/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4921742]

My respect for Richard Dawkins sky rocketed:

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/824

How epic. I used to hate him for spawning thousands of fedoramen, but now I'm glad he exists.

> Comment 6 by Scifinerdgrl
I'm am happily forever A.B.D. in my field because of the postmodernist takeover of its prestigious journals and conferences. In order to get published or get heard you have to toe this ridiculous line. Even though it's a humanities field, apparently a complete misunderstanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a requisite for a Ph.D. Yes, children. Because physicists are uncertain about something we must all acknowledge that all half-baked opinions are equal to all *educated* opinions because nobody is sure of anything and all observation is relative. Research is futile. Why take a sabbatical, pay plane fare, and then suffer for hours on end in a stodgy European library when you can skim through a translation of a few texts, suggest the author may have been homosexual (and even if he wasn't, he wanted to be) and get published? Even though I managed to find a niche that was somewhat less insane, any job I could have wanted (and I did have a good starter job) would have depended on a faculty committee's approval for continuation... and the committees are now stuffed with 1) total nitwits who write this stuff and 2) total nitwits who think the nitwits who write this incomprehensible trash are brilliant. I left academia, doubled my salary, and never looked back. But this essay brings back memories. Thanks for making my Monday morning commute a little cheerier tomorrow.

The academia has become a fucking joke.

Postmodern essay generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

[Anonymous No.4921752]

>>4921742
...a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage...

[Anonymous No.4921757]

>>4921742
>http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
This is actually disturbing. I wonder if there is any case of success!

[Anonymous No.4921762]

>>4921757

If one examines subtextual objectivism, one is faced with a choice: either accept social realism or conclude that consciousness has intrinsic meaning, given that Foucaultist power relations is invalid. Sontag uses the term ‘the dialectic paradigm of expression’ to denote the role of the reader as writer. It could be said that the opening/closing distinction prevalent in Smith’s Chasing Amy is also evident in Dogma.

[Anonymous No.4921766]

>>4921762

“Class is part of the collapse of truth,” says Derrida; however, according to Hubbard[1] , it is not so much class that is part of the collapse of truth, but rather the stasis, and eventually the defining characteristic, of class. The subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes language as a paradox. In a sense, Foucault uses the term ‘postcapitalist deconstructivism’ to denote a self-justifying totality.

[Anonymous No.4921768]

>>4921742
> Anglophone STEM major hating postmodernism
woah hot

[Anonymous No.4921770]

>>4921766
“Narrativity is part of the rubicon of culture,” says Lyotard; however, according to Porter[1] , it is not so much narrativity that is part of the rubicon of culture, but rather the paradigm of narrativity. Thus, Derrida uses the term ‘constructive nihilism’ to denote not discourse as such, but neodiscourse.

[Anonymous No.4921771]

>>4921742
>I used to hate him for spawning thousands of fedoramen

Hating anything because you don't like its fanbase is one of the dumbest things you retards still mindlessly cling to.

[Anonymous No.4921777]

>We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.

It's like he's just laughing at /lit/. I love it.

[Anonymous No.4921785]

>>4921766
>>4921770

<quote> says <author> however; according to <author>, <general idea> but rather <concept>. <connector with next paragraph>

Pretty neat. If you do a semantic research, and try to find compatible senses, chances are iterations of the algorithm will produce text with real sense.

That is the basis of search ontologies when coding expert systems, and search engines.

While I wait for constructive discussion; I'll fap to this display of classic taste. :D

[Anonymous No.4921788]

>>4921785
hmmmm yeah!

[Anonymous No.4921791]

>>4921785
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm yeahhhhhhh!

[Anonymous No.4921795]

>>4921785
HHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[Anonymous No.4921797]

>>4921757
Yes, people have been duped. Some STEM guy turned in word salad to a literary journal and got in.

[Anonymous No.4921809]

>>4921785
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.4921814]

>>4921742
(I need two pictures)

[Anonymous No.4921816]

>>4921785
>Pretty neat. If you do a semantic research, and try to find compatible senses, chances are iterations of the algorithm will produce text with real sense.

This looks like post modernist jargon, but it is not.

[Anonymous No.4921817]

>>4921797
HAH!

I wonder how red and embarrassed the pomos on /lit/ are getting.

[Anonymous No.4921827]

[Anonymous No.4921830]

>>4921827
Nice.

[Anonymous No.4921835]

>>4921757
Well, this one had a notable success...

[Anonymous No.4921839]

>>4921835
What about this one?

[Anonymous No.4921850]

>>4921814
no one would take pic related seriously, but to the uninitiated, my first image is incomprehensible
one has to assume an awful lot to say something like "oh no this is really nonsense, they're just charlatans and the people who follow them are fools"
I will admit that the style is perverse, but it's not "semantically empty" as chomsky thinks

I don't know what that comment was referring to suggesting that an author was a homosexual with no basis, or some serious misinterpretation of the heisenberg uncertainty principle

[Anonymous No.4921851]

>>4921785
Beaucoup Haram.
bwahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.4921853]

>>4921835
http://radfemessays.tumblr.com/post/65626021568/neosemantic-narratives-sontagist-camp-in-the-works-of

[Anonymous No.4921870]

>>4921851
Boko what?

[Anonymous No.4921874]

>>4921851
Beau - Coup ?

[Anonymous No.4921879]

>>4921814
nice clarity of language and lack of mystification here

[Anonymous No.4921883]

>>4921879
I can't tell if you're critical or agreeing in an amusing way

[Anonymous No.4921903]

>>4921883

Well that depends on the context of interpretation, and your horizon of sense. All of your experiences, collapse and crystallize in sense, as you semiotically interpret a symbol presented by the world to your faculty of understanding.

Since math is yet another language, with a conceptual reference, the sense you get out of that picture, collapses in one sense or the other depending on your context. It is one of the principles of perception, and gestalt psychology, as well as the Input / Blackbox / Output paradigm of computation.

[Anonymous No.4921909]

>>4921903
Wow, that was actually enlightening.

[Anonymous No.4921913]

>>4921883
i think it's pretty obvious since language itself is obviously clear and direct and there are certainly no natural ways to misunderstanding or ambiguity, only perverted by style, a self-idolizing invention by those who, self-aware of their lack of things to say, make up an impenetrable wall of false "propositions" to obscure their poor ideas. the monolithic clarity of language is threatened by people who think that forcing violence on language is a way to analyze when its on the logic foundations of language that the study should reside; of course, people too lazy to take the dirac equation or any other mathematical theory literally wouldn't be able to work on those terms, as metaphors are nothing but the product of a mind incapable of reasoning with research and knowledge and instead resorting to a self-absorbed false-knowledge that the future will find risible.

[Anonymous No.4921915]

>>4921909
That was clear nonsense, perpetrated by a mere charlatan, whose claims have no basis on scientific method, reality, or semiotics whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.4921922]

>>4921915

LOOK AT THIS FAGGOT SPEAKING!
HE'S THE BIGGEST CHARLATAN OF THE XXth CENTURY!

[Anonymous No.4921925]

>there are people on /lit/ right now who defend Lacan

Parts of South America

[Anonymous No.4921930]

>>4921922
Wise words, bro. Wise words. Infinity hides, in the fading walls of a broken mirror.

[Anonymous No.4921933]

>>4921816

It's a good point

Definitely quashed my fear of words losing all their meaning. Or at least held it at bay

[Anonymous No.4921936]

>>4921915
this nigga just copied humboldt and threw around a bunch of pseudo-scientific equations to make it look scientific while still saying the exact same, then threw around a "theory" on language acquisition that didn't actually propose anything and a completely unrealistic "theory" on universality that's completely questionable tho

or is that the joke?

[Anonymous No.4921963]

>>4921933

Do not forget that language is the house of being, which is propriated by being and pervaded by being. As long as there is being, as long as we exist, and we speak, language, and by extension words, will mean something.

Tho, sometimes, words seem to have no real reference. I guess those are the times in which we are something else.

[Anonymous No.4921972]

>>4921785
>>4921788
>>4921791
>>4921795
>>4921809
>>4921816
>>4921835
>>4921839
>>4921851
>>4921870
>>4921874
>>4921903
>>4921909
>>4921915
>>4921922
>>4921930
>>4921963


Uhm, thank you ladies, that was a nice fap. :*

[Anonymous No.4921998]

>>4921963
Those times, we are the spirit, whose culmination is the sublimeness of art, and pure actions.

>>4921972
Ahh, the best drop of cum is the last one. Bwahahaha.

[Anonymous No.4922014]

Connectivity has been called the genius of feminism by theorist Robin Morgan (53), and this genius is being realized in electronic spaces and texts in more complex ways than in any other medium to date. Connectivity's key position in the quantum feminist universe is reaffirmed by VNS Matrix's choice of the image of the matrix--the cosmic womb--as its symbol as much as by the OBN defining its local chapters as "nodes" that "collide, disintegrate, regenerate, engage, disembody, reform, collapse, renew, abandon, revise, revitalize and expand" (OBN FAQ 7). These structural and mechanical concerns are not accidental. Quantum feminisms do not inhabit a network; they are the network of feminist discourse in virtual space. In the archival text, this dynamic connectivity, interconnection and disconnection is both narratological structure and the means of navigation in space and time.

The above block of text did not come from the Postmodernism Generator. It is from a real article, written by a real person. And the only reason I don't think it was written by someone from /lit/ is because the author didn't have an aneurysm when she typed "feminism."

[Anonymous No.4922016]

>>4921998
FUCK YEAH!

[Anonymous No.4922024]

The striking hyper-realism of the works of Joyce are elevated when analysed through the ennui of postmodern capitalism with a human face. The big other which pervades the tales is a factor in the shared unconscious of the characters, the drives are sublimated into repression and capitulation due to the unknowable somewhat which controls and defines them.

[Anonymous No.4922047]

>>4921963

Thank you for your wisdom

[Anonymous No.4922052]

>>4921998

Great call about being the spirit, Hegel

8.9/10 thread

[Anonymous No.4922055]

>>4922047
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

You are most welcome, if you really consider that to be wisdom.

I really couldn't tell.

[Anonymous No.4922108]

>>4921742
“Sexual identity is impossible,” says Sartre. If the neopatriarchialist paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between semiotic sublimation and subpatriarchialist dematerialism. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Spelling is the bridge between class and sexual identity.

This generator is brilliant.

[twinshiggy No.4922305]

But at the point at which people stop writing in an obfuscating way,
wouldn't that really be the stagnation?

[Anonymous No.4922373]

>>4921757
If you really can't distinguish this from actual text, then you are illiterate.

[Anonymous No.4922378]

What is said here is just Orwell s critique of language. Dawkins confirmed for pleb

[Anonymous No.4922391]

>>4921742
>The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a 'sexed equation'. Why? Because 'it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us'

philosophy: not even once.

[Anonymous No.4922407]

>>4921742
>The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

Wait, what?

[Anonymous No.4922412]

>>4921814
There.
This is what happens (to a great deal) of continental philosophy. Things can be described in a clear, simple way, its true, but as a field develops it tends to get quite self-referential.
When you have an outsider who can see some of the simpler texts and some of the more complex, its easy to him to conclude that the more complex and self-referential are filled with unnecessary posturing. The same happens to math and science, but they have the advantage of having (well-deserved) authority, and trivial applications in real life, that can substitute, or leave at second-plane the theory (come on, how many times in math you just ditched the theory, learned the formulas/method and the algorithm to solve exercises?), so they are not as questioned.
You can explain it simple and easy, but it is going to take too long and, in the end, would mean nothing. Try explaining Green's Theorem, or Lagrange multipliers without referencing previous calculus knowledge? It can be done, but in a LOT of pages.
Of course, this does not save the appropiation and mis-interpretation of scientific terms, this should be punished and ridiculed, unless they are clearly metaphors.

[Anonymous No.4922434]

>>4922391
>taking quotes out of context

[Anonymous No.4922436]

>The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who is given whole chapter treatment by Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a 'rape manual') Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a 'sexed equation'. Why? Because 'it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us' (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an in-word). Just as typical of the school of thought under examination is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. 'Masculine physics' privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:


At least he knows when shit is shit. If only I didnt have the niggling feeling that God would be annoyed with me if i read his stuff...

[Anonymous No.4922440]

>>4922412
An example of how this can happen with science and math is how high-schoolers when faced with a complicated subject in math simply say "why am i learning this? Its too complicated! It has no application in real life, its just mental masturbation!" Ohhh if only those idiots on my class saw the abstract algebra I'm learning....
Perhaps Dawkings is like a High-schooler finding some math content he can't trivially understand?

[Anonymous No.4922443]

>>4921742
>cites the sokal affair
>people are amazed that a journal that only checks credentials and not essays would publish nonsense written by a man with credentials

dumbest shit ever

[Anonymous No.4922472]

>>4922440
the best part is retarded high schoolers complaining about how imaginary numbers are useless because they can't be used for real life stuff

[Anonymous No.4922473]

>>4921742

>read philosophical text
>the author uses a bunch of obscure language and a bunch of adjectives and adverbs in an unnecessary way
>can't wrap my head around what the author is saying
>drop it

I used to think it was bad reading comprehension, but now I think it's just philosophers being pseudo-intellectual assholes who are trying to sound intelligent

[Anonymous No.4922479]

Also Lacan was not a post-modernist
He had a great respect for Science and was absolutely against this po-mo bullshit that 'science is just another story we tell us'

[Anonymous No.4922524]

>>4922473
That is true for some books, but if you live by that rule you are also going to drop actual intellectually challenging books that you may have been able to wrap your head around if you had just taken the time.

[Anonymous No.4922532]

>>4922440
>tfw when you routinely used that line in high school

On the other hand, developmentally Dawkins always seemed like a 8th grader debating with the most annoying 5th graders he could find in the school yard. I see this behavior belonging on the autism spectrum. I grew out of my disdain for maths I wish Dawkins would grow out of his autism, and start seeing people as they are instead of this construct that he wants to enforce. It's logical madness.

[Anonymous No.4922565]

>>4922473
>read mathematical text
>author uses a bunch of obscure signs1 and a bunch of axioms in an unnecessary way
>can't wrap my head around what the author is saying
>drop it
1: inverted A? inverted e? Arrows?
I used to think it was bad reading comprehension, but now I think it's just mathematicians being pseudo-intellectual assholes who are trying to sound intelligent
Now I am a engineer :D

[Anonymous No.4922634]

>>4921742 (OP)

Au contraire it is people like Dawkins and faggots like this:

>>4921903
>>4921963
>>4921998
>>4922391
>>4922412
>>4922473

who want to obsfucate the the argument. The sign of the weak philosopher or generaly a bad thinker is someone who parades his ignorance (Socrates is exempted from this because he actually understood shit).

There is nothing more hostile to the clarity of theory itself than the reductionist which reduces abstract concepts and ideas into into simple formulas and faux empiricist babble. Good job on lazily rejecting the hermeneutic process that works on studying ARGUMENTS and not slinging ad homs everywere.

And if you faggots think that science trumps philosophy because it reduces such abstractions into symbols and ideograms consider the philosophical history and the entire metaphysical world view that hides behind an equation such as E=MC2, before you flaunt your techno - scientist ignorance.

End of rant /

[Anonymous No.4922690]

>>4922479
He was a complete hack tho.

[Anonymous No.4922716]

>>4922690
hard to read and understand yes.

throwing ideas everywhere without critic, yes.

hack, no.

hes going to get buried and that's sad.

[Anonymous No.4922745]

>>4922434
what context is there that would make her words anything other than absolute shit? I'd love to see it.

[Anonymous No.4922812]

>>4921742
The thing with Sokal was that he sent his article to a journal with no peer review. Which isn't to say that the state of discourse within humanities hasn't degraded (I've no opinion on the matter), but taht it isn't a big feat in itself.

Recently enough, some guy sent a randomly generated math paper to Advances in Pure Mathematics. You can see it here http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/mathgen-1389529747.pdf

Is mathematics a joke? I hardly think so. Granted, this is much less symbolic than Sokal's article, but I think it's worth a thought.

[Anonymous No.4922842]

>>4922565
yeah that too

[Anonymous No.4922854]

>>4922634

>ad homs everywere
Yep, that pretty much resumes your rant.

[Anonymous No.4922858]

>>4921785
This.

[Anonymous No.4922868]

>>4922565
2/10. no engineer can be this dumb.

[Anonymous No.4923165]

>>4921742

one can't help but scoff at this article's pure and unadulterated dialectical divergence from the metaphysics of presence qua baudrillardian hyperreality - as schelling once described the "transcendental regress of ego within a contextually undecidable domain".

tl;dr Dawkins and Sokol are imbeciles.

[Philosophag !!aEGgSI04zUm No.4923193]

>>4921768
Being this pleb

[Anonymous No.4923223]

>>4923165
>If I use a bunch of obscure words this will make me sound smarter

Sup teenager

[Anonymous No.4923235]

>>4923223

one ought not confuse their own subjective incomprehensibility with objective comprehensibility. go back to your minority-ridden community college, you binge-drinking knuckle-dragger. you'll never be on my level.

[Anonymous No.4923282]

>>4921742
i literally do not give a fuck

sometimes postmodern philosophy is interesting. sometimes it's dumb. it's almost always insufferably written. it's is always not as worth the time spent reading as a good poet, why would i read philosophy when philosophy is the servant of poetry?

[Anonymous No.4923301]

It seems like Dawkins, Sokal, et al are cherry-picking examples from postmodernism and then claiming they have "disrobed" postmodernism as a whole. Sure, most of the quotes they criticize are pretty retarded. Though I didn't have any problem with this one by Baudrillard, which makes total sense:

>Perhaps history itself has to be regarded as a chaotic formation, in which acceleration puts an end to linearity and the turbulence created by acceleration deflects history definitively from its end, just as such turbulence distances effects from their causes.

They seem unwilling to accept that words have different meanings in different contexts, that words can be used metaphorically, and that science doesn't have a monopoly on the terms it uses just because they have special technical definitions. Just another example of scientists trying to set up science as the new Church which has a monopoly on Truth and which will lash out at any dissent or differing approach.

[Anonymous No.4923339]

>>4923301
Agreed. If one examines patriarchialist dematerialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept postdialectic objectivism or conclude that reality is used to reinforce class divisions. But the characteristic theme of the works of Baudrillard is a textual totality.

[Anonymous No.4923367]

>>4923339
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.4923377]

>>4923367

[Anonymous No.4923387]

>>4923377

[DJ Orwell !!BK/RnzYxLVZ No.4923401]

>>4921742

I only care about Baudrillard among the authors lambasted there, and the particular quote he / they nitpick is obviously intended as a facetious metaphor. They have no sense of wit whatsoever.

I'd like to see some actual rebuttals of Baudrillard's work instead of this cherry-picking. Sure, all the sex stuff is bullshit as they point out, but the presentation here doesn't convince me that they ever go beyond cherry-picking.

[DJ Orwell !!BK/RnzYxLVZ No.4923414]

>>4923401
>one wonders what would be left of Baudrillard's thought if the verbal veneer covering it were stripped away.

To which Baudrillard would reply:

"The secret of theory is that truth doesn't exist. You can't confront it in any way. The only thing you can do is play with some kind of provocative logic. Truth constitutes a space that can no longer be occupied. The whole strategy is, indeed, not to occupy it, but to work around it so that others come to occupy it. It means creating a void so that others will fall into it."

Which is, all told: playful, thought-provoking, and a hell of a lot less pretentious than the agitated adolescent antics of Sokal / Bricmont / Dawkins (as if one needed any specific case of Dawkins being a twat) amount to.

[DJ Orwell !!BK/RnzYxLVZ No.4923421]

>Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious?

No sense of subtlety or imagination whatsoever. No wonder they find religious texts so intolerable as well.

[Anonymous No.4923426]

>>4922634
I-is this guy for real?

[Anonymous No.4923428]

>The subject is interpolated into a poststructuralist feminism that includes consciousness as a reality. Thus, a number of narratives concerning not desituationism per se, but postdesituationism exist.

>In Vineland, Pynchon reiterates dialectic narrative; in The Crying of Lot 49, although, he analyses poststructuralist feminism. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is the stasis, and some would say the genre, of neotextual sexual identity.

>The subject is contextualised into a pretextual dialectic theory that includes language as a paradox. It could be said that von Ludwig suggests that we have to choose between the postcapitalist paradigm of expression and subdialectic textual theory.

>The subject is interpolated into a pretextual dialectic theory that includes reality as a whole. Therefore, many theories concerning the postcapitalist paradigm of expression may be discovered.

gas the pomofags
language war now

[Anonymous No.4923433]

>>4923428
you just don't have any imagination like me

[Anonymous No.4923463]

>>4921771
This is a gray area. While you might not dislike Einstein he also contributed to the nuclear era, an era of gridlock and pseudo economic wars.

You can easily hate feminism for its cult following of authors who have advocated for ideals like removing men from society. Go read the scum manifesto. She shot Warhol because she knew he was exposing the limits of art in a mass media and captialist environment.

The soup can? Warhol was dead set on pushing art to absolute absurdity to point out its flaw in a modern context where anyone could create art.

[Anonymous No.4923489]

>>4923463
She shot Warhol because he took her play "Up Your Ass" and never returned it. She thought he was stealing her work.

[Anonymous No.4923495]

>>4922634
If trolling 12/10

[Anonymous No.4923511]

>>4922440
Did you read the article?
The some of the tripe those 'philosophers' were spouting was absolute nonsense

[Anonymous No.4923541]

>>4923489
Excuses excuses. They were at war. She shot him to end it. Believe what you must but Warhol was a genous. He knew what this all was

[DJ Orwell !!BK/RnzYxLVZ No.4923557]

>>4923541

Andy Warhol was not a genius. At best, he is a self-aware model of the absence of genius being touted as bold and revolutionary. The only "art" he pulled was passing off his stuff as art; i.e. the art of counterfeit. None of his "works" ought rightly to be considered "art" in and of themselves — they are inherently, and definitively, anti-art.

And his method of critique, that of pointing out the superficiality of the modern art scene, is merely to mimic it to extremes (but not beyond extremes, where something interesting might happen) and be as superficial as he could be.

Anyone can be superficial.

[Anonymous No.4923568]

>>4923557

That Warhol is even remembered from an era in which Dali and Picasso lived and worked is a testament to human perversity and vulgarity.

[Anonymous No.4923573]

>>4923557
>The only "art" he pulled was passing off his stuff as art; i.e. the art of counterfeit.

"Art is anything you can get away with."
--Marshall McLuhan

[DJ Orwell !!BK/RnzYxLVZ No.4923581]

>>4923568

It's easy to remember Warhol because there's nothing to appreciate; there's nothing to understand because He Himself is the message of all his works. It makes one wonder if one could possibly even notice any object Warhol would've made if one were not informed of Warhol's involvement.

Ya'll should watch Exit Through The Gift Shop. Most hilarious and incisive mockumentary on the degeneracy of modern art, by way of some pretty sweet graffiti!

[DJ Orwell !!BK/RnzYxLVZ No.4923627]

>>4923568

I can say in clean confidence that, as a strictly visual experience (without raising the problematics of narrative and interactivity, lol),

Grand Theft Auto V is the most engrossing, beautiful, and immersive motion-painting there has ever been to explore. Any serious artist would fantasize of the sheer scale and attention to detail which Rockstar accomplished within it.

It's slightly less engrossing as a videogame wholesale, mainly because Rockstar can never design a compelling challenge anymore, but still a terrific work of art, and as much "art" as any videogame has ever been by definition of the form itself.

Warhol does not work with "forms" other than to pervert them, other than to make marathon-length films consisting of essentially nothing, so he does not even have this basic definition of "art" conceded to his oeuvre.

[DJ Orwell !!BK/RnzYxLVZ No.4923637]

>>4923627

And I can't wait until the high-res interactive Twitter-integrated museums within videogames become more popular than those mausoleums of culture which exist in the Real World, which people visit just to say they do.

The modern art sculptures within GTA V are really quite quaint in this regard. And the paintings as well.

[Anonymous No.4924669]

>>4923421

I think they have plenty of imagination. There just isn't any reason to imagine that a block of meaningless word salad is profound. There is actual well written literature that does that already.

This is where postmodernist "literature" stems from, really. You find some gibberish and imagine that the gibberish is in some way meaningful based on the rudimentary understanding you have of the words the author is misusing, which defeats the purpose of language. It's a waste of time for those of us who actually understand what those terms mean and can make meaningful statements about them. This is also why we're not impressed with pseudo-science and new age mysticism.

[Anonymous No.4924690]

>>4922412
modern mathematic is just as corrupt as modern lit; we should go back to the aesthetic beauty of euclidean geometry and leave the black magic of calculus and complex analysis alone

btw i'm serious

[Anonymous No.4924696]

>>4923401
ok, here is my rebuttal of Baudrillard: he's a third-rate Gnostic

[Anonymous No.4924704]

>>4923557
>>4923581
>>4923627
>>4923637

Namefiggin' , didn't read.

[Anonymous No.4924717]

>>4923414
that is nothing but an imbecile sophistry of the kind Plato dealt with

i bet you can find a faggot saying that there is no truth in Plato
and this idea that truth is cultural and that no truth can exist for 'us' because 'we' live in a 'nihilistic' 'age' is an additional sophistry that Kierkegaard absolutely demolished, and is also a tacit admission that the author is demagogue who appeals to popular culture

[Anonymous No.4924721]

>>4923401
>obviously intended as a facetious metaphor. They have no sense of wit whatsoever

The problem is that 'metaphorical language' is fine as such, but if you don't clarify how far the parallels between source and target domain go, you are just hedging like a mofo, not committing to your thought, not actually making clear what you mean, and generally being a sloppy, lazy, foppish, and useless thinker.

If you use metaphors in which it is unclear how far 'acceleration' actually describes what you mean, no one can say 'this is right' or 'this is wrong', because it can mean any number of things. That is of course precisely why certain writers are so 'successful' in certain areas.

[Anonymous No.4924724]

>>4922443
They rejected the essay he wrote about the scam

[Anonymous No.4924791]

>>4924724
that only happened in your reality. in my reality that essay was accepted

[Anonymous No.4924810]

>>4924704
*Trapfiggin'

[Anonymous No.4925812]

>>4923401
Look, if I want fuckin playful wit, I'll read Wodehouse

[Anonymous No.4925922]

>>4924810
Whatever floats your boat mang.

[Anonymous No.4926011]

>>4925812
Baudrillard can take Oscar Wilde's dick up his ass for all I care, just take it out when you're trying to explain shit

[Anonymous No.4926279]

>>4923235
>Doesn't capitalize the first word of every sentence.
>Uses only one space after a period.
You'll never be on the level you think you're on.

[Anonymous No.4926313]

>>4922634

[Anonymous No.4926406]

>mfw a pomo started talking about quantum feminism near me

[Anonymous No.4926419]

>>4921797

Talk about death of the author.

[Anonymous No.4926434]

>>4922812
>The thing with Sokal was that he sent his article to a journal with no peer review.

Why do postermodernist journals embrace peer review when their sole core ethos is that truth does not exist and everyone's perception is equally as valid as anyone else's

[Anonymous No.4926439]

>>4926434

Also, how many peer reviewed articles on quantum healing are there, because those are fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.4926566]

Academia is the definition of bourgeois dead-end when it comes to promoting an intelligentsia. Anyone who has talked to an educated professional with three different degrees, supposedly broad humanistic training, etc., and realised they were talking to a complete fucking functionary knows this pretty well. PhDs are high priests of ritualised citation scribbling. And the system pounds down undergrads to worship these soulless idiots so that by the time you get to your Master's or PhD, you're shining with pride over your ability to be a boring stuffy cunt and look down on anyone with unusual ideas or methodology. It's a cult, and one that doesn't provide good enough rewards to stop its members from compensating for their wasted efforts through self-congratulatory masturbation.

[Anonymous No.4926648]

You niggas might enjoy http://lesswrong.com/lw/4zs/philosophy_a_diseased_discipline/..

[Anonymous No.4926669]

>>4924690
>black magic of calculus and complex analysis
As a once-math major, lol. Calculus is babby-tier. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_nonsense..

[Anonymous No.4926673]

>>4926648
You nigga might enjoy this
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

[Anonymous No.4926706]

>>4926669
>mfw reading about Group Theory

[Anonymous No.4926738]

>>4926673
>You nigga might enjoy this
Any particular reason why?

[Anonymous No.4926776]

>>4923568

Whats so good about Dali besides his technical skill?

>>4923557

Dude do you even into Walter Benjamin?

Its not counterfeit, photography or any other reproduction means it is a completely new art work.

[Anonymous No.4926777]

>>4926673
>Pascal's wager

[Anonymous No.4926793]

Dawkins is pretty cool, you can't blame him for fedorafags.

[Anonymous No.4926817]

>>4926669
Calculus is fuckin hard bro. I just bought a brand new TI-84 plus calculator and it doesn't handle calculus. Calculus=Calculator WTF /lit/ Blew $100 on this thing to tell me it only handles pre-algebra, algebra 1 & 2, geometry, statistics, biology, physics, and business & finance. Fuck my motherfuckin life.

[Anonymous No.4926882]

>>4926817
omg you just made my fucking day, bro

my sides just left the solar system

[Anonymous No.4926922]

>>4926882
shits not funny bro. I'm a poor fag living on student loans. every lit bit I spends kills me inside.

[Anonymous No.4926942]

>>4926922
You're serious? Well, I can advise you to work on your algebra, because calculus is mostly algebra. Memorize your equalities. Memorize your rules for exponents and logarithms. Memorize graphs for your trig functions. Mostly it's just practice and a lot of algebraic trickery. And memorization. Did I mention to memorize things? Remember your rules: L'Hopital's, Product/Quotient, Chain, etc.

As far as the calculator goes, if you mail it to me, I'll send a $25 gift certificate to Arby's to the return address.

[Anonymous No.4926960]

>>4926942
>As far as the calculator goes, if you mail it to me, I'll send a $25 gift certificate to Arby's to the return address.
Well... thanks for the actually advice. I have most of the algebraic rules memorized, working with trig and pre-cal next semester.

[Anonymous No.4926961]

>>4924721
This this this. There's nothing inherently wrong with metaphors in arguments but they're useless if you don't make clear the connections to what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4926969]

I agree to a certain extent, OP, but I find that in the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the distinction between closing and opening. In a sense, the main theme of the works of Joyce is the role of the poet as reader. Foucault’s critique of subcapitalist cultural theory suggests that the goal of the observer is social comment.

If one examines Derridaist reading, one is faced with a choice: either accept postsemiotic narrative or conclude that truth, somewhat surprisingly, has significance. But Lacan uses the term ‘the semanticist paradigm of context’ to denote the fatal flaw, and subsequent meaninglessness, of postdialectic class. The primary theme of d’Erlette’s[1] model of cultural desublimation is a subpatriarchialist paradox.

“Narrativity is responsible for class divisions,” says Foucault; however, according to Parry, it is not so much narrativity that is responsible for class divisions, but rather the economy, and some would say the fatal flaw, of narrativity. Therefore, in Pulp Fiction, Tarantino analyses subcapitalist cultural theory; in Reservoir Dogs he deconstructs capitalist preconceptualist theory. Debord suggests the use of subcapitalist cultural theory to deconstruct the status quo.

It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a postsemiotic narrative that includes consciousness as a whole. If textual feminism holds, we have to choose between postsemiotic narrative and subdialectic materialism.

However, Baudrillard uses the term ‘the semanticist paradigm of context’ to denote the bridge between culture and sexual identity. Von Junz holds that we have to choose between neosemanticist textual theory and subcapitalist desituationism.

In a sense, the characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the futility, and eventually the economy, of constructivist society. The subject is contextualised into a postsemiotic narrative that includes consciousness as a paradox.

Therefore, Foucault promotes the use of the semanticist paradigm of context to analyse and read sexual identity. The failure, and thus the futility, of the postcultural paradigm of reality prevalent in Tarantino’s Four Rooms emerges again in Jackie Brown, although in a more self-justifying sense.

[Anonymous No.4926979]

>>4926817
>my sides.

[Anonymous No.4926986]

>>4926960
The half angle (or double, same thing) identity and the sum of the squares of sin and cos are the two most commonly used identities in early calculus. When you see them in trig, commit them to memory.

This will come in handy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonics_in_trigonometry

[Anonymous No.4926995]

>>4926986
Thanks. See. You aren't that much of an asshole after all. I have faith in my fellow man.

[Anonymous No.4927029]

>>4926776
The controversy? I have no idea really. I remember on /ic/ someone going on about how Dali was kicked out of the surrealist movement and that mentioning him as one of your favorites today will instantly mark you as a pleb. I didn't actually pay much attention to this thread, but I later realized that no one in contemporary art even cares about anything other than controversy and showmanship anymore, so if Dali has these two covered as well as technical skill then he still beats the living fuck out of anyone alive today..

[Anonymous No.4927053]

>>4921797
You mean the journal that contacted the author before publishing, asking him to edit and only published him because it was a "scientist's perspectives" issue and he was a known scientist?

>postmodernism disrobed!!!

le dog shitting in your mouth

[Anonymous No.4927060]

>>4926776

>Whats so good about Dali besides his technical skill?

The fact he overcame all of the rules of academia, to do something completely new, and worthy.

[Anonymous No.4927066]

>>4926942
>Mostly it's just practice and a lot of algebraic trickery. And memorization.

>mfw people think their shit-tier unrigorous calc classes are the same thing as learning calculus

[Anonymous No.4927074]

the appalling thing here is that some people are still trying to make "pomo vs science" "a thing" 20 years after it stopped being relevant

[Anonymous No.4927075]

>mfw there are people who still act like the sokal affair was anything consequential
>mfw these same people purport to be on the side of reason, yet lack the discipline to look into the details of the affair
>mfw >>4927053 nailed it in fucking two lines
>mfw i have no face

all the sokal affair boils down to is wish fulfillment

[Anonymous No.4927077]

>>4927066
>mfw people think that their pretentious rigorous proofs make any fucking difference when the answers come out the same for everyone as long as the correct procedure is used
math is just mental masturbation until it's put to good use solving real problems

[Anonymous No.4927080]

>>4927066
you need practice with basic algebra and applications, not to mention a decent intro to proof. or do you seriously expect everyone to jump straight into real analysis?

[Anonymous No.4927083]

>>4927077
>math is about the answers

holy lulz you're broken

[Anonymous No.4927084]

>>4927083
/chuckle
I am an engineer, bro...

[Anonymous No.4927093]

>>4927077
even the most abstract and esoteric stuff is finding application all the time, it's stupid to stop exploring theory just because it looks "masturbatory"

[Anonymous No.4927097]

>>4927093
I know, I was being facetious. I have a tendency to write too matter-of-factly.

[Anonymous No.4927098]

>>4927080
do you think that's how people learned math before, say, 1950? read a fucking book you ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.4927104]

>>4923301
but sokal never claimed to "disrobe" pomo, in fashionable nonsense he's just pointing out the abuse of scientific language when detached from context. his scope in that book is explicitly narrow and does what it sets out to do.

[Anonymous No.4927111]

>>4927104
>abuse of scientific language

if you consider half of those uses "abuse", then you ought to burn every book you own that uses a metaphor or analogy.

[Anonymous No.4927117]

>>4927084
Then don't claim to know anything about mathematics, because engineers aren't required to know anything beyond baby mathematics.

[Anonymous No.4927119]

>>4927111
the issue is that they're bad analogies and metaphors, try reading the thread next time

[Anonymous No.4927128]

>>4927117
Hello, asshole! I was conversing with someone who obviously wasn't a math major, the only major which would distinguish between baby mathematics and the super-ultra-high God-tier mathematica you're so obviously in love with.

[Anonymous No.4927134]

>>4927119
why would i read the thread to see the issue in sokal, which is clearly what i'm discussing. and no sokal isn't talking about their use as metaphor/analogy. nor is dawkins. and fucking lol at dawkins going full autistic at the basic sausserian signifier denotations and lacans imaginary representation.

[Anonymous No.4927135]

>>4927098
was math ed better before 1950, especially for people who did not intend to be mathematicians?

[Anonymous No.4927139]

>>4927128
>obviously wasn't a math major,
somebody who says math isn't about answers "obviously isn't a math major"?

[Anonymous No.4927142]

>>4927117
>>4927139
Where the fuck do you live, you self-important cretin? Someone needs to beat the condescension out of you.

[Anonymous No.4927146]

>>4927142
>please coddle me and tell me i'm not full of shit!

[Anonymous No.4927159]

>>4927119
and what is a good metaphor, master of rhetoric and poetics?

[Anonymous No.4927164]

>>4927146
>Implying your opinion that math isn't about answers is even close to being right.
Bitch, all of math is about finding the answers. ALL of it. It's about finding answers to the answers. It's about finding the quickest and the slowest and sometimes partial or complete answers.

[Anonymous No.4927171]

>>4927159
see >>4924721

[Anonymous No.4929004]

>>4923165

Poe, is that you?

[Anonymous No.4929022]

Leave it to butthurt pomos to turn a good thread into dicks.

[Anonymous No.4929064]

>>4927075
>psychoanalyzing other's hidden motives

Now you don't have to think about anything else. Great job.

[Anonymous No.4929109]

>>4921742
Can someone explain all this to me like I'm five?

[Anonymous No.4929155]

But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their writing that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious? More tellingly, if they are only joking around, why do they react with such shrieks of dismay when somebody plays a joke at their expense.

[Anonymous No.4929179]

>>4923426
>>4923495
>>4926313

>lol must be trolling XD


Brilliant exposition retards, when you get called out you are expected to answer on point, but as I can see the buthurt of STEMfags goes as far as their retardation in that they are really unable to talk about philosophy without /b/-tier answers and retorts. Neo-/lit/ at work, nothing to see here.

[Anonymous No.4929243]

>>4929155
I don't see pomo books as "playing jokes on readers". Nor do I find them "po-faced, solemn and pretentious". I honestly think they celebrate the fact that the veil over all of us has no basis in seriousness, that the lives we lead aren't touched by a sacred, lofty tradition except by keeping up the illusion that it is.

Besides, pomo is fun and funny. The reader is in on the joke--or should be.

It's more like how Watts says we should initiate infants into society, by saying, "Welcome to the human race. We're all playing a game."

See also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5aGIWyGNUA

[Anonymous No.4929481]

>>4929243
Then rationality is the best strategy.

[Anonymous No.4929500]

>>4929179
Philosophy proved all pomo is false.

I'm surprised it's popular on /lit/. Pomos were probably just kicked out of the academia and have nowhere left to talk though, poor guys.

[Anonymous No.4929523]

>>4929500

4chan is very much a safe haven for people whose ideologies are no longer taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.4929530]

>>4922634
>still buying into the science/philosophy false dichotomy
you're no better than the idiots you're ranting about
also if you think science is all about reducing abstractions into symbols and ideograms and philosophy doesn't do that you're pretty much ignorant in both

[Anonymous No.4929552]

>>4923581
>Exit Through The Gift Shop

Wasn't this about Bansky (or whatever his name is)?

[Anonymous No.4929563]

Haven't read the thread but I've never thought Dawkins really had a firm grip on what Pomo actually is.

He seems to think Pomos believe all truths are equally valid on the basis of subjectivity, when in fact they're valid based on power relations.

That's not really debatable though. The Church had more power than Galileo in 1610. Guess what the truth was then...

[Anonymous No.4929656]

>>4929563
Your retarded argument leads to some sort of loopy leftie dualism (Or worse yet, idealism):

Here we have reality where things happen and stuff.

Here we have power which all truth is derived from.

There can't be interaction between the two. How could power arise and be the sole determination of truth? Is just some form of random process, quantum chopra style?

Please study logic /lit/. You don't want to end up like this.

[Anonymous No.4929705]

>>4929656
It's not really my argument, I'm just saying what Pomos believe that Dawkins, his buddies, and now you, seem not to grasp.

>Here we have reality where things happen and stuff.
Poetry

>Here we have power which all truth is derived from.
I didn't say all truth, I meant certain axiomatic truths are subject to change based on power relations and the "progression" of science. This has nothing to do with objective reality. We know more today than we did yesterday, and we will presumably know more tomorrow. Our conception of truth with change concurrently.

>There can't be interaction between the two.
Again, there's objective reality and then there's the reality we can access through empirical means. Our understanding of the latter may grow more exact with our tools, but either way it's still a process. So let's not get cocky, /sci/fags.

>How could power arise and be the sole determination of truth? Is just some form of random process, quantum chopra style?
There once was a theory called structuralism.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not an expert on pomo or hard science, but I'm versed enough to see that Dawkins doesn't really get this shit at all.

Also you sound like an insufferable dweeb. Ciao.

[Anonymous No.4929720]

>>4929563
>Guess what the truth was then...

You are conflating axioms, empirical observations, and religious dogma to be synonymous. They are not.

[Anonymous No.4929786]

>>4929563
Galileo mocked the pope openly. He was not persecuted for doing the science. He trolled to close to the sun. Of course, I'm not surprised some air-headed subjectivist retard still spouts all the half-truth propaganda.

[Anonymous No.4929850]

>>4929705
>There once was a theory called structuralism.
This is postmodernism's rotten core. They try to leave a prior structure but must rely on it, all the while claiming they can criticize themselves fully.

Postmodernism is a marxist set upon a world he can't find fresh apples in, biting into all of them. All the while remarking to himself how tasty they are. This is why it's not science.

>Also you sound like an insufferable dweeb. Ciao.
I'm so sorry.

[Anonymous No.4929857]

>>4929720
They were for the church, though.

>>4929786
Him being persecuted wasn't part of my argument, please try to read. The church had more power, therefor the peons (i.e. you) were more prone to subscribing to their model of the universe. Geocentricism would have been the truth for you in 1610. The Pomos are trying to get you to acknowledge that the truth might *just* change for you again at some point in the future. But who knows. Maybe you already have everything figured out.

[Anonymous No.4929866]

>>4929857
>The Pomos are trying to get you to acknowledge that the truth might *just* change for you again at some point in the future.

Science does this better. Time to grow up.

[Anonymous No.4929906]

>>4929866
Both fields have merit, champ.

Personally I think science REALLY SUCKS at communicating it's findings to the masses.
>Feeblemindedness and criminality are genetic!
Eugenics movement ensues
>Here's the chemical in the brain responsible for happiness!
Slew of SSRI fueled mass shootings ensue
>Oh, we never really said any of that! It was pseudoscience!

I find this a lot more dangerous than some bored French intellectual shouting in his loft about reality not being real anymore. At least the masses aren't filling the rift religion left in their hearts with that; just a small portion of the bourgeoisie are.

It's the metaphysician's/poet's/sci-fi writer's job to tell people what scientific findings mean, and they can't keep up with the accelerated progress.

[Anonymous No.4929981]

Chomsky does the best pomo takedowns

[Anonymous No.4930009]

>>4929850
>This is why it's not science.

Are you fucking dumb? Or just trolling? When did postmodernism ever claim to be a science? Are you reducing all knowledge to the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.4930029]

>>4929857
I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."


http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

[Anonymous No.4930055]

>>4929906

>It's the metaphysician's/poet's/sci-fi writer's job to tell people what scientific findings mean, and they can't keep up with the accelerated progress.

One does not even need to keep up, Science is metaphysics, in as much, it has completely entraped and enframed the way we think, that is, the attempt to uncover the "things in themselves", whether they are atoms or the higgs boson.

Heideggers realization that science is an even worse "onto-theology" than religion because of illusory productivity and potentiality technological systems provide is made even worse by considering how utterly anti-mythological and hostile to "metaphysics" ,modern society is.

To think of a different world devoid of technological and scientiffic innovations is as impossible as imagining the lack bureaucracy, automazation and other technological apparatuses, which form modern day biopower.
Plato at least could dream of republic without reverting to the cheap tricks of social engineering and bahavioristic handling, what can we dream of today?

[Anonymous No.4930062]

>>4929906

>It's the metaphysician's/poet's/sci-fi writer's job to tell people what scientific findings mean, and they can't keep up with the accelerated progress.

One does not even need to keep up, Science is metaphysics, in as much, it has completely entraped and enframed the way we think, that is, the attempt to uncover the "things in themselves", whether they are atoms or the higgs boson.

Heideggers realization that science is an even worse "onto-theology" than religion because of illusory productivity and potentiality technological systems provide is made even worse by considering how utterly anti-mythological and hostile to "metaphysics" ,modern society is.

To think of a different world devoid of technological and scientiffic innovations is as impossible as imagining the lack bureaucracy, automazation and other technological apparatuses, which form modern day biopower.
Plato at least could dream of a republic without reverting to the cheap tricks of social engineering and bahavioristic handling, what can we dream of today?

[Anonymous No.4930073]

>>4930029
>It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong

So said student was claiming an entire episteme/paradigm can only be right or wrong. Boy, I sure hope Asimov wasn't oversimplifying the student's statement for the sake of his argument, but scientists and their ilk don't have the greatest track record for that kind of thing.
See OP.

I skimmed the essay and I pretty much agree with him though. My problem with science is that it reduces all theories into those categories Isaac is decrying, based on it's own dogmatic system. I'm not saying it doesn't work.

>>4930062
>One does not even need to keep up
I pointed out two instances where unchecked scientific progress led to mass sterilization/slaughter.

The rest of what you're saying I'm not sure about, but I haven't read Heidegger so yeah.

[Anonymous No.4930125]

>>4930073
> but scientists and their ilk don't have the greatest track record for that kind of thing
of what sort of thing?

[Anonymous No.4930135]

>>4930073
You should fully read the essay. It's well written and very clear. Not to mention informative. I think that essay and feynmann lectures should be mandatory for everyone to wants to learn about science.

I don't see how you can consider science dogmatic. People are rewarded all the time If they can come up with a theory that better explain observation. Of course experiments and observation are held above all.

[Anonymous No.4930218]

>>4929906
Scientific racism was never an issue about genetics because biology doesn't make claims to human racial superiority and the right way to live in a modern society. That's an incoherent claim within biology and genetics. It came from anthropology, with its much lower standards. There's still at least one journal publishing anthropological racism today.

The SSRI issue would have been solved by having more scientists, or philosophers of science. A postmodernist could never have predicted the issue with SSRIs or helped in any way, unless he was also refraining from psychiatry in general.

Which is the flaw in pleading for postmodernism like this: Not following science because it's dogma can produce harm as well as following it dogmatically. Power has little to do with that.

[Anonymous No.4930236]

>>4930062
>>4930073

Postmodernism belongs in /x/

[Anonymous No.4930435]

>>4930029
The funny part is that relativity and qunatum mechanics are contradictory to one another in extreme cases.

I'm not one of these epistemological can't-know-nuffin assholes, but I understand that physics only tries to account for as much experimental data as possible without assuming too much. To regard it as the literal mechanations of the universe is stupid and really something only people looking to make science their religion do. Feynman understood this at least. Can't speak for all practicing physicists.

[Anonymous No.4930511]

>>4930009
>Are you fucking dumb?
No.

>Or just trolling?
No.

>When did postmodernism ever claim to be a science?
It should be.

>Are you reducing all knowledge to the scientific method?
Of course.

[Anonymous No.4930763]

>>4929563
But power is a good proxy for truth.

Power can only be achieved through material means i.e. a deep understanding of reality and ruthless exploitation of it's mechanisms. Hence the distance between "truth" and "belief" tends to diminish over time. The only place where "belief" can survive is in fields that have few to no real application i.e. astronomy and cosmology in the 16th century, psychology in the 19th century, critical theory. Where there's no real applications, you can simply have several theories without significant overlap, each competing and failing for truth-status.

"Truth" also can't be witheld completely from the people, as organizations are not dissociated from the societies they originate from and which supply them with manpower i.e. reptilian conspiracies are impossible, except in the case where there might exist an obviously transcendental "TRUTH" which is simple enough for even /pol/lacks to understand, which a single small group of individuals could get hold of the powergranting "TRUTH".

[Anonymous No.4930768]

>>4921817
Don't worry, his exercise was pretty pomo :^)

[Anonymous No.4930779]

>>4921742
Dawkins hates the humanities because they undermine him, that's it. Dawkins studied biology and there's nothing else in the universe worth knowing about or believing in if he can't rationalize it as being at least tangentially related to his interest.

[Anonymous No.4930797]

>>4930779
>Dawkins hates the humanities because they undermine him

More like humanities departments hate science departments because they undermine them.

[Anonymous No.4930811]

>>4930797
>Hey guys, there's, like, chemistry and physics. This means anything that isn't ultimately chemistry and physics is pointless.
-Dawkins and other STEMlys

>Hey guys, there's, like, more to life than chemistry and physics. This means chemistry and physics are pointless.
-Absolutely no one

[Anonymous No.4930815]

>>4930779
It's kind of ironic how these anti-humanities guys spend a lot of time philosophizing if you can even call it that.

[Anonymous No.4930834]

>>4922378

What. No. Orwell argued the exact opposite, that language was becoming too concise.

[Anonymous No.4930893]

>>4927164

No it isn't. Please stop.

[Anonymous No.4930913]

Why is it that I cannot ever turn in a paper without citing some "classical" literature. Why is it impossible to present an idea previously expressed in classical literature as an idea I came to on my own. Is there no room for originality anymore?

[Anonymous No.4930945]

>>4930779
>I understand someone I don't like's intentions
>I can discard them

This is how all fights in the humanities are handled. This is why we shouldn't of let women into men's spaces.

[Anonymous No.4931020]

>>4927159
None. Metaphors destroy meaning and are for babies who can't think.

[Anonymous No.4931111]

ITT: ZIZKEKFAGS GETTING BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

[Anonymous No.4931118]

>>4930834
Newspeak isn't 'concise' as meaning within the language is completely determined by context. It only appears to be concise, which is what Orwell's critique is truly about: meaningless jargon.

[Anonymous No.4931136]

>>4930913
It's a problem with papers written in the humanities. Legitimacy usually means quoting what a dead white guy once wrote.

With papers in the sciences and maths. You write down what you did and the results you got so that people can repeat what you did and call bullshit on it.

[Anonymous No.4931140]

>>4924721
>The problem is that 'metaphorical language' is fine as such, but if you don't clarify how far the parallels between source and target domain go, you are just hedging like a mofo, not committing to your thought, not actually making clear what you mean, and generally being a sloppy, lazy, foppish, and useless thinker.

This is the definition of neckbeard logic. You expect explanatory sentences after the use of a metaphor. Just fucking end it, bro.

>>4931020
You probably use metaphorical language all of the fucking time without realizing it.

[Anonymous No.4931153]

>>4931140
Then you are a baby. This is not a metaphor. You are a literal baby.

[Anonymous No.4931157]

>>4930779
Not entirely sure why you think dawkins hates humanities. Skeptical that you could have read the article because his explicit concern is in trying to return the humanities to genuine scholars. Also if you had read the article then you would have seen the articles in question and have realised that dawkin's concerns are entirely legitmate, at least in these particular cases

[Anonymous No.4931167]

>>4931136
then legitimacy becomes understandings of others. How can one claim to possible understand what another person wrote down. In other words everything is semiotic when you cite another author's writing. In this case I would suspect some selective meaning making or assignment within an authors theories. This notion is more apparent for me because you find exact citations and basis from classical literature in polarizing theories.

[Anonymous No.4931174]

>>4931157
>return the humanities to genuine scholars.

Where "genuine scholars" = "scholars who write in the way I want them to write"

>dawkin's concerns are entirely legitimate

He misunderstood quotes he took out of context, and most of the quotes come from texts which are hardly studied in the humanities. So his concerns are ill-researched.

[Anonymous No.4931206]

>>4931140
>This is the definition of neckbeard logic
Hahaha it was a metaphor all along but just one so obscure you'll never have any hope of understanding it ever. Le superpowerful armour against all intellectual criticism, just what respectable academic fields need

>>4931174
Feel free to put the quotations in context for me. I wait with bated breath. Nobody was asserting these were studied frequently in the humanities; as I said before, dawkins makes no effort to launch an affront against the humanities.

>Where "genuine scholars" = "scholars who write in the way I want them to write"
If you wish for academia to expect no standards from published articles then be my guest. I do not feels dawkins is asking a whole lot really, the restrictions to language he would wish to have put in place seem fairly minimal

[Anonymous No.4931231]

>>4930779
Ah, you found the hidden intention that allows you to discard ideas. Such well founded skepticism pomo teaches.

>>4931174
>Where "genuine scholars" = "scholars who write in the way I want them to write"

Despite it not being a personal preference, but values Dawkins holds, this is trying to paint him as some sort of powermaster. More importantly, this allows this anon to not actually evaluate the ideas, and whistle move on to some shitty Heidegger thread instead. Like the dirty pomo reactionary they are.

[Anonymous No.4931247]

>>4931231
>Despite it not being a personal preference
Love how you sneak that assertion in here as if "values Dawkins holds" aren't "a personal preference." Dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.4931265]

>>4931247
Of course the desire to hold academic journals and publications to certain standards is a personal preference. The point is that its not an entirely unreasonable one

[Anonymous No.4931269]

>>4931247
dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.4931278]

>>4931247
cannot
know
nuffin

Yours truly, pomo

[Anonymous No.4931291]

>>4931265
>Despite it not being a personal preference
>Of course [it] is a personal preference
rekt

>>4931269
>mirroring the alpha

>>4931278
>non sequitur

[Anonymous No.4931306]

>>4931291

>Despite it not being a personal preference
>Of course [it] is a personal preference
rekt

two different anons you alpha genius you

>No actual attempt at logical reasoning or coherent thought whatsoever
You could probably get published in one of those postmodernist journals you have such a hardon for

[Anonymous No.4931319]

>>4931306
I hate humanities journals. But I like certain French, German, and Italian writers enough to defend their work when they're being mindlessly attacked by people who never gave them a genuine effort and who also disingenuously try to collect them all under the same heading of "nonsense" as if the tens of thousands of people who *do* seem to understand them must be lying, pretentious assholes. It certainly isn't you, it's them!

[Anonymous No.4931339]

>>4931319
Nobody wants to collect them all under the same header. What standards would you hold individuals to then if you're going to allow such flowery, deliberately obfuscating, dense prose though? You could publish anything and get a good portion of people to agree that what you wrote is worthwhile, insightful stuff. If you insist on a certain level of legibility and clarity of thought however, you force individuals to explain their ideas in an universally accessible manner and hence allow them to be subject them to the all-important peer review process

[Anonymous No.4931427]

>>4925812
>>4926011
I love you, /lit/

[Anonymous No.4931501]

>>4931319

I think Chomsky has the right approach. He's given each of the guys he's commented on (Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, Zizek) an honest read, but he's very upfront about the fact that it seems like a mixture of nonsense and bad writing, as far as he can tell.

[Anonymous No.4931507]

>>4929552

It was Banksy taking the piss out of the art industry.

[Anonymous No.4931541]

>>4931140
>This is the definition of neckbeard logic. You expect explanatory sentences after the use of a metaphor. Just fucking end it, bro.

Not if a metaphor is used in a piece of art. But if you are trying to EXPLAIN something, metaphors should be employed in order to explain something complicated by comparing it to something easy, clear, or something the reader is familiar with. Now this only works if you make clear where the boundaries are. If you say 'Achilles the Lion', it's clear that you don't mean he's an actual fucking cat. In French theory, hardly anything is ever clear.

[Anonymous No.4931558]

>>4931541
>If you say 'Achilles the Lion', it's clear that you don't mean he's an actual fucking cat.

Sure about that?

[Anonymous No.4931603]

>>4923301
They aren't attacking post-modernism so much as its ability to mask hacks and turn them into famous academics. Po-mo has done good things, but that doesn't mean it isn't very useful for obscurists.

[Anonymous No.4931609]

>>4923421
>No sense of subtlety or imagination whatsoever.

When you are trying to describe something, you don't say it rode in on a unicorn way, way into the distance. Its upfront, easy to see, clear.

[Anonymous No.4931612]

>>4923581
And someone makes a good post.

[Anonymous No.4931660]

>>4926406
>quantum feminism

makes sense, doesn't it? let's quantify patrichism and feminism. Seem like a good idea. We can call it Femions, not to confuse with Fermion.
And if it doesn't become a SI-Unit, we know who to blame. Those mad imperials.... ;)

[Anonymous No.4931677]

>>4931660
http://elmcip.net/critical-writing/quantum-feminist-mnemotechnics-archival-text-digital-narrative-and-limits-memory

Shit like this is why English departments are shrinking every year.

[Anonymous No.4931831]

>>4921742

Academia is like any other job.

Professors are not that different from students.

They have to produce papers but most of them are dilettantes at heart. They just want to have a cushy job where they can read a lot. So they just write rubbish papers just like their students do, everybody pats everybody's back, and the game goes on.

[Anonymous No.4931853]

>too stupid to understand philosophical papers
>it's their fault

[Anonymous No.4931869]

>>4931853
Tell me you're joshing right?

[Anonymous No.4931885]

>>4931869
No. This whole thread basically criticizes papers they don't understand, so they can't distinguish it from fake papers made up with fake words (incluis Dawkins). The actual Po-Mo philosopher can tell those papers are fake because he knows the vocabulary. Dawkins is buttmad because he's a scientismist who keeps referring to muh ratio muh logic muh science whereas postmodern philosophy is basically undermining his precious science.

Dawkins is a dogmaticist in science. He's no different from the priest or the fundamentalist muslim.

[Anonymous No.4931910]

>>4931885
>The actual Po-Mo philosopher can tell those papers are fake

Sokal proved you wrong on this one, buddy.

But please. Tell us more about Dickensian quantum healing.

[Anonymous No.4931914]

>>4931885
>Anything 'undermining' science. Ever
How can you seriously believe he feels threatened by these people? He just doesn't like to see potential academics rusing themselves into believing there is any logic or cohesion to what they're outputting

What do you mean these papers are fake? These are actual excerpts from passages that have been written by, some fairly reputable, individuals. Dawkins et al. are just saying that that particular style and language does nobody services

[Anonymous No.4931923]

>>4931910
see>>4927053