I can’t find it right now, but I’ve found a review of Logics of Worlds by a mathematician which verifies he does indeed deploy category theory without any mathematical errors. The reviewer was deeply uncomfortable with how he was using that to make phenomenological points, but they admitted they were not a philosophy and are not use to reading that sort of writing.

I’d recommend Badiou; Subject to Truth by Hallward, and Badiou and Politics by Bruno Bosteels, in that order. Between the two of them they make a good case for him as an important thinker, and a politically relevant one, outside of just Maoism.

>>10744900
Lukacs is great don’t fckin lie. Especially on /lit/.


>>10744925
While Lacan himself is incomprehensible the fact that so many people have able to mobilize his concepts in ways that I’ve found enlightening and productive makes me inclined to believe there is something there.

>>10745049
That is Nick Land. His biggest influence is the French philosophy Gilles Deleuze. The biggest aesthetic difference between them, superficially at least, is that Deleuze deploys a very biological oriented metaphor, taking about rhizomes, cells, growth, bodies with and without organs, lines of flight and so on, while Land uses the language of cybernetics, technoscience, computational networks, meltdown, data, hacking etc.

Land is characterized as being an accelerationist, basically that the only way around the contradictions of capitalist society is to push them faster and harder until we push right through them. Then he went crazy, moved to China and because a monarchist.


>>10745139
After Deleuze published Anti-Oedipus Lacanian was seen in philosophical circles as completely dead. Along comes Zizek a couple years later and published The Sublime Object of Ideology, which deploys the Lacanian apparatus to reinterpret Hegel, producing a materialist theory of subjectivity, from which he derives a new method for the the critique of ideology (previously seen as having culminated in Althusser) and then actually deploys that method to reveal the ideological structures in film in a novel way.

Zizek basically started a new wave of Lacanian film criticism single handedly. There was the application of Lacan to films back in the 60s and 70s, notably people like Metz and Mulvney, who mostly elaborated on and deployed the concept of the Mirror stage, and worked on differentiating structures as either being part of rhe Imaginary or the Symbolic. Lacan hadn’t yet developed the Real at that time.

Zizek focused, for really the first time seriously, on the far more esoteric, bizarre and incomprehensible ‘Later Lacan’, where he talks about The Real, the Synthome, Borromean Knots, and so on. Zizek is a genuine expert on this topic.

[Anonymous No.10746263]

>>10745844
I had to read some rabbinic literature. I can tell you that he didn't come up with a new theory of reference, he only adapted the rabbinic interpretation of some old metaphysical problems.

[Anonymous No.10746266]

>>10746263
What rabbinic literature did you read?

[Anonymous No.10746284]

>>10746266
Traditions of the interpretations of the seven names of god.

[Anonymous No.10746287]

>>10745150
That doesn’t sound right, it’s noted in a couple biographical sketches that there was a weird situation where his university ended up with a substantial library of Hollywood film, things that weren’t available to the public in Yugoslavia.

>>10745154
Because he’s not actually a clown. Zizek is dialectician and a theorist of paradox, and he is often making ‘contrarian’ statements which are not consistent with other parts of his thought which clearly need to be read as provocations. Zizek wrote a whole book arguing that ‘Totalitarianism’ is a bullshit concept, yet he himself constantly deploys it, or deploys ‘Stalinism’ or whatever else.

With a lot of his controversial statements he seems like he’s intentionally framing something in ways that will get people to react. I think he’s basically trying to provoke a sort of ‘dialectical advancement’ by forcing people to come to a better third position after confronting the error of the statement he himself makes.

[Anonymous No.10746305]

>>10746284
Is that the title of a specific book? Who wrote it?
What metaphysical problem that shaped his theory?

[Anonymous No.10746307]

>>10745144
>didn't know any philosophy
>still BTFO philosophy so hard he practically ended the field
How can philosofags even fuckig recover from based Ludwig's anal devastation?

[Anonymous No.10746313]

>>10746305
No, is the name of a problem. Several rabbi. The jewish have a very weird tradition for discussing their own theories.
I don't know what you mean by your third question.

[Anonymous No.10746331]

>>10746287
But how much of that is intentional and how much of it is just hypocrisy? You can wave away any criticism with "it's meant to be like that" or "it's a feature, not a flaw". I can understand that dialectics relies on paradoxes and that the text should reflect that, but quite often i get the feeling that he's just using it as an excuse.

Also he still rambles on and cites things jumps from one topic to another, and often quotes sources that are either bizarre or have little to do with his topic.

[Anonymous No.10746347]

>>10746260
Badiou is still a fucktard for his Maoist beliefs and his harrassment of Deleuze, and the fact that he uses word salad to justify any atrocity that occurred during Maoism.

[Anonymous No.10746355]

>>10745164
>The irony is Popper's own theory is unfalsifiable from a sociology of science perspective.

That's because it's not a scientific theory, you retard. There's no irony there.

[Anonymous No.10746380]

>>10746143
If you care to watch any of his repetitive videos and talks, you will find it. It is not a meme, everything is a meme now.

Not the other guy, btw.

[Anonymous No.10746407]

>>10746331
its 5d chess you fuckin idiot stop doubting the god emperor zizek vright ving shill *sniff*

[Anonymous No.10746427]

Zizek

[Anonymous No.10746490]

>>10746331

I see a big difference in how he writes his academic texts and how he argues in his more popular writing. Like when you are neck deep in the 1000 page tomb that is Less Than Nothing, he’s a different writer than when he’s doing a 5 minute YouTube video for Big Think. He’s still jokey and ironic in places, and it doesn’t always feel like he’s building a systematic argument, but he is being specific and saying what he means.

When he says ‘don’t act just think’ that seems like a really simplistic, almost transparent attempt to make left radicals angry, but then force them to confront the fact that simply acting without thinking, like he sees having happened during occupy, is insufficient, and have them come to the real Marxist notion of praxis, the dialectic of theory and practice. Zizek sees simply laying out that a “scientific” political movement requires careful planning and bold action together, it wouldn’t be taken to heart, when saying something directly opposite of what radical we’re doing makes them argue against him.

[Anonymous No.10746508]

>>10745313
This is fucking embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.10746595]

>>10746313
I don't see what's weird about academic tradition.

[Anonymous No.10746675]

Bertrand Russell

[Anonymous No.10746676]

>>10746595
Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.10746723]

>>10746675
expand pls, asking for a friend

[Anonymous No.10746742]

Derrida and Foucault are cancer

[Anonymous No.10746772]

>>10745509
>hey look if i keep posting it it’ll become more true!

[Anonymous No.10747048]

>>10746595
Yeah I don’t really get why the idea of ‘commentary’ is bizarre. I’d argue that there has been basically a parallel tradition among non Jews with the works of Plato and Aristotle. Marxism largely has an identical tradition, but surely racists will argue that is because there is something implicitly Jewish about Marx’s thought.

[Anonymous No.10747092]

Most of philosophy after the 19th century became pretty cancerous with the professionalization of philosophy. Academic philosophy is a joke.

[Anonymous No.10747123]

>>10747048
>racists will argue that is because there is something implicitly Jewish about Marx’s thought.
I realize your mind simply shuts off when the word 'racism' appears but this sentence is not an argument.

To make this clear take a look at this one:
Racists will claim that the earth is a sphere.

[Anonymous No.10747146]

>>10747123
this is the argument, anon
>there has been basically a parallel tradition among non Jews with the works of Plato and Aristotle. Marxism largely has an identical tradition

[Anonymous No.10747149]

>>10744876
As person of Sioux descent I cringed heartily at the wiki entry for "Native American Philosophy"

[Anonymous No.10747158]

>>10747149
W-what's the entry about?
Also are you glad the white man introduced domestic cats to the continent?

[Anonymous No.10747194]

>>10747149
How did you study philosophy?

[Anonymous No.10747234]

>>10747123
>>10747149
>>10747158
samefrog

[Anonymous No.10747302]

>>10745524
>rene guenon
>materialist

[Anonymous No.10747342]

>>10747302
look at his beautiful elongated face, how could anybody call him materialist?

[Anonymous No.10747403]

>>10747342
ur a materialist Rene

[Anonymous No.10747422]

>>10746260
Thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.10747487]

>>10746260
good post

[Anonymous No.10748053]

>>10747487
seconded

[Anonymous No.10748064]

>>10747342
Guenon was a simping faggot tho and had a materialist instrumentalist understanding of spirituality

[Anonymous No.10748137]

>>10748064
calm down and explain how

[Anonymous No.10748209]

>>10746742
Foucault is pretty cool desu

[Anonymous No.10748216]

>>10746347
>harassment of Deleuze
that was just banter

[Anonymous No.10748238]

>>10746260
Once in a while /lit/ gets it right.

[Anonymous No.10748538]

>>10746260
Woah! A philosopher!?

[Anonymous No.10748727]

reminder that anticapitalism is part of capitalism too

[Anonymous No.10750018]

>>10746260
>The reviewer was deeply uncomfortable with how he was using that to make phenomenological points
Can you elaborate on this?

[Anonymous No.10750029]

>>10744876
>Pic unrelated, it's just a mediocre philosopher.
Isn't she just a psychologist?

[Anonymous No.10750057]

>>10750029
A hot female philosopher is automatically at least mediocre.

[Anonymous No.10750158]

>>10745033
Bartin Beidegger

[Anonymous No.10750167]

After reading his remarks on Godel, Girard. But he's not really an issue since no one cares about him save Thiel and a few schizophrenics in this shithole.

[Anonymous No.10750176]

>>10744876
I don't know anything about either Galef or Badiou

[Anonymous No.10750907]

>>10750176
Galef is hot, that's all that matters.

[Anonymous No.10751685]

>>10746742
t. Brainlet that doesn't understand either

[Anonymous No.10751730]

>>10746742
>le parroting memerson drone
>hasn't actually read them
i know because nobody actually reads both except academics, "normal" people fall for either one meme or the other, and it's very different kinds of people, but nobody falls for both at the same time

[Anonymous No.10752252]

>>10750018
Oh, the publisher doing the review asked two people to write it, a mathematician and a philosopher, so they could comment on both the soundness of the mathematics and also the philosophical content. The math reviewer just said that she didn’t really understand the philosophical points being made and that she has to no background to speak of in phenomenology so she was uncomfortable commenting on the implications he was drawing, and just the style really. All math papers are written in an austere ‘Definition - Theorem - Proof’ kind of way, not integrated into paragraphs of philosophical prose.


In the most broad terms Badiou’s Being and Event is an attempt to define a formal ontology using the language of set theory, and Logics of Worlds (Beng and Event II) is about trying to connect that ontology to the world of real experience, aka phenomenology, which he does in the framework of category theory. Since the 50s and really picking up steam since the 90s, category theory has been displacing set theory as a framework for “grounding” mathematics so to speak. I’ve never formally studied category theory so I can’t really say anything about how it does this, but I know it’s a very hot topic in math, and Badiou has picked up on it.

[Anonymous No.10752344]

>>10752252
so what do you specialize in?

[Anonymous No.10752507]

>>10752344
shitposting