Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: noam-2_1672791c.jpg (21KB, 460x288px) Image search:
[Google]
21KB, 460x288px
How do filthy continentals recover after reading the below greentext? Zizek? BTFO! Hegel? BTFO! Nietzsche? BTFO!
Even Stirner, who I like, wrote a big fat boring book that could have been two pages long at most.
Why does the government give money to those sneaky conniving continentals? False analogies, over-extrapolation, appeals to authority, flowery and dense and incoherent language, over-abstraction, not speaking English, 100% unfalsifiable assertions, disgusting pseudo-scientific use of scientific concepts, the use of fiction / jokes in order to create false analogies, complete ignorance of empirical data... is there no length the Eternal Continental will not go to in order to gain followers and a juicy book deal with Verso or their alternative publisher of choice?
>What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing.Žižekis an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.
>>
He's got a point but maybe insists on it a bit too much. I don't think continental philosophy says 'nothing,' but what it says, it says with an extreme lack of clarity that's kind of annoying. It's closer to the arts than to the sciences in that it develops 'themes' and 'motifs' moreso than testable hypotheses, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to study it.
>>
>actually not understanding the coffee without milk or dusty balls jokes
>>
>Why does the government give money to those sneaky conniving continentals
They don't. Continental philosophy has almost no impact on academic philosophy. It's sold in art galleries and Waterstones to pretentious teenagers, and remains largely unread even by them. These people are hardly a dominating force in academic, hoovering up all the research grants.
The main effect of continental philosophy is to make laymen think that philosophy is bullshit.
>>
Quite based
>>
>empirically testable...
Stopped reading there.
>>
>>876184
I'm sure they do. Pretty much all universities in Europe are public and government funded
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1