Critical Theory is bogus

File: 57 KB, 500x678, Marx Zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Critical Theory is bogus Anonymous Sat May 2 16:50:17 2015 No.6485827 [DELETED]

Hi /lit/. I am a student of analytic philosophy, and while I can respect some of what comes out of continental tradition I can in no way accept so-called "Critical Theory" as a valid form of philosophy OR sociology. I have studied texts by Marxists, Nietzscheans, Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, feminists, postcolonial theorists, structuralists, and post-structuralists, so please don't assume I'm bullshitting you.

Let me explain my reasoning:

1) Critical Theory's claims about society cannot be scientifically verified. In order for something to be scientific it must be verified through trial and error (think basic scientific method). In no way can you make a claim about "white privilege" or "colonial mentality" and confirm it using verifiable evidence.

2) The Frankfurt School, being the main developers of Critical Theory, were mostly Jews. Walter Benjamin and Erich Fromm, in particular, littered their writings with concepts from the Jewish religion. How is it possible to assume outdated desert mythology is scientific in any way possible? And how do we know concepts form this bullshit desert mythology (aka Judaism) didn't make their way into other, more "important" Frankfurt School texts?

3) Dialectics is bullshit reasoning. Formal logic can be proven using mathematics and computers whereas ANY dialectical method cannot.

4) The Sokal Paper showed that the academy will accept anything.

5) Deconstructionism, when taken to its logical conclusion, proposes that anything can mean anything so as long as people believe it to be true. Does that mean a banana can be an apple if most people say so?

6) Most "Althusserian" Marxists are rationalists in the tradition of Descartes and Spinoza even if they think logic isn't independent of history. They are frauds and liars.

7) Freudian psychology has never been proven to be legitimate.

8) Critical Theory was proven to have been pushed on the West by the USSR.

Okay /lit/, answer me all of this.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 16:56:23 2015 No.6485856 >>6485827 >that caricature kek

Anonymous Sat May 2 16:56:26 2015 No.6485857

>>6485827
>The Sokal Paper showed that the academy will accept anything.
Well, it showed that two universities with a heavy focus on post-modernism, none on the natural sciences, that do not peer-review their studies before publication, might accept everything.

Which really isn't saying much about academia as a whole.

That being said, could you cite which Frankfurt School beliefs were heavily influenced by Jewish mythology?
I'm legitimately interesting, not knowing a lot about either.

Anonymous Sat May 2 16:58:16 2015 No.6485867

>>6485827
>1) Critical Theory's claims about society cannot be scientifically verified. In order for something to be scientific it must be verified through trial and error (think basic scientific method). In no way can you make a claim about "white privilege" or "colonial mentality" and confirm it using verifiable evidence.
Popper was BTFO by Quine. Time to keep reading you tool.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 16:59:05 2015 No.6485870 Sokal is funny but not really proof or evidence of anything. well thats my opinion by

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 16:59:06 2015 No.6485871 >Hi /lit/. I am a student of analytic philosophy Stopped reading there.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:04:31 2015 No.6485888

>>6485827
1) CT isn't science! true
2) Judaism isn't science! also true
3) Formal logical can be proven using math? untrue.
4) Sample size 1
5) You don't understand deconstruction nor can you spell it
6) What's wrong with Spinoza?
7) Freud isn't science, also true!
8) The USSR is bad, huh?

Cool b8. If it isn't b8, and you are truly a STEMfag, then good luck and enjoy your career sitting at a computer while it lasts.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:05:21 2015 No.6485892

1. this is a pretty bad misreading of the philosophers you like, all of whom talk about scientific claims but almost none of whom say that claims are worthless if they are not "scientific"

2. duurrrr

3. see #1

4. >>6485870

5. this is a pretty bad misreading of Foucault, Derrida, or whoever you think it's a reading of. (there isn't really a school called "deconstructionism.") those people were talking about the relationship between language and perceived truth, which is exactly the point you're making and doesn't disagree with them one bit.

6. actually their not frods and liars

7. see #1

8. http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-cultural-politics-of-analytic-philosophy-9781441126573/ two can play that game, etc.

thanks for playing

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:07:38 2015 No.6485903 >>6485827 This thread makes me want to read CT.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:13:18 2015 No.6485929

>>6485857
>Well, it showed that two universities with a heavy focus on post-modernism,
Doesn't matter. It proves CT and PoMo accept the worst bullshit without criticism. Sokal's paper was also peer-reviewed.

>That being said, could you cite which Frankfurt School beliefs were heavily influenced by Jewish mythology?
http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell24.htm

http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/blog/holiness-sin-freud-frankfurt-school-and-kabbalah#.VGsgXIeRk7B

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap5.pdf

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html

https://murderbymedia2.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/1417900885468.png

http://www.morveninstituteoffreedom.com/FrankfurtSchool.pdf

https://originsofleftism.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/notes-fallen-jews-critical-theory-and-cultural-marxism/

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:14:30 2015 No.6485936 >>6485867 >Popper was BTFO by Quine. Time to keep reading you tool. Give me the TL;DR version of Quine's argument against Popper.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:15:38 2015 No.6485942 >>6485888 >3) Formal logical can be proven using math? untrue. It absolutely can and is. Dialectics, on the other hand, isn't backed up by anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:15:41 2015 No.6485943 >>6485929 >terrorism-illuminati.com Oh, come the fuck on mate.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:17:12 2015 No.6485948 >>6485943 It's literally a chapter from a book.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:17:12 2015 No.6485949 OP here, thanks guys, I will continue to do more reading so I don't make more embarrassing threads like this in the future ;^)

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:18:24 2015 No.6485951 >>6485949 Explain why I'm wrong. You haven't provided me with any argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:20:07 2015 No.6485952 >>6485948 Yeah, but Russell didn't mention the Frankfurter Schule at all. He was talking about "social engineering" in general.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:20:35 2015 No.6485955 >>6485827 People here think "reasoning doesn't have to be scientific to be valuable" or something along these lines. I assume this is made necessary to them by their spiritual fancies or current or past adherence to some religion or other.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:20:59 2015 No.6485956 >>6485936 Verifiability isn't verifiable, ergo it's the exact metaphysics it's trying to escape.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:21:23 2015 No.6485957 >>6485955 >implying you don't follow the liberal autist stemfag religion

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:22:39 2015 No.6485962 File: 249 KB, 500x789, Münchhausen Trilemma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6485956 I quite like you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:23:50 2015 No.6485965 >>6485957 Knee-jerk response checked. I guess it's nice that you incidentally don't even need hard dogma anymore?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:24:07 2015 No.6485966 >>6485957 And? There is nothing wrong with STEM. STEM fields are scientific and can be proven. Bullshit claims about "white/male privilege" and the like cannot.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:25:31 2015 No.6485970 >>6485956 Falsifiability, not verifiability.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:25:43 2015 No.6485971 >>6485827 I'm not reading this because 1) You don't understand critical theory 2) You don't understand critical theory 3) You don't understand critical theory 4) Good luck proving human nature to me you bogus bitch

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:26:15 2015 No.6485973 I almost passed this by without reading the whole thing. >8) Critical Theory was proven to have been pushed on the West by the USSR. Thanks for making it worth my time, OP.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:26:31 2015 No.6485975
File: 136 KB, 546x700, backtopol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6485827
>the main developers of Critical Theory, were mostly Jews. Walter Benjamin and Erich Fromm, in particular, littered their writings with concepts from the Jewish religion.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:26:35 2015 No.6485976 >>6485971 there's nothing to understand, it's a noncognitivist enterprise.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:27:27 2015 No.6485979 >>6485827 Critical Theory is more objective fact than any kind of White Nationalist bullshit you want to push. That's how bad your thread is.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:27:47 2015 No.6485980

>>6485966
Look, barely anyone in serious academia gives a shit about "muh privilege", that's a tumblr invention you mistakenly believe has any relevance whatsoever in any academic circles you should take any interest in.
That being said, I assume you're from /pol/ or /r9k/ since you keep going on about the Jews or "privilege", so I kindly ask you to return there.
Not out of spite, but out of kindness. You will surely receive more welcoming answers there.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:28:36 2015 No.6485984 >>6485976 There's nothing to understand about Analytic Philosophy. It's an exercise in proving its own defense exists. Anyone can play with numerology.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:29:37 2015 No.6485990 File: 20 KB, 230x307, ass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6485966 >STEM fields are scientific and can be proven

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:30:11 2015 No.6485991

>>6485827
I actually like the works of Marx and Nietzsche
I think the only thing people truly hate about critical theory is the identity politics. I understand why, it's completely irrational. And moreover a lot of people (mostly young people) use it as an excuse for their failings.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:30:51 2015 No.6485994 >>6485991 You aren't asking the right questions.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:31:37 2015 No.6485997 >>6485827 >1) Critical Theory's claims about society cannot be scientifically verified. Stopped reading right there.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:32:10 2015 No.6485999

>>6485984
Explain please. Most analytic philosophy relies on mathematics and the natural sciences, all of which can be verified and set as FACT. Continental tradition and Critical Theory aren't and shouldn't be regarded as philosophy or sociology AT ALL due to their glaringly unscientific nature.

>>6485990
I don't like Pinker. Noam Chomsky is my guy. I trust him far more than I'd trust any postmodernist. Chomsky bases his political ideology in common sense and not bullshit "theories" about things which don't even make sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:33:11 2015 No.6486002 >>6485827 wen da b8 so gr8 u prostr8, w8, then give a r8 of 8 out of 8

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:34:09 2015 No.6486005
File: 82 KB, 398x350, 1430298873945.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6485999

>Explain please. Most analytic philosophy relies on mathematics

Mathematics does not equal proof. Moreover, Physics has a heavy leaning with the works of Foucault and others because it exists to undermine science and not edge it into ejaculatory acceptance.

>Noam Chomsky is my guy. I trust him far more than I'd trust any postmodernist

Libbbbberalllllll

>Chomsky bases his political ideology in common sense and not bullshit "theories" about things which don't even make sense.

Libbbbberalllllll

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:35:30 2015 No.6486010

>>6486005
>Physics has a heavy leaning with the works of Foucault and others because it exists to undermine science and not edge it into ejaculatory acceptance.

top fucking kek. Can you show me proof of this?

>Libbbbberalllllll
Wonderful, no argument. Chomsky doesn't bullshit. He uses common sense, which is what all politics ought to be based on. And he's not a liberal.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:36:14 2015 No.6486014 >>6485942 muh truth

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:37:31 2015 No.6486017 File: 28 KB, 457x480, master yi having a laff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6485956 >plebs will actually think this argument has any intellectual merit

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:38:00 2015 No.6486018 >>6486014 Science is the closest approximation to truth we have. No please, SHOW ME how anything Critical Theory claims can be backed up using the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:38:34 2015 No.6486019 >>6485994 Foucault, how old are you? Not ad hominem.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:39:41 2015 No.6486024 >>6486018 THAT'S the POINT.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:39:55 2015 No.6486025

>>6486010

>top fucking kek. Can you show me proof of this?

Yes. Analytic philosophy fails in the same way Biological science does. It attempts to answer human nature's reality by applying mathematical guesswork and numerology through linguistics and our subtexts to create an assumption based on objective observation that cannot exist.

Scientific objectivity within the frame of refrence of sociality cannot exist. Moreover using language can prove that itself endlessly, and can be created in an entire power structure itself by imposing will, giving it seeming definition and dimension.

In other words it's a logic trap, and one of the greatest failings of science following our now understanding Objective Observation does not exist.

Physics does not follow a frame of refrence of anything "known" and has a better time proving its own work. It is well known in the field Biology is not a hard science, nor is analytic philosophy.

>Wonderful, no argument. Chomsky doesn't bullshit. He uses common sense, which is what all politics ought to be based on. And he's not a liberal.

I don't want liberals to speak.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:41:00 2015 No.6486027 File: 117 KB, 200x218, 1430387511953.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6486018 >Science is the closest approximation to truth we have >>6486019 I am 20, turning 21 in around a month and a half.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:41:00 2015 No.6486028

>>6486018
Our sensations are the closest approximation to truth we have.
They are the only thing we could possibly know is true.
Now tell me, when a mad man sees dragons in the sky, are there truly dragons in the sky?
But a mad man sees what he sees. The fact that he sensed dragons is the only real thing there is.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:41:13 2015 No.6486030
File: 285 KB, 1047x1024, ob_dc8900_hannah-arendt-com-cigarro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6485990
THREAD DERAILED

Can we have a CT thread?

>The condition to which this activity corresponds is the World and was socially connected with the free citizens of the ancient city-states, especially their acts in the realm of politics they were called to undertake. As the ancient world-view which sustained these concepts gave way to the modern however, political life waned and the private life of necessity entered the public realm. This led Labor out of the constraints of the household to become a significant value on its own right. In modern day democracies therefore, the concept of equality which is considered to be one of its pre-conditions, has been skewed into one of similarity as it is now based on common necessity, the realm of Labor. Arendt points out that equality can only be applied to things that are unequal like the distinct personalities of free citizens. Necessity is what is similar to humans and thus equating people under Labor is not real equality but a kind of debasement.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:41:30 2015 No.6486031 >>6486027 Nice. Keep up the good work.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:42:34 2015 No.6486035 >>6486030 Since you posted Arendt, does anyone have a book about her relationship to Heidegger? I find her work on Eichmann fascinating, and two intelligent people getting together always makes me feel happy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:43:17 2015 No.6486038 >>6486018 >>6486018 >>6481808

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:44:31 2015 No.6486041 File: 13 KB, 233x346, Unknown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6486035 Here u go m8 http://www.amazon.com/Letters-1925-1975-Hannah-Arendt/dp/0151005257

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:44:40 2015 No.6486042 >>6486010 Please define 'common sense',

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:44:56 2015 No.6486045

>>6486025
That's not what analytic philosophy is at all. Nice strawman.

>I don't want liberals to speak.
100% Grade-A ad hom. Chomsky uses COMMON SENSE which is something nearly all continentalfags don't think exists. And Chomsky is hardly a liberal. He's a radical anarcho-syndicalist who's all about pragmatism and justice. That's why he spends most of his time and resources helping unions.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:45:42 2015 No.6486048 >>6486035 even more interesting because he was a nazi and she was a jew and both were great thinkers. Raises all sorts of questions about the psychology of rational thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:46:08 2015 No.6486050 Its all mind games. Games developed over centuries, turning into different games with different systems, different rules, different meaning and goals.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:46:28 2015 No.6486051 >>6486042 What is there to define? >>6486048 Continental philosophy is a gateway drug to fascism.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:47:04 2015 No.6486058 >>6486045 >Chomsky uses COMMON SENSE which is something nearly all continentalfags don't think exists. And why do you think it's a thing that exists?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:47:41 2015 No.6486063 >>6486051 >Continental philosophy is a gateway drug to fascism. Quit ruining the arendt thread, anon. Try posting your STEM b8 again tomorrow.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:48:13 2015 No.6486064 File: 57 KB, 618x618, try-harder-faggot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6486051

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:48:44 2015 No.6486067 >>6486058 I should ask you the same thing. How are dialectics in any way verifiable by the scientific method? We know common sense when we see it and we can determine it though the rules of logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:49:01 2015 No.6486068 >>6486045 Does he honestly believe you can have common nationwide laws without a common nationwide government?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:49:16 2015 No.6486070 >>6485857 >I'm legitimately interesting no, you're not.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:49:17 2015 No.6486071
File: 16 KB, 221x225, 1430348583197.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6486045

>That's not what analytic philosophy is at all. Nice strawman.

Well I don't know exactly what parts of Continental thought and Critical Theory you're essentially trying disprove.

Attempting to disprove the entire field is such an idiotic motion you have to exist within a trailer with no education whatsoever in Analytic Philosophy. It's an attempt to discredit skepticism of structures who's existence remains uninvestigated.

Your questioning of some vague form of "Intellectual corruption" is dubious at best in this respect.

You're not criticizing anything, you attempt to remove skepticism by proving the existence of the structures criticized using numerology without applying itself to your own investigative methods, and beyond.

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>6486051

>Continental philosophy is a gateway drug to fascism.

Lel you retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:49:49 2015 No.6486073 >>6485827 >8) Critical Theory was proven to have been pushed on the West by the USSR. What was even the point of wasting the energy it took to type this?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:50:21 2015 No.6486077 >>6486041 Thank you kindly, friend. >>6486070 Hah, a typo of course. I meant to write "interested".

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:50:25 2015 No.6486078 >>6486068 We all share an innate set of values. Evolutionary psychology shows this. Hell, even Kropotkin knew about this over 100 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:50:31 2015 No.6486079 >>6486073 He must've mistook his thought for being some sort of argument

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:51:41 2015 No.6486085 File: 7 KB, 200x195, 1429853780881.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6486078 >Evolutionary psychology shows this >Evolutionary psychology >Evolutionary >psychology

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:51:46 2015 No.6486086

OP is a weirdo anti-Semite and a shitty writer but he makes more sense than the people here unironically doing the "science is just another set of values" bullshit

>>6485827
drop the Jew-hating, get some humility in your undergrad brain, and come post here from wherever you usually stay. there are plenty of /lit/ posters who agree with you that Foucault said nothing of substance in the Chomsky-Foucault debate. Also try reading the philosophers you're shitting on before you shit on them next time. But you're already a better poster than half of this board

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:53:13 2015 No.6486092 >>6486078 So does Chomsky believe that a nation can be decentralized into hundreds of small geographically bound areas, where each area would decide its own laws? (this is what most anarchists adhere to)

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:53:53 2015 No.6486094

>>6486086
>But you're already a better poster than half of this board

Lel. Don't samefag.

If not that, then use an argument that's not trying to disprove an entire field but try disprove elements within it and their justifications, etc..

Stop trying to be an adult on 4chan when you're a pretentious high schooler, it really does show.

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 17:53:58 2015 No.6486095 >>6486048 >he was a nazi Nazi is a derogatory colloquialism. It does not mean any thing. He may have been a mitglied of the NSDAP, but what ever, every one was.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:54:09 2015 No.6486097

>>6486063
Most continental philosophy leads to fascistic ways of thinking. Just look at Foucault and his Stalinist teacher Althusser: it's a dictator's dream if all of our values are socially constructed and imposed on us from above. If that's not an invitation for fascism, I don't know what is.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:54:30 2015 No.6486098

>>6486067
But how is common sense a 'thing'? Surely if I was talking to a lord in the 14th century and I asked him why feudalism existed, he could reasonably say "It's just common sense." How is what we consider common sense not a historical and cultural variable? Or does common sense somehow exist outside of human thought?

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:55:16 2015 No.6486104 File: 53 KB, 620x413, 1430431877751.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6486095 >Nazi is a derogatory colloquialism.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:55:51 2015 No.6486107 >>6486097 Well, historically, what we would consider fascism today was also very often "It is good and proper that I am your master, because God put me here, and you there."

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:55:55 2015 No.6486108 >>6486086 I don't hate Jews. If I did I wouldn't be celebrating Chomsky and his work. I'm saying JUDAISM (the religion) isn't scientific and thus every "Judaic" element in Critical Theory should be tossed.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:56:17 2015 No.6486111
File: 121 KB, 1548x1468, 1429916276723.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6486097

>Most continental philosophy leads to fascistic ways of thinking. Just look at Foucault and his Stalinist teacher Althusser

I want to stab you to death.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 17:57:18 2015 No.6486114 >>6486104 It kind of is. People use the word fascist and nazi so much these days, they barely mean anything.

twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 17:57:22 2015 No.6486115

>>6486104
Not everyone ascribes to pedestrian memes here,
actually I had always assumed this board was safe from them,
but evidently it needs stricter regulation.
Needless to say, you need to go,
just be permabanned from this place.
People who agree with me need to be more vocal about this.

Anonymous Sat May 2 17:58:24 2015 No.6486117
File: 30 KB, 503x417, althusser-meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6486097
>Just look at Foucault and his Stalinist teacher Althusser: it's a dictator's dream if all of our values are socially constructed and imposed on us from above. If that's not an invitation for fascism, I don't know what is.
Except for the fact that neither one of them said that. At all. Rather, their theses explained how power and ideology are not single-sourced but come from multiple sources which fuck with your mind and body every minute.

Althusser's theories are despised by anarcho-syndicalists and other Chomsky cultists because they thoroughly debunk the outdated workerist praxis they keep clinging to.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:58:26 2015 No.6486119

>>6486108

>Critical Theory should be tossed.

Prove the Judaic corruption of academia and you've got my attention.

This could blow up big, huge even.

All you have to do is prove you're not vomiting up your own fecal matter to type.

>>6486114

Analytics is a form of fascism. Attempting to make the objective out of the social is what leads to Fascism and reactionary tendencies and not skepticism.

This is day fucking one material I have no idea how you can attempt to prove skepticism.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 17:59:37 2015 No.6486123 >>6486115 >just be permabanned from this place. Here's the thing Stop typing Like you're trying to type a poem

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 18:00:37 2015 No.6486127 >>6486119 >Analytics is a form of fascism People. This man is a rusemaster. This man is a rusemaster. This man. Is a rusemaster.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:01:32 2015 No.6486131

>>6486117
Althusser's arguments are full of holes. How does he or Foucault explain how human beings have ALWAYS fought for freedom and justice, even when they were entirely bombarded with propaganda? How does Althusser explain the Labor Movement if those workers were "interpellated" or whatever he says? You wouldn't see slave rebellions if all slaves were conditioned in the way he claims.

>>6486119
>Analytics is a form of fascism. Attempting to make the objective out of the social is what leads to Fascism and reactionary tendencies and not skepticism.
It's absolutely not, because once we have a basic foundation from truth we can resist all propaganda by outsiders.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:02:14 2015 No.6486135
File: 3 KB, 194x260, knee_legs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Reminder:
(to save you typing energy, which will benefit the world and make you feel well)
I am ninetynine percent certain that the people who get butthurt about continental thought just don't UNDERSTAND IT

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:02:36 2015 No.6486137 You are a student of Analytical philosophy? Well if you are, you are going to fail. You don't seem to grasp any of it. >lol durr my sceisnce Come on, you're better than this.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:04:09 2015 No.6486145 Science is impossible without a leap of faith man.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:07:22 2015 No.6486160 >>6486137 Literally, this is why no one outside of the humanities takes continentalfags and PoMos seriously. Denial of science is dangerous whether it's being done by Christian creationists or postmodern literature critics.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:07:48 2015 No.6486164
File: 10 KB, 240x240, 1429469961020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>analytical philosophers of this thread
To the point responses, no bullshit, short sentences with all the chaff cut out, somehow find time in between the rigours of topos theory and becoming acquainted with inter-universal teichmuller theory to make responses

>continental philosophers
Constantly throwing Marxist horseshit about power structures and fascism about. Surly memeing all over the place.

How have they come to dominate academia I will never know

the ad homosex nigga Sat May 2 18:10:15 2015 No.6486174

>>6486127
you are a pretentious faggot, quit trying to appear enlightened, you are transparent as fuck.
I agree with your thought or whatever.
Look i can be like you:
Cringe, cringe
cringe cringe cringe
cringe
cringe
cringe
>>6486119
You also know what's up, but make the mistake of choosing a side and making extreme arguments against the other

you all
suck

ssssssuck

ciao, faggots

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:10:45 2015 No.6486179 >>6486160 You got it backwards man. You are the alienated nerd. You and your fedora master Richard Dawkins.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:12:02 2015 No.6486185 >>6486179 Yes, Dawkins is an atheist and a scientist, but he is just as idealist as 90% (if not more) of pomos when it comes to religion.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:12:07 2015 No.6486186 Science is a meme.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:12:50 2015 No.6486189 File: 352 KB, 499x289, sentimental-batman.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6486135 Butthurt is always a misunderstanding. This is why I'm a Hegelian. Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:13:44 2015 No.6486191 >>6486185 >idealist Ha! Continental philosophy concepts!

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:14:26 2015 No.6486194

>>6485827
>2) The Frankfurt School, being the main developers of Critical Theory, were mostly Jews. Walter Benjamin and Erich Fromm, in particular, littered their writings with concepts from the Jewish religion.
There is literally nothing wrong with any of this.

And the two authors you mentioned are mostly reserved for literature class.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:15:27 2015 No.6486199

>>6486131

>It's absolutely not, because once we have a basic foundation from truth we can resist all propaganda by outsiders.

It absolutely is. It leads to it far easier. You can argue that Conintal philosophy "can" but you're not specifying any way it could do so other than vague "It can"

Trying to combine the objective with the social is doomed from the start and history time and again has shown us the philosophies it births are immune from any form of skepticism because it justifies itself.

You are wrong.

>>6486127

Stop tying like that.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:16:02 2015 No.6486204 >>6486191 I'm ashamed of New Atheists because they rely on the same idealism as the postmodernists and religious nuts they critique. I take Chomsky's views on Islam.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:17:15 2015 No.6486210 >something leading to fascism is bad Spook

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:17:33 2015 No.6486212

>>6486204
>postmodernists and religious nuts they critique
>pomo = religion

Dude. You are not specifying ANY criticism.

You're just saying

>HUR DA JOOS CORRUPTION CONTINENTAL FASCISM INTELLECTUAL CORRUPTION IDEALISM!

You're supposed to be analytic, what is wrong with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:18:08 2015 No.6486215 >>6486204 You must enjoy Feuerbach then. A known continental philosopher.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:18:51 2015 No.6486220

>>6486199
Chomsky is correct when he says believing everything is a social construct is a complete invitation to tyranny.

>>6486212
Religion is not scientific and should be rejected outright as fairytale, but the way NAs deal with it isn't scientific either.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:20:52 2015 No.6486230 >>6486095 what the fuck he was literally a Nazi, what's your problem? Should I fucking post his party membership card?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:21:18 2015 No.6486233 >>6486230 >Should I fucking post his party membership card? Yes please.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:22:55 2015 No.6486240
File: 202 KB, 1000x1000, 1430321859663.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6486220

>Chomsky is correct when he says believing everything is a social construct is a complete invitation to tyranny.

Prove it. As far as I'm concerned, what you're saying is on a mountain of dubious assumptions when combining objective observation to subjective social institutions without any kind of skepticism in between.

You're not specifying any kind of theory but just saying it's founded on Jewish religion in which I cannot find any sources to cite which claim this, and it sounds like you just came from /pol/ without any reading and a community college level of reading.

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish, let alone what you're trying to assume.

>Religion is not scientific

Which is why what you're saying is horseshit. It's more religious than anything you can prove continental philosophy is.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:22:56 2015 No.6486241 >>6486215 Incredible how chomskycult relies so much on continental philosophy and Marxism all while being in total denial of it.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:25:19 2015 No.6486249

>>6486240
Look, Chomsky relies on COMMON SENSE to create a pragmatic and just politic. It's common sense that authority and domination are wrong, and that everyone evolved in anarchy, so we can deduct that anarcho-syndicalism is the right way to go.

>Which is why what you're saying is horseshit. It's more religious than anything you can prove continental philosophy is.
No, the claims I'm making are backed up by science and logic.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:25:44 2015 No.6486251

>>6486220
Analytic philosophy is scientific. And if it is not so, well, at least it tries to be. Rebut it if you do not think it is so. But you would be doing analytic philosophy if you do. Get it now?
Also, Feuerbach. Read him.

>>6486241
Yeah, I know. It's like discussing who has the best toy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:26:59 2015 No.6486256 >>6486204 You know Marxism is a materialist philosophy, right?

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:28:40 2015 No.6486265

>>6486249
>Look, Chomsky relies on COMMON SENSE

What the fuck kind of common sense specifies within his views? Please specify what kind of common sense you're imploying and to what effect.

Christ what the fuck are you even trying to prove?

>. It's common sense that authority and domination are wrong

Ok, sure. But you're not exploring why, and that's not a question I needed answered because it goes without saying.

>so we can deduct that anarcho-syndicalism is the right way to go.

I'm somewhat with you. I'm also someone who believes in Mutual Aid but what that has to do with everything else you've implied, I don't know?

Please for God's sakes be more specific about what you're trying to criticize.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:29:01 2015 No.6486266 >>6486027 Why isn't science the closest approximation of truth we have? I'm asking because I'm completly in the dark here. If you care to explain anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:30:20 2015 No.6486269 File: 39 KB, 309x400, 1339072453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6486249 what is common sense?

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:30:42 2015 No.6486270
File: 65 KB, 474x700, brechtbenjaminchess.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>HURRR DURRRR Walter Benjamin used the Kabbalah and that makes EVERY SINGLE THING to come out of the Frankfurt School unscientific Jew mythology!!!!!11

/pol/-tiering aside, I'm calling massive bullshit on this. Those of us who have studied the Frankfurt School have known about that shit for years.

Also, let's just assume "Judaic" concepts are truly "littered" in other FS writings: does that in itself de-legitimize them? And do you even know what Judaism teaches or have any basic knowledge of Jewish theology? If not, why are you making bold statements about things in which you know nothing about?

Analytic philosophers are just as bad as fundamentalist Christians. Tossing the baby with the bathwater is the mentality of absolutism.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:34:22 2015 No.6486281

>>6486266

It depends on what FORM OF SCIENCE YOU SPEAK!

Physics, is the closest to "truth" we actually have. It has no social frame of refrence within our own vocabulary, language, subtext, it has no linguistics associated and it has no bias. It just exists.

Biology on the other hand, runs the risk of everything from trying to explain itself using terms within the subtext of human power relations in cells to total explanation of human nature using terms founded within our own culture/society.

It is more difficult to fully prove than physics in terms of assuming society from biology.

We can assume we are somewhat biologically different than other animals, but that is mostly it.

Science is flawed because it exists within the ideas of objective observation that founded Western Civilization and lead to all its short comings it still fails to actually target but allows fester invisible as it has since the dawn of its existence as it has in every other society it "objectively" blamed for negligence or bias or bigotry or ignorance.

Attempting to prove we are more than dirt but spiritual is something that only exists within the kind of philosophy you are describing.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:34:37 2015 No.6486282

>>6486256
Marxism may be "materialist" but it is not scientific.

>>6486265
And you denying that hegemony is common sense proves you hold an understanding of common sense.

>>6486270
Religion is not scientific. It is a pile of baloney. However, I'm willing to go easy on Muslims and other oppressed religious groups because they cling to religion out of desperation. A Jew living in the industrialized West, on the other hand should have known better than to mix in religion in a field that calls itself "scientific".

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:35:34 2015 No.6486287 >>6486282 >And you denying that hegemony is common sense proves you hold an understanding of common sense. WHAT KIND, WHAT DEGREE, AND TO WHAT EFFECT OF COMMON SENSE ARE YOU SPECIFYING

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:37:04 2015 No.6486292 >>6486287 >this shit again You know something is common sense if it fits logically. Humans evolved with the ability to reason. Good enough?

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:37:07 2015 No.6486293
File: 32 KB, 321x400, Klee,_paul,_angelus_novus,_1920.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6485857
>>6485929
>>6485943
>>6485943
Not even a /pol/lack, I actually love Benjamin, but he was pretty open about the influence judaism and kabbalah on his works, specially when discussing history / politics.

That being said, dude was goat, love his Angelus Novus text:

"A Klee painting named Angelus Novus shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress."

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:40:29 2015 No.6486306

>>6485999
>common sense
>Chomsky
>not basing his political ideology on anarcho-syndicalism, a school of thought I myself belong to, while recognizing a lot of it won't make sense because it was never tested

dude, the anglosphere should be prohibited from engaging in phylosophical discourse

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:41:24 2015 No.6486311 >>6486293 Chomsky is a spook.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:42:18 2015 No.6486313 >>6485888 Analytic philosophy is not stem.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:43:26 2015 No.6486319

>>6486306
Anarcho-syndicalism HAS been tested and it works. We don't even need to test it to understand how it's the best system possible. Humans don't like being dominated and we know this as we evolved without masters, so we can deduct that workplaces work the best without bosses or managers.

>>6486293
Unscientific garbage. Chuck it before it destroys your rational thought process.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:43:27 2015 No.6486320

>>6486292
>You know something is common sense if it fits logically

IF YOU AREN'T BACK TRACKING TO INVESTIGATE IF IT'S COMMON SENSE THAN HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S BASIS IS EVEN IN THE SCIENCE YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PROVE RESTS ON THE COMMON SENSE YOU SUGGEST.

It could be common sense that because of the cover up by the military and eye witness testimony, an extraterrestrial expeditionary crash landed in the outskirts of Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Of course, due to analyzing papers in a photograph we have conclusive evidence something crashed there, but we don't know what, and the Government denied anything crashed.

Therefore, it is common sense to assume that an Alien Race, one of the few if not the only other in our Galaxy, discovered our radio signals and investigated our planet. We know this because any Alien race would be able to justify investigating us because there is so few forms of life in the galaxy because it is common sense to assume there isn't.

DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM

You have to specify as to what degree of common sense you're implying and what it even means or you can justify a theory that is not within any frame of reference to human sociability by using vague common sense as a determination of what is and is not real which could lead to something as inept as believing Roswell was the site of an alien crash landing.

Please. I'm begging you, explain what you're trying to say more cohesively than common sense, because science more often than not does not follow our "common sense"

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:47:14 2015 No.6486330 >>6486097 >>6486097 Dude, Foucault was pretty much a crypto-anarchist

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:47:56 2015 No.6486332
File: 334 KB, 463x585, Sabbatai_Zevi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6486313
To my knowledge, analytic philosophers have sometimes argued that their school of philosophy be placed in with STEM, something about language being "math + semantics", which makes no sense.

>>6486319
>Anarcho-syndicalism HAS been tested and it works.

This is wrong. Anarchist Catalonia wasn't even anarchist as it had a government IN WHICH MANY ANARCHISTS TOOK PART.

>Unscientific garbage. Chuck it before it destroys your rational thought process.
Do you know what Kabbalists believe? Have you read the Zohar? If not, WHY ARE YOU MAKING THESE STATEMENTS? I'm not defending it, I'm just saying you are doing exactly what you accuse us Continentals of doing: making a bold claim without using evidence to back your claim up.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:51:56 2015 No.6486347 >>6486332 >M, something about language being "math + semantics", which makes no sense. Try Wittgenstein you faggot. And, in the end. Why not just enjoy Continental Philosophy, really? You're a fucking contrarian that's it.

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:52:09 2015 No.6486348

>>6486320
>It could be common sense that because of the cover up by the military and eye witness testimony, an extraterrestrial expeditionary crash landed in the outskirts of Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.

Yes, and you are proving that you believe in objective common sense if you understand many things to not be common sense.

Logic can be used to understand what is real and what isn't. Learn it.

>>6486330
He wasn't. His arguments about truth being impossible to know are more in-line with fascism and Stalinism.

>>6486332
I don't need to read anything. So-called "mystical experiences" are just chemicals in the brain and nothing in science proves the existence of god.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:55:12 2015 No.6486356 File: 234 KB, 960x1253, identifying ideology.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:55:29 2015 No.6486358

>>6486348

>Yes, and you are proving that you believe in objective common sense if you understand many things to not be common sense.

Ugh, No I'm not at all. I'm claiming you have to specify what common sense is because it is a general term. Is there a "correct" and "incorrect" within the twisting and turning of the human mind?

SURE. But common sense is such a general descriptor it's hard to tell what is being specified when it can imply fucking anything and enforce anything from itself or those implications.

Common Sense is not a good justification for science. It's a loaded term.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:56:13 2015 No.6486361 File: 315 KB, 700x1626, whats in this thread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 2 18:57:01 2015 No.6486363

>>6486347
I'm not OP and I do enjoy Witt.

>>6486348
>He wasn't. His arguments about truth being impossible to know are more in-line with fascism and Stalinism.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Foucault was making arguments AGAINST fascistic ways of thinking. Fascists propose absolutism, so-called "PoMos" do not and work entirely against the idea.
>I don't need to read anything.
le sigh
>So-called "mystical experiences" are just chemicals in the brain and nothing in science proves the existence of god.
1998 called: it wants it's science back.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:57:15 2015 No.6486364 File: 80 KB, 1617x1893, concrete ideology.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:58:03 2015 No.6486368 >>6486356 >implying ideology is bad >implying ideology isn't the greatest gift given to man that makes us wake up in the morning early, filled with passion wanting to remove kebab etc This guy is the typical subverting Marxist.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:58:06 2015 No.6486369 This is why the humanities are dead.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:58:20 2015 No.6486371 File: 947 KB, 480x270, unfreedom.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 18:59:03 2015 No.6486374 >>6486369 The humanities are actually dead because skepticism isn't a profitable enterprise.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 18:59:49 2015 No.6486380 File: 493 KB, 500x500, zizek WTC.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:00:52 2015 No.6486384 File: 691 KB, 408x306, gem and the zizeks.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:00:56 2015 No.6486385

>>6486282
Religion doesn't have to be scientific.
Science is not a inherently good thing.
From a fellow anarchist, realize that at this very moment, there are far more pro-anarchism religious movements than scientific movements, most of todays "scientificist" agenda defends globalization, neoliberalism and disrespect of other people's sovereignity.

Also, don't conflate anarchism with common-sense, that way you're applying a sort of closed thought system that simply can't be a part of anarchism. Ours is not a closed revolution, it's a perpetual one.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:01:06 2015 No.6486388 >>6486364 Fucking ant meme. >>6486374 This. I'd also add that most American academics have completely butchered postmodernism and other schools of thought.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 19:02:36 2015 No.6486394 >>6486380 >>6486384 >>6486371 >any skepticism of "civilization" is therefore for women or hippies Critical Thinking is dead. Long Live The Scientifically Objective God Within Numbers

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:03:05 2015 No.6486397

>>6486319
>Humans don't like being dominated

typical humanist essentialism, you shouldn't make these sorts of assumptions. As much of a problem this is, at this point in society, there are people who simply can't act on their own agency.

Look man, I get it, I agree with anarchism too, but I think you're mostly reading Chomsky while ignoring all other issues and thinkers in contemporary left-communism.

Also, drop this "method" necessity, go read some Feyerabend

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:05:25 2015 No.6486406 Right sorry for the meme dump, I just had to get that out of my system, what's going on in this thread?

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 19:06:11 2015 No.6486408 >>6486406 Chaos Theory

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 19:06:58 2015 No.6486410 >>6486249 >Chomsky relies on COMMON SENSE to create a pragmatic and just politic How is that a good thing?

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:07:40 2015 No.6486414

>>6486358
Common sense is the best foundation for politics. Theory only exists to make things harder for people to understand. A common man knows if he's hot or cold, hungry or fed, whereas only the most elite can understand half the things put out by the academy. Intellectuals and Critical Theory serve no purpose but to cement their elitism.

>>6486363
Foucault's arguments lead to Stalinism. At least Althusser was open about his desire for a tyrannical Leninist state. If we agree that all values are socially constructed and human behavior is completely malleable we have every justification for a dictatorial state, which is one reason why Chomsky and others fight against Critical Theory so much.

>>6486385
I follow Chomsky's views on religion: oppressed peoples cling to their religion out of hope and should not be ridiculed, but intellectuals who promote religion when they know better deserve to be thrown out. Religion and other mystical ways of thinking are dangerous and do far more to promote tyranny than science. In fact, science proves anarchism and has been for over a century.

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 19:07:59 2015 No.6486417 >>6486230 I am aware. The term "nazi" was never used at that time unironically.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:09:53 2015 No.6486424 >>6486111 I like this image

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:09:56 2015 No.6486425 >>6486410 He doesn't complicate things like nearly all intellectuals do. He is right that obscurantism is another form of intellectual domination.

twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 19:10:43 2015 No.6486431

>>6486414
>Common sense is the best foundation for politics
No... Common sense refers to some thing which is taken for granted,
so it is exactly what should not be used when talking about politics.

>Religion and other mystical ways of thinking are dangerous and do far more to promote tyranny than science
Not inherently.
It is speculation and nothing else.

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 19:11:43 2015 No.6486433 >>6486425 >He is right that obscurantism is another form of intellectual domination. As is anti-intellectualism.

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:12:50 2015 No.6486439

>>6486414
>>6486414
>>6486414
The problem is with how you see these things as fixed, teleological paths set to stone.

Guess what, they don't. Proudhon (aka the father of anarchism) has been apropriated by fascists, while I have quite a lot of anarchist friends who can see some sense in Evola and other traditionalist, fascist thinkers, and their readings aren't even wrong.

Think about Debord and Marshall McLuhan, one a degenerate french alcooholic, the other a right wing catholic canadian, both producing within similar time-frames and coming to pretty similar conclusions about late-capitalist societies and it's problems.

Things don't take natural paths as you think they do, everything is in how you use the texts. I really think you should be branching out on your readings, specially if you want to talk about politics.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:13:41 2015 No.6486449 >>6486433 Explain. >>6486431 We need a foundation in truth. Science provides us with the closest approximation to truth when religion causes us to accept everything on faith.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 19:15:31 2015 No.6486457

>>6486414

>Common sense is the best foundation for politics.

So Common Sense is both a foundation for Politics and Science and is interchangeable between the two. Without specifying what it is.

Dear Lord

I don't know what you're trying to fight for but what you're suggesting is the very foundation of science we currently have and it is, heavily, heavily flawed.

>Theory only exists to make things harder for people to understand.

BECAUSE REALITY IS FUCKEN NUTS AND IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND! It's some real bullshit, I completely agree. But it doesn't change the fact skepticism skepticism skepticism of skepticism and more skepticism of skepticism skeptical of skepticism of institutions of power related to skepticism and more skeptical thought is necessary to to get a good grasp of what we're dealing with.

This is a foundation of science, not "common sense".

Common Sense is pretty subjective as a term. It is general conclusion from observation, but that's what I'm assuming you mean by it.

>Critical Theory serve no purpose but to cement their elitism

Maybe it's because not everyone is cut out for learning that the world they live in might be a total sham they're trapped in!

That can drive anyone into the brink! Not everyone is cut out to accept the truth that society is built on shaky foundations. In fact they're more likely to fight the skepticism of the society they live in than try and fix it because it's been consensus for centuries without change. Without investigation at all.

It is all maddening and complex, common sense isn't a truth, it's an observation.

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:19:01 2015 No.6486476

>>6486449
Science "truth" can be:
A) completely axiomatic, depending purely on human concepts and language (i.e.: biology, psychology)
B) completely dissociated from any meaningful human experience (i.e.: physics, chemistry)

If you truly wanna base any sort of political experience on any scientific truth, you will inevitably fall into some sort of thecnocratic dictatorship.

Here's a little homework for you: I want you to think of the living in christianity that starts with the gnostic peoples of the 1st century, going through the millenialists of the middle ages and peaking in Tolstoy (sort of, but still).

Then, in the cult of "scientific progress" we see in early enlightenment, the victorian era and the totalitarian experiences of the 20th century (and, in a certain manner, 21st century US)

Now, tell me exactly how mysticism necessarily leads to tiranny while rationalism necessarily leads to freedom.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:19:25 2015 No.6486479 >>6486457 >BECAUSE REALITY IS FUCKEN NUTS AND IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND! It's actually not. We can use science to determine the hard stuff and common sense to determine the easy stuff.

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 19:20:05 2015 No.6486485 >>6486449 If some thing is difficult to understand, it does not mean it holds no worth. You essentially mean because the statement is in "plain english" it holds more worth, when neither is true.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:21:19 2015 No.6486492 >>6486485 The easiest explanation is usually the correct one.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:22:16 2015 No.6486499 >>6486492 Why thing exist? god Why thing exist? 6000 fucking years of science and we're not even close. So, you're a fucking monotheist now?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:23:04 2015 No.6486501 >>6486499 God is harder to prove/explain than most modern scientific concepts.

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:23:58 2015 No.6486504
File: 153 KB, 500x500, painful to .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6485827
>1) Critical Theory's claims about society cannot be scientifically verified. In order for something to be scientific it must be verified through trial and error (think basic scientific method). In no way can you make a claim about "white privilege" or "colonial mentality" and confirm it using verifiable evidence.
Claims made about personal experience are outside the scope of the scientific method since they aren't verifiable. Nevertheless, they are worthy of discussion.

>2) The Frankfurt School, being the main developers of Critical Theory, were mostly Jews. Walter Benjamin and Erich Fromm, in particular, littered their writings with concepts from the Jewish religion. How is it possible to assume outdated desert mythology is scientific in any way possible? And how do we know concepts form this bullshit desert mythology (aka Judaism) didn't make their way into other, more "important" Frankfurt School texts?
This is bullshit and you know it.

>3) Dialectics is bullshit reasoning. Formal logic can be proven using mathematics and computers whereas ANY dialectical method cannot.
Dialectics dates from before formal logic. It is still useful in areas where the scientific method cannot access.

>4) The Sokal Paper showed that the academy will accept anything.
Good prank. Does it prove that all critical theory is bunk? No.

>5) Deconstructionism, when taken to its logical conclusion, proposes that anything can mean anything so as long as people believe it to be true. Does that mean a banana can be an apple if most people say so?
Yes. If most people claimed that the category "apples" included bananas then bananas would be apples. This is how language works.

>6) Most "Althusserian" Marxists are rationalists in the tradition of Descartes and Spinoza even if they think logic isn't independent of history. They are frauds and liars.
Not familiar enough with this school of Marxism to comment.

>7) Freudian psychology has never been proven to be legitimate.
So? No-one takes Freud seriously anymore. Don't try and pin his coke-addled rants onto modern critical theory.

>8) Critical Theory was proven to have been pushed on the West by the USSR.
Haven't seen any evidence of this but if it is, so what? Political structures compete using any means at their disposal including ideas.

Conclusion:

Holy shit OP you fucking faggot, you really suck at thinking. You should stop trying to promote ideas because by associating yourself with them you only bring them into disrepute. If this pile of unthought-out gibberish is what you think of as 'philosophy' you should quit. Any of the analytic philosophers I've discussed ideas with would blush to think you were trying to put yourself in their tier. Analytic philosphers pride themselves on their ability to think clearly about complex ideas, what you've done here is shit the bed and blame the stink on someone else.

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:24:27 2015 No.6486507

>>6486501
God requires no explanation, you authist.

That's your problem, you're so ingrained in a certain mode of thought that you want the whole world to work within that mode of thought.

I bet you're one of those fucking aspies that think art can be measured through technical skill as well.

>>	twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk Sat May 2 19:24:30 2015 No.6486508 >>6486492 Why would one assume that? It may or may not be. The statement ironically relies on blind faith.

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:25:16 2015 No.6486513

>>6486476
>Then, in the cult of "scientific progress" we see in early enlightenment, the victorian era and the totalitarian experiences of the 20th century (and, in a certain manner, 21st century US)
That "science" is not science. It is tightly controlled science used by the ruling elite. Real science is debunking most of those "evil" things like race realism and such, so in the end science does come out as superior.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 19:25:30 2015 No.6486514

>>6486479

>It's actually not.

Prove it without using common sense. Please prove also that common sense isn't filled with subjective observation and conclusion about complex human interaction from culture. Prove it without dealing with a convoluted web as you suggest isn't needed to understand interaction and power from it, also, cite your sources.

Common Sense does not lay in social theory because human sociality does not make common sense.

Even science is victim to the boundaries of these interactions and can apply them, almost universally unintentionally. This is why Objective Observation in science does not exist, especially the closer you get to the flesh.

>We can use science to determine the hard stuff and common sense to determine the easy stuff.

If only it was this simple. I wish I could be like you again.

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:26:54 2015 No.6486518

>>6486513
In the end science comes out as a oppressive, normalizing and suffocationg overlord.

The way you see science, it has been wrong since it's very inception in modernity, the science you defend is pretty much the same as god or fucking lightsabers, it never existed.

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:30:50 2015 No.6486535

>>6486507
And thinking in unscientific ways leads to tyranny because it causes us to accept everything on faith without anything to prove the claim. This is one way states legitimize themselves through the propaganda model.

>>6486514
If something is subjective, then it is not common sense.

>Even science is victim to the boundaries of these interactions and can apply them, almost universally unintentionally. This is why Objective Observation in science does not exist, especially the closer you get to the flesh.

This is the exact sort of thing that legitimizes fascism.

Now if you excuse me, I'll be gone for the next two hours but I will return to this thread later tonight.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 19:37:04 2015 No.6486554

>>6486535
>If something is subjective, then it is not common sense.

Than common sense is not common sense. It's a paradox.

>This is the exact sort of thing that legitimizes fascism.

No, it's not. Facism is applying the objective worth to human beings, branding them with value hyper extending onto other features of interaction into a more mathematical and "common sense" whole.

You could argue it might start with Continental Philosophy, sure, you can make that argument. I wouldn't fight you to say it might birth a reactionary.

But otherwise, history has shown it's more applying basic philosophy 101 and implied "common sense" out of control from the perspective of human tradition, sociability, and belief.

Numbers from a God, you could say.

>Now if you excuse me, I'll be gone for the next two hours but I will return to this thread later tonight.

Have fun.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:41:26 2015 No.6486568 What Marx/Freud do you need to read before getting into Frankfurt School and which Frankfurters are good beginner texts?

Anonymous Sat May 2 19:41:27 2015 No.6486569

>>6486535
Here's the thing.

Thinking in unscientific ways can lead to fascism or freedom.
Thinking in scientific ways can lead to fascism or freedom.

"Science" and "Politics" are two very different ways of thinking very different subjects, and any political thinking that stems from science is bound to be authoritarian in one way or another.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 19:43:02 2015 No.6486576 >>6486568 I've read very little Marx and almost no Freud. I'd say the best Frankfurter beginner texts are Dialectics of Enlightenment (with some sort of annotated guide, tbh), Benjamin's Theses on History and One Dimensional Man by Marcuse

Anonymous Sat May 2 22:27:38 2015 No.6487030

>>6486554
I'm saying, in order to avoid fascism and all other undesirable systems you must be grounded in truth, and the best way to find truth is through logic and science, and also common sense. No one willingly chooses to live under a fascist dictatorship, thus fascism is against common sense. How hard is this for you to understand?

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 22:29:57 2015 No.6487040

>>6487030
>>I'm saying, in order to avoid fascism and all other undesirable systems you must be grounded in truth, and the best way to find truth is through logic and science

Agreed.

>No one willingly chooses to live under a fascist dictatorship

MMM disagree

>thus fascism is against common sense

Still using general term common sense.

>How hard is this for you to understand?

I've explained why using common sense as a general term is confusing as an argument against proving critical theory wrong across the board.

Anonymous Sat May 2 22:43:51 2015 No.6487080

>>6487040
>>I'm saying, in order to avoid fascism and all other undesirable systems you must be grounded in truth, and the best way to find truth is through logic and science
>Agreed.
So you're in agreement that we need to ground ourselves in science and logic if we are to achieve a free society? If so, why do you stay supportive of Critical Theory which is 100000% unscientific nonsense?

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 22:45:20 2015 No.6487085

>>6487080

>So you're in agreement that we need to ground ourselves in science and logic

It depends to what you're specifying. Those are pretty general overarching terms.

>Critical Theory which is 100000% unscientific nonsense?

Again, please specify to what portion of Critical Theory you are implying is unscientific and explain how "common sense" can improve those investigations.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 22:45:47 2015 No.6487088 >>6485929 >wordpress >schiller institute >"terrorism-illuminati" Seems legit.

Anonymous Sat May 2 22:47:33 2015 No.6487095

>>6487085
Return to my OP post: Critical Theory fails to be scientific because absolutely none of its claims can be verified beyond "muh feelz". How do we scientifically test something like white/male privilege or any of the shit that comes out of postmodernism or postcolonial theory?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 22:47:42 2015 No.6487096 Anons, you've been doing this all day, give it a rest.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 22:53:09 2015 No.6487113

>>6487095
>Critical Theory fails to be scientific because absolutely none of its claims can be verified beyond "muh feelz"

So you don't understand critical theory and skepticism.

Please read the material you disagree with.

>How do we scientifically test something like white/male privilege or any of the shit that comes out of postmodernism or postcolonial theory?

You don't because they're fucking social phenomenon and you can't scientifically investigate them in that way because they lead to biased results.

There is no way to scientifically prove why you post on 4chan or why you don't wipe your ass properly.

There is no way to scientifically describe the difference between the attraction of the man down the street towards women with short hair or why you listen to the music you do.

Bringing science into social aspects of philosophy is total failure and it shows how far you really understanding what philosophy is and what it can imply.

I mean this isn't even the only interpretation of what you're criticizing read a goddamn book and stop groping at general terms like common sense for criticism.

Anonymous Sat May 2 22:57:42 2015 No.6487131

>>6487113
>So you don't understand critical theory and skepticism.
Strawman. I understand it very well. All I'm saying is, it's entirely faith-based and holds no ground in the real world. We can test formal/aristotelian logic but can we test dialectics, hegelianism, marxism, freudianism or any other "ism" to come out of CT?

>You don't because they're fucking social phenomenon and you can't scientifically investigate them in that way because they lead to biased results.

Which proves my point exactly.

And CT offers us almost nothing that science and logic can't. We can use basic science to determine why the people in power are usually wrong, and logic to understand why most of what we're fed isn't real. Look at how Chomsky does it. He doesn't use big words or complex concepts but lays it out using simple terms and logic.

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:00:45 2015 No.6487144

>>6485827

I don't even accept critical theory, it's a relatively obscure vein of academic criticism that gets unwarranted importance as a scapegoat from paranoid right wingers. You're one of those people, OP.

>In no way can you make a claim about "white privilege" or "colonial mentality" and confirm it using verifiable evidence.

The humanities aren't sciences. Well, whoop de fucking do. I suppose WW2 never happened because it's part of history and can't be proven by the scientific method. While we're at it, who says royalty in medieval times had it better than peasants?

Your emphasis on trial and error is also exaggerated. There are entire bodies of scientific knowledge - such as astronomy - that are basically built on correlative information.

>The Frankfurt School, being the main developers of Critical Theory, were mostly Jews.

The fact that you think this blatant ad hominem constitutes an argument shows that your ostensible respect for logic serves only to support your preconceived ideological notions.

>And how do we know concepts form this bullshit desert mythology (aka Judaism) didn't make their way into other, more "important" Frankfurt School texts?

Christianity is another "bullshit desert mythology", yet we don't discount the scientific and philosophical contributions of every individual Christian because of it.

>Dialectics is bullshit reasoning. Formal logic can be proven using mathematics and computers whereas ANY dialectical method cannot.

Dialectics predate critical theory by millennia. The ancient Greeks and Indians used it, and we wouldn't have our modern concept of logic without it.

>The Sokal Paper showed that the academy will accept anything.

Sokal himself was a leftist, he just wanted more rigor among certain institutions. Also, since you're evidently le science genius man, the word "sample size" should mean something to you. One postmodern journal can't be generalized to the extent you suggest.

>Deconstructionism, when taken to its logical conclusion, proposes that anything can mean anything so as long as people believe it to be true. Does that mean a banana can be an apple if most people say so?

If enough people started using the word "apple" for what we call a banana today, then yes. The meaning of the words would completely change. Critical theory deals with language, not concrete ontology.

>Critical Theory was proven to have been pushed on the West by the USSR.

The Soviets' Sputnik 1 was the first artificial satellite in orbit, prompting Americans to enter the space race. Therefore, the space race and all achievements associated with it are an evil plot hatched by those damn Rooskies.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:01:22 2015 No.6487147

>>6487131
>Strawman

No. I'm pretty sure asking you to read the material you're criticizing before you criticize is standard.

> All I'm saying is, it's entirely faith-based and holds no ground in the real world.

So knowledge only exists as much as it can have material application?

What's not material application about the social?

>We can test formal/aristotelian logic but can we test dialectics

I'm going to need you to further explain why and to what degree, other than "It's wrong I won't read it common sense"

>Which proves my point exactly.

No it doesn't.

>And CT offers us almost nothing that science and logic can't.

It actually does because science is biased on flesh because of cultural background and subjectivity.

Again, objective observation does not exist.

>We can use basic science to determine why the people in power are usually wrong

No you can't.

>Look at how Chomsky does it.

I have and there's a reason why I disagree.

>He doesn't use big words

Oh, big words are a problem?

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:11:34 2015 No.6487173

>>6487144
>it's part of history and can't be proven by the scientific method.
You can use scientific methods to understand history.

>Christianity is another "bullshit desert mythology", yet we don't discount the scientific and philosophical contributions of every individual Christian because of it.
We disregard creationism because it's not scientific.

And the Frankfurt School could be called the predecessors to neocons. Virtually everything they wrote was rooted in some kind of Jewish identity politic, whether imbedding unscientific religious mythology in their culture critiques or whining on and off about "muh antisemitism" which would have made sense during the 1940s but is now merely an excuse to silence criticism of Israel. The fact that universities are still teaching this stuff is an embarrassment AND dangerous.

>Dialectics predate critical theory by millennia.
And they can't be scientifically proven unlike formal logic.

>Critical theory deals with language, not concrete ontology.
Which its conclusions also can't be sceintifically proven.

>>6487147
>What's not material application about the social?
Social "science" is not science. It's entirely based on faith and holds no water when applied to the real world.

>I'm going to need you to further explain why and to what degree, other than "It's wrong I won't read it common sense"
Computers and mathematics can test formal logic. You can't test dialectics as it's entirely speculative.

>I have and there's a reason why I disagree.
Explain. Why is Chomsky wrong in this regard?

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:14:41 2015 No.6487179

>>6487173
>Social "science" is not science. It's entirely based on faith and holds no water when applied to the real world.
Analytic philosophy is in the same category

>Computers and mathematics can test formal logic. You can't test dialectics as it's entirely speculative.

Cmputers and mathematics cannot prove genealogy of behavior because a) they're not that fucking advanced yet b) they're not human beings.

>Explain. Why is Chomsky wrong in this regard?

Why do I have to explain something to you when I've exhausted every reason why you're wrong and you still have yet to read the material provided because you disagree with it in an entirely dubious way.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:16:33 2015 No.6487187
File: 4 KB, 125x117, 1429895942777.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>And the Frankfurt School could be called the predecessors to neocons. Virtually everything they wrote was rooted in some kind of Jewish identity politic, whether imbedding unscientific religious mythology in their culture critiques or whining on and off about "muh antisemitism" which would have made sense during the 1940s but is now merely an excuse to silence criticism of Israel. The fact that universities are still teaching this stuff is an embarrassment AND dangerous.

Tripfags Must Die Sat May 2 23:17:04 2015 No.6487189

>>6487147
Friend, why do you clutch to a framework so? Of course, background and subjectivity must be taken into account, but without a hierarchy of values we are without any direction for progress. It necessitates a defeatist attitude when confronted with any competing ideals that may or may not be better.

You must love Mackie's "error theory."

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 23:17:12 2015 No.6487190 >>6487179 >Why do I have to explain something to you when I've exhausted every reason why you're wrong and you still have yet to read the material provided because you disagree with it in an entirely dubious way. He's you got you there OP.

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:18:09 2015 No.6487193

>>6487173
>>it's part of history and can't be proven by the scientific method.
>You can use scientific methods to understand history.
what? how would you do that? that doesn't seem to make any sense.

>disregard creationism
yeah, how about rejecting the astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, language and history we got from the christians?

>muh antisemitism
>it was right in the 40's
so whay are you complaining about people worryign abotu anti semmitism 10 years before the hollocaust? wouldn't that be the absolute best moment to be worrying about that?
the real FS, the main heads, disbanded after WW2 so you are the one forcing it out of its period.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:20:00 2015 No.6487200

>>6487189

>Friend, why do you clutch to a framework so? Of course, background and subjectivity must be taken into account, but without a hierarchy of values we are without any direction for progress. It necessitates a defeatist attitude when confronted with any competing ideals that may or may not be better.

Skepticism is exhausting and defeatist by being skeptical

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:21:44 2015 No.6487208

>>6487179
>Analytic philosophy is in the same category
Analytic methods can be tested as most of it is based in mathematics.

>Cmputers and mathematics cannot prove genealogy of behavior because a) they're not that fucking advanced yet b) they're not human beings.
We don't need to study any kind of genealogy. Science gives us those answers.

>Why do I have to explain something to you when I've exhausted every reason why you're wrong and you still have yet to read the material provided because you disagree with it in an entirely dubious way.
Because I want to know why you reject Chomsky and his methods. What does he get wrong? He shows you don't need any "theory" outside of straightforward logic to understand how power structures are fucked up. Seriously, you guys just make everything harder and create an intellectual elite in the process. Just look at Leninists or Maoists for comparison.

>>	Tripfags Must Die Sat May 2 23:22:06 2015 No.6487210 >>6487200 >Skepticism is exhausting and defeatist by being skeptical So there exists no criterion for moral judgements is what your saying. Then why do you condemn certain power structures?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 23:24:39 2015 No.6487217 OP is being intellectually dishonest.

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:25:01 2015 No.6487220

>>6487193
>what? how would you do that? that doesn't seem to make any sense.
You can look at historical artifacts scientifically.

>how about rejecting the astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, language and history we got from the christians?
False analogy. Christian scientists were not deliberately putting Christian concepts in their scientific works, nor was their science based in any kind of religious politic. And even if it was, science today that is conducted by mostly secular scientists has rooted out anything mystical that would have remained.

>so whay are you complaining about people worryign abotu anti semmitism 10 years before the hollocaust? wouldn't that be the absolute best moment to be worrying about that?
I'm saying the FS was right to write about it in the 1940s but to teach it today is dangerous. Global antisemitism isn't a problem anymore and Judaism is no longer the religion of the oppressed but the religion of the oppressors (Israel).

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:25:56 2015 No.6487223

>>6487208

>Analytic methods can be tested as most of it is based in mathematics.

hhhhhhhh

Can you sound that out? It's the noise of sighing

>We don't need to study any kind of genealogy. Science gives us those answers.

Example. Give me an example I can laugh at. Throw me a bone here.

>Because I want to know why you reject Chomsky and his methods. What does he get wrong? He shows you don't need any "theory" outside of straightforward logic to understand how power structures are fucked up. Seriously, you guys just make everything harder and create an intellectual elite in the process. Just look at Leninists or Maoists for comparison.

Look! I'm going to give you you're answer, right here!

Get ready!

>Why do I have to explain something to you when I've exhausted every reason why you're wrong and you still have yet to read the material provided because you disagree with it in an entirely dubious way.

.

>>6487210

>So there exists no criterion for moral judgements is what your saying. Then why do you condemn certain power structures?

The criterion for certain relationships exist as how they can do harm down the line in terms of someone's well being. That is power.

Do I need to explain how certain relationships of power are morally wrong also? How can I not criticize you for expecting full admittance that all power relationships are good regardless of affect on health behavior etc.

Why not shit, all over psychology and prenounce Evolutionary Psychology king when it's at best pseudo-scientific.

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:26:22 2015 No.6487226

>>6487208
Chomsky has some big gaps in his theories when it comes to non-european languages. I though he was pretty abandoned by linguists.

>Seriously, you guys just make everything harder and create an intellectual elite in the process. Just look at Leninists or Maoists for comparison.
Both Lenin and Mao wrote pamphlets for the masses, simplified versions of their theory, like Mao's Red Book. That doesn't mean they didn't have serious work that went over the mass' collective head.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:28:03 2015 No.6487231

>>6487220
>>You can look at historical artifacts scientifically.

Are you fucking

>Christian scientists were not deliberately putting Christian concepts in their scientific works, nor was their science based in any kind of religious politic. And even if it was, science today that is conducted by mostly secular scientists has rooted out anything mystical that would have remained.

You're using that alien critical theory right now with that explanation.

The logic I fucking explained to you.

Thanks for using it for fucking once.

>I'm saying the FS was right to write about it in the 1940s but to teach it today is dangerous. Global antisemitism isn't a problem anymore and Judaism is no longer the religion of the oppressed but the religion of the oppressors (Israel).

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

It's a big sigh.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 23:28:10 2015 No.6487232 File: 78 KB, 640x533, epic-facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6487220 >Global antisemitism isn't a problem anymore and Judaism is no longer the religion of the oppressed but the religion of the oppressors (Israel).

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 23:32:19 2015 No.6487246 File: 119 KB, 227x433, wink.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6487231 You need to calm down, Fuckall. When you get angry you get angry alone, when you laugh the whole world laughs with you.

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:32:32 2015 No.6487247

>>6487226
>Chomsky has some big gaps in his theories when it comes to non-european languages. I though he was pretty abandoned by linguists.

Why? Explain. I assumed his linguistic theories are still the norm.

>That doesn't mean they didn't have serious work that went over the mass' collective head.
State "socialists" put emphasis on ideologically controlling the masses because they know a state has limits as to what it can give the masses, hence the brainwashing and personality cults.

>
You're using that alien critical theory right now with that explanation.

>The logic I fucking explained to you.
Bullshit.

>>6487232
If humanities faculties wanted to be moral, they would throw out unscientific judaic works by the FS and teach culture critiques written by the very people whom the West is oppressing at this moment and time, like Muslims. The fact that they cling to outdated Jewish religious politics when Israel is oppressing others shows that they are ideologically-driven and irresponsible.

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:34:28 2015 No.6487252

>>6487246

Insightful.

>>6487247

>State "socialists" put emphasis on ideologically controlling the masses because they know a state has limits as to what it can give the masses, hence the brainwashing and personality cults.

Capitalist economies

do the exact same shit

>Bullshit.

Ascribing a social issue as to why scientific judgement might be clouded.

An issue I explained before, no?

Tripfags Must Die Sat May 2 23:36:31 2015 No.6487256

>>6487223
So there is indeed a method of discerning whether something is better.

I'm not entirely with the Analytic-fags in here. Being a math major I know mathematics itself is rife with paradoxes and utterly differing analytical methods amongst similar subfields. All the same, why not make an attempt of union between conventional science and social sciences. The brain is better understood through neurology correct? Why not let it supplement Lacan or Freud where they are correct and caution them where they are incorrect?

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:37:31 2015 No.6487264

>>6487247
>If humanities faculties wanted to be moral, they would throw out unscientific judaic works by the FS and teach culture critiques written by the very people whom the West is oppressing at this moment and time, like Muslims. The fact that they cling to outdated Jewish religious politics when Israel is oppressing others shows that they are ideologically-driven and irresponsible.
What? If you're defending a scientific aproach why are you saying some work should be ignored just because of its origin? The work is above the author.

>state socialists
Every states does this, it was Napoleon's great discovery that if the people think they want what they have they'll die for it.

>chomsky
I'm no linguists. Wiki says that as soon as his theories were tried with chinese there was no way to make them work. It also says that many authors have improved on them, but it gets a bit too technical for my interest.

I'm still interested in seeing how you study history just with the scientific method. Like, you test the date of the wheel in the middle east against the carbon 14 the wheels in egypt have, you see its older in the middle east. How do you go from there? What kind of test you do?

>>6487252
Yeah, Oldboy is a great movie.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 23:37:43 2015 No.6487265 >>6487252 I'm an anarcho-syndicalist in case you couldn't tell. Of course capitalist economies do the same thing.

>>	Tripfags Must Die Sat May 2 23:40:59 2015 No.6487270 >>6487265 >anarcho-syndicalist >isn't a linguist A-a-are you Chomsky?

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:41:02 2015 No.6487271

>>6487256
>The brain is better understood through neurology correct?
Not at all
Neurology is extremely unscientific, it just registers patterns and proposes conclusions from the very limited data it has. Different emotions can be registered the same way, and it has absolutely no way to see how information is actually stored outside of main areas. It's like only watching someone react to a football game and thinking you know the rules of the game.

There is no better, and there is no absolute. You're supposed to keep going until you are personally sure and then defend and expand your stand. People pretend it's just a continental thing but in analytic philosophy you also have to sit down and see how dozens of dudes made dumb declarations and slowly made them work. It's the same.

>>6487265
then why singe out socialism and not saying statism? are you slow?

Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:42:02 2015 No.6487276

>>6487256
>So there is indeed a method of discerning whether something is better.

I know where you're going and I just want to say, you are using logic of dingleberry magnitudes.

>All the same, why not make an attempt of union between conventional science and social sciences

Because of what you just described. It's better to speak on human terms in these issues than with mathematics because of the issues with bias from subjectivity and the near impossibility of objective observation of human behavior (let alone animal behaviorism, biology, etc.)

As of yet, there's no mathematic parallel that can explain this well enough.

As an issue of human sociality, it's best to describe it using its own terms. Because whilst it cannot be "scientific", combining the scientific with the social is dubious at best.

Skepticism is not mathematic, it is just, skepticism.

>>6487265

Then read the material you're criticizing. It supplements it rather well.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 2 23:43:46 2015 No.6487281 >>6487276 As I keep saying, denial of objective truth is the perfect gateway drug to fascism or any kind of dictatorial system. We understand why freedom is necessary for humanity because we understand human nature for what it is.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sat May 2 23:46:24 2015 No.6487286 File: 91 KB, 335x329, 1428856388176.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6487281 >denial of objective truth >objective truth >objective >truth

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:46:47 2015 No.6487288
File: 32 KB, 147x161, c smile.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6487281
Freedom isn't necessary at all. People remain human without freedom. Human interaction is much more important, that's why in the jails besides taking away your freedom they use solitary as the real punishment. Also, many fascists were pretty into objective truths. Overall I don't see where you're taking this ideas from. You sound a bit dumb.

Anonymous Sat May 2 23:50:57 2015 No.6487300

>>6487288
Also, a tiny thing that has been bothering me
>things can be tested by mathematics and computers
that's redundant, computers work with mathematical logic. and that doesn't mean it's true, just that the data correlates.
like the people saying that ecosystems work with feedback and made computer models showing how they stabilize. and as soon as they tried testing that with real conditions it never came true. unless you understand every single tiny aspect mathematics don't work in a macro level.
I know books aren't your thing, OP, you should watch All Wacthed Over by Machines of Loving Grace. It has some forced conclusions and wonky stuff, but over all it has a good argument.

Anonymous Sun May 3 00:02:25 2015 No.6487327

>>6487247
>If humanities faculties wanted to be moral, they would throw out unscientific judaic works by the FS and teach culture critiques written by the very people whom the West is oppressing at this moment and time, like Muslims.
So it's okay to teach "unscientific" ideas so as long as their authors are the right religion?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 00:04:20 2015 No.6487329 >>6487281 >human nature As opposed to human artificiality?

Anonymous Sun May 3 00:16:08 2015 No.6487357

>>6487288
Denial of human nature is a staple of tyranny. Look at how state "socialist" governments assumed human behavior was completely malleable and thought they could do the bending.

>>6487327
Muslims are oppressed in the West, so it would be far more moral to teach works from their POV than works by those of oppressor religions. Preferably we would only teach theories that are scientific, but we don't live in that world yet.

>>6487329
Humans are a part of nature and we have a human nature, yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 00:26:51 2015 No.6487391 Hey Foucault, what does Biology mean to you? You keep using that word. I really think you don't know what it means.

Anonymous Sun May 3 00:27:31 2015 No.6487394

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/pol/

Anonymous Sun May 3 00:34:23 2015 No.6487405

i just created an account so i could say that mathematics is just another form of thought like philosophy. mathematical truth is constituted through historical processes; mathematics continually reaches crises and has to make baseless metaphysical judgments in order to existentially qualify its content. this occurred when the greeks accepted irrational numbers, when leibniz and newton accepted infinitesimals, when cantor proposed an infinite number of infinities.

Anonymous Sun May 3 00:42:31 2015 No.6487424

>>6487173
>You can use scientific methods to understand history.

Using applied technologies to ascertain information is common to almost every field of discovery, but history itself is not scientific. Past events cannot be tested on a trial and error basis as you demand.

>We disregard creationism because it's not scientific.

Creationism is not unique to Christianity, nor is Creationism discarded because it's created by Christians. It's discarded because it's pseudoscience. The same applies to atheistic garbage like historical materialism or austrian economics.

In any case, I have NEVER heard prominent critical theorists align their ideas with 'science' in order to gain credibility, which is what defines pseudoscience. This is a strawman argument created entirely by you.

>And the Frankfurt School could be called the predecessors to neocons.

Yeah, neocons love the Frankfurt school! They're all about eradicating that white privilege you mentioned earlier :^)

>whether imbedding unscientific religious mythology in their culture critiques

Again, cultural critiques aren't fucking science. A literary and humanist movement draws from mythology... wow. That's like, never happened before.

>whining on and off about "muh antisemitism"

Look at how you attempt to dismiss the concerns of one of the most persecuted groups in history by labeling it "whining" and using /pol/ memes like "muh". You yourself are a shining example of how anti antisemitism isn't dead in the modern world.

>which would have made sense during the 1940s but is now merely an excuse to silence criticism of Israel.

Plenty of modern Jewish academics are critical of Israel. Ever heard of Noam Chomsky? This is entry level shit. The anti-intellectual American religious right is far more supportive of Israel than leftist academics.

>The fact that universities are still teaching this stuff is an embarrassment AND dangerous.

Have you EVER been to university? The anti-Israel protests are massive, especially among socialists.

>And they can't be scientifically proven unlike formal logic.

How can formal logic be proven by an empirical methodology? This is so retarded. Why do you expect a method of argumentation from 300BC to be scientific anyway? I highly doubt you're a science major, you sound like one of those idiots who watched Dawkins and Kaku on television and never delves beyond pop science.

>Which its conclusions also can't be sceintifically proven.

Most studies concerning language use are beyond the realm of standard scientific testing, since semantics are fluid and determined by social usage. They're not fixed natural laws that can be determined by making physical objects interact in a controlled setting.

Did you miss the memo that logical positivism is self-refuting, or something? The idea that "only scientifically verifiable and falsifiable statements have meaning" is itself not able to be proven empirically.

Anonymous Sun May 3 00:43:06 2015 No.6487426

>>6485827
>Critical Theory" as a valid form of philosophy OR sociology
As far as I know, I was taught critical theory in high school English classes and now university literature classes. Marxist aren't even containing that shit to sociology and philosophy, nope, English essays are now called critical analyses, and in said analyses, the student is expected to use critical theory.

Anonymous Sun May 3 00:47:14 2015 No.6487433

>>6487357
>Denial of human nature is a staple of tyranny. Look at how state "socialist" governments assumed human behavior was completely malleable and thought they could do the bending.

Yeah, and fascists assumed it was set-in-stone, with groups suffering from temporary economic hardship being intrinsically inferior. You read this shit right out of Stephen Pinker.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 00:51:21 2015 No.6487442 >>6486492 Someone doesn't understand Occam's razor.

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sun May 3 00:52:14 2015 No.6487443 >>6487426 It's uh cuhnspirahcy I tells ya

>>	Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz Sun May 3 00:54:41 2015 No.6487447 >>6487391 Biology ie Biological Science. What plebs major in when they want to go visit the ocean for an income of $10

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 03:08:23 2015 No.6487744 >>6487426 And literature class is where it belongs, permanently. Sociology in America needs to be kept scientific and not academic mumbo-jumbo like it is in France or Germany.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 03:20:38 2015 No.6487779 >>6487433 Fuck Pinker. Most of his claims do not hold any weight.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 03:27:42 2015 No.6487797 Marxism was proven false already because human nature just doesn't work that way

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 03:31:35 2015 No.6487807 Can someone explain to me the difference between the restricted and general economies with regard to Bataille?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 03:34:17 2015 No.6487814 >>6487797 True that's the major flaw with leftism in general. Once you start taking into account human nature you naturally move to the right side of the political spectrum

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 03:34:31 2015 No.6487817 >>6487797 Yes. This is what I've been saying all along.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 03:36:01 2015 No.6487821 >>6486504 >This is bullshit and you know it. http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell24.htm

>>	Anonymous Sun May 3 03:50:33 2015 No.6487852 >>6485827 >this thread again

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature