>He defined post-modernism as the claim that there are no

>>10028731
Why do these people not know what they're talking about?

>>10028736
>a guy that wrote over 50 books on philosophy and specializes on aesthetics doesn't know about postmodernism; I do

easy, boy. this shit argument might fly with peterson, not here

File: 15051051498.jpg (134KB, 720x900px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 720x900px

>>10028736
How do you know he doesnt?

>>10028743
>>10028745
>postmodernism imposes political correctness as absolutely binding

>>10028736
I've never seen anyone here supply a definition of it beyond "it's not actually thing man whoa so deep."

Post-modernism, skepticism towards objective knowledge as well as social roles and hierarchy, etc, seem to be tied up with each other

>>10028752
it does

>>10028760
no

Because postmodernism represents the jewish inversion, or transvaluation as Nietzsche put it, of western values. People get very mad when you say this, though, as can be seen from the reactions in the Derrida thread; Derrida being a jew who did arguably the most to advance these postmodern jewish revalued norms.

>>10028736
why is /lit/ so arrogant?

>>10028743
There are plenty of intellectuals who have written 50 or so worthless books specializing on various topics, you could trip over them on your way to doing something more important than reading them. Even if an author has merit, one should remain ruthlessly critical when they totally misread another field of thought. In fact, it's a sign that we value these authors that we have the intellectual honesty to point out their flaws. So no, you are the one with the "shit argument", try to come up with something better

>>10028802
>literally makes an empty accusation against an accomplished scholar
>"I'M JUST BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST BRO"

>>10028786
>when the resident Jew-obsessed retard shows up

https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=transvaluation+values

Do I detect a bit of ressentiment, my friend?

>>10028731
>there are no grounds for truth, objectivity, and meaning, and therefore conflicts between views are nothing more than contests of power,
That's basically true.
>while the West is required to judge other cultures in their own terms, Western culture is adversely judged as ethnocentric and racist.
This is an accurate description of what is occurring, but it does not necessarily follow from the previous description. The lack of meaning, etc. means there's no imperative for the West to care about whether it is "racist" or not. We can do whatever we choose to do.

>>10028813
Are you going to repeat the accomplished scholar meme again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgGrYLKlJf8

is Corey Anton the best youtube philosopher?

>>10028829
>the obvious connection between extensive scholarship in a field and domain over its basic concepts is a meme
Still expecting you adolescents to come up with any substantial critique of his statement

>>10028817
You need to make a real counter-argument. This doesn't qualify.

>>10028866
You sound like an authority on Nietzsche. Would you say you behavior and attitude constitutes ressentiment?

>>10028874
No, and this doesn't qualify either.

>>10028731
Scruton at least can discuss a topic without falling into a pointless analogy comparing the situation to Pinocchio or some shit.

File: 1505131546289.png (681KB, 1000x722px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 1000x722px

>>10028731
What's so impressive about this remark? It's the same as saying "is that a fact" in response to someone claiming nothing is really true.

>>10028825
this, but the second notion is more because of global capitalism

ironically morons don't want to understand derrida, even though his notions towards anxiety in hauntology could be effectively used to argue for strong borders (differance)

>>10028825
racism is fundamentally negative

otherwise the difference would be recognized as something else, the west wouldn't call itself racist it'd call itself superior

words matter

>>10028976

>choosing to paint with mineral pigment oil paints instead of feces is fundamentally negative

>>10028825
>there's no imperative for the West to care about whether it is "racist" or not. We can do whatever we choose to do.

You don't seem to understand the power dynamic at play. "We," as in whites, are not making those decisions; an anti-white jewish elite is. That is why whites are viewed as inherently racist and evil, and the entity to be replaced, because that's an outcome beneficial to jews.

>>10028825
What he's saying is that, in the absence of grand narratives or meaning, relativism itself is the only truth. Ethnocentric and racist white nations are opressors, meanwhile any display of racism or ethnocentrism from a minority is empowerment or a cultural expression we should respect ("conflicts between views are nothing more than contests of power"). The academic definition of racism itself has mutated in order to reflect this: it's racial discrimination + power.

>>10028976
And if it is "negative"? So what? It doesn't matter; it has no meaning. There is only the will to power.

>>10028731
>Western culture is judged as ethnocentric and racist
How is this wrong?

>>10028850
There is no connection. But you can keep asserting it if you like.

>>10029002
Good, concise summary.

>>10029009
Does it matter?

>>10029022
If it's true then judgement is not adverse and the whole thesis crumbles.

>>10029031
But there are no grounds for truth, are there? So how does the reality of the situation matter?

>>10028731

What a retard. I guess that is why he went into philosophy and not science. Philosophy is the only refuge of the "Whoa man what if you are just like imagining if things exist bro" kind of people. He is a clown, a charlatan and a moron. Anyone can be an "expert" in Philosophy. It takes real skill and education to learn a science.

>>10029040
Scruton's opinions definitively don't matter to me.

>>10028731
whats wrong with his hair
we seriously need fa

This postmodernism thing sounds like something an insane Dostoyevsky character would believe in and ramble about.
Do you people honestly believe that a larger part of the western academia would just accept this nonsense and thess blatantly contradicting claims? Do you really think that the thinking and writings of thousands of different people can be boiled down to one or two contradictory sentences?

This is the guy that thinks any music made with computers is automatically bad, and that there is some builtin need for religion in humans, right?

>>10028731

By that logic all cultures are racist. Therefor his unscientific OPINION is bunk.

>>10028731

Why does the opinion of some unscientific faggot matter?

>>10029103
>Do you people honestly believe that a larger part of the western academia would just accept this nonsense and thess blatantly contradicting claims? Do you really think that the thinking and writings of thousands of different people can be boiled down to one or two contradictory sentences?
Yes.

>>10029105
>there is some builtin need for religion in humans
That's true though.

File: 420037.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>10028736
Is "doesn't understand postmodernism" the new "not real communism"?

>>10029236
No

>>10028765
>leftist """""arguments"""""

this is why you lost the election sweetie

>>10028765
Various philosophers associated with the movement had no problem replacing old systems of control with new ones.

>>10029236
Maybe for some people. I've never felt a need for it.

File: sinclair_quote.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>>10028850
Different anon. I take your side, but to be fair, modern economics is a huge counterexample.

>>10029103
Yes, and most academic thought filters down from a small handful of universities controlled by jews. There is also a massive amount of forced conformity. I know you've been told that academia is this bastion of free-thinking intelligent people, but in reality it's a bunch of gen xers and boomers who have swallowed more communist propaganda than you could ever imagine, are experts at toeing the party line, and take their orders from east coast jews heading the departments and filtering everything down into other western universities and then across the world.

File: left wing doublethink.jpg (351KB, 598x597px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 598x597px

>>10029286
This

>>10029284

You follow a religion anon, you just don't believe it's one.

>>10028825

>That's basically true

This is your brain on p*stm*dernism

>>10029299
Sounds like your religion is believing everyone has a religion.

Best to define the word so we're not talking across purposes.

>>10028731
>>"The very reasoning which sets out to destroy the ideas of objective truth and absolute value imposes political correctness as absolutely binding, and cultural relativism as objectively true."
damn

>>10029291
That image is really retarded, so much fallacy.

>Race is a social construct
True, biologists and anthropologists stay away from it because it doesn't usefully define anything, actual genetics show a gradation of gene change across the geography of the world and no specific 'race' of humans is significantly different genetically from any other to warrant separation into the groups that currently are defined as races.

>White people are evil and racist
What does this have to do with race being a social construct or not? White people could be evil and racist whether or not race was a social construct or a biological fact. This isn't contradictory at all, in fact most of what this image tries to say is contradictory, isn't.

File: Long stats.gif (1MB, 616x5370px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 616x5370px

>>10029345
>True, biologists and anthropologists stay away from it because it doesn't usefully define anything, actual genetics show a gradation of gene change across the geography of the world and no specific 'race' of humans is significantly different genetically from any other to warrant separation into the groups that currently are defined as races.

Jesus Christ

the genetic groups are VERY distinct

File: !!!.jpg (20KB, 329x357px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 329x357px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHGNf6nWUm0

Roger Scruton BTFO'ing of Harry Potter is better than Bloom's desu.

Also he's pretty handsome

File: science.png (960KB, 598x702px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 598x702px

>>10029345

>>10029291
>18. Taxation needs to be fair. / Flat tax? What are you, crazy?
There isn't a contradiction here. Flat tax is only fair in some autistic, ideological sense.

File: 1505399349600.png (196KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 500x500px

>>10029365
>I GET TO DECIDE WHAT SOCIAL JUSTICE IS

It will be real communism when I do it. Promise!

>>10029367
I'm not an SJW. Increasing the tax burden on the poor and decreasing the burden on the wealthy so that you can say, "Well the percentage is equal so therefore it's fair," is a purely ideological maneuver.

>>10028765
the contemporary manifestations of postmodern thought that developed in the 60s most certainly do

whether or not fucking foucault set it out in this way in so many words is irrelevant

>>10029350
>>10029361
That's an interesting opinion you've just stated there. Can you actually refute the research instead of posting shitty macros, whose sources you probably didn't even check yourself?

Meanwhile, here in reality:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226639
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract

>>10029345

>That image is really retarded, so much fallacy

Ever heard of Lewontin's Fallacy?

>>10029376
But you arbitrarily adjusting flat tax, which is the purest definition of a "fair tax", is somehow NOT an ideological maneuver?

File: 1505530345594.png (78KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x357px

>>10029380
Your diversity experiment is a failed one, shlomo.

Are you excited for the White ethnostate?

>>10029381
You failed to respond to the question I proposed: How is saying white people are evil in any way contradictory or related to at all if race is a social construct or not?

>>10029299
>You follow a religion anon, you just don't believe it's one.
This is true of literally every pseud in the first world who talks big about not being religious.

>>10029385
You'll never come up with something completely fair, but yes, increasing the burden upon people who can afford it is simply practical. If you take 5% from a minimum wage worker and 5% from a CEO, you're going to harm the minimum wage worker far more. It's common sense. There's no absolute solution but a flat tax cannot be construed as fair.

>>10029391
>Race as a category is an invalid concept
>X race is Y
How is that not contradictory?

>>10029401
>A flat tax cannot be construed as fair

my sides

>>10029391

I don't really have a dog in this fight to be honest. I'm not that guy you were responding to. But if you really want to know what I think. . .how could white people be "evil" if the white race doesn't even exist? If white people are genetically indistinguishable from blacks how could we be more evil?

>>10029403
>Race as a category is an invalid concept
No, that isn't what the image said. Put the words that were actually said there and demonstrate that 'race is a social construct' is an incompatible statement alongside 'race X is Y.'
Insurance is a social construct. Insurance can also be things.

>>10029403
Correct, I was just about to say that this is the dynamic being referred to, but it's such a redpill 101 thing I couldn't muster the energy.

>>10029365
Everyone gets taxed the same percentage, that sounds fair.

>>10029410
"race is a social construct" means that race does not exist in the physical realm, only in our heads. "white people are evil" means that white people are evil in the material world BECAUSE of their race that libturds, as I've just explained, also claim only exists in the mental world.

this is a contradiction.

keep losing elections sweetheart.

>>10029404
>>10029412
It isn't fair because the burden imposed can be drastically different depending upon the wealth of the taxed individual, with the greater burden falling upon the poor. The fact that the percentage is the same means nothing, practically speaking.

>>10029401

Rich people never pay the full amount anyway, because they have access to tax shelters that the poor can't afford. If you raise rates high enough the rich will simply take their money and leave, so what's the point?

>>10029425
the burden imposed on the poor is greater when you use anything but a flat tax because the corporations see it as unfair and then use a million loopholes to dodge taxes, which means the poor lose out a lot more than if we just kept things fair in the first place.

>>10029410
I think I understand what you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that the concept of race being a "social construct", doesn't invalidate the concept itself. If so, I agree, and there's no contradiction.
But many people do categorize certain concepts as "social constructs" as a derogatory way to invalidate them. Basically they're saying "it's just made up".

>>10029409
Race being a social construct does not mean race does not exist. It means it exists as a social construct. The proposition was not that race didn't exist, but that what constitutes a race is arbitrarily defined by society.

>>10029424
>"race is a social construct" means that race does not exist in the physical realm, only in our heads.
Okay.
>"white people are evil" means that white people are evil in the material world BECAUSE of their race that libturds, as I've just explained, also claim only exists in the mental world.
Why does it being a construct mean that it cannot have properties? You have not sufficiently demonstrated this. Made up things can't have properties? The meaning of words only exists inside the minds of humans. They're completely made up and arbitrarily defined. Does that mean words can't actually mean anything, according to you, because they are also social constructions?

>>10029453
made up things cannot have properties in the real world you absolute mongoloid

>>10029356
That was a good listen. Thanks for posting it

>>10029460
He sort of demonstrated that they can.

>>10029460
So if I section people off into the groups 'average weight' and 'obese' by labeling anyone who is over an arbitrary weight limit into the 'obese' group I'm not logically allowed to say 'obese people all weigh above the arbitrary weight I've set' because a construct is not allowed to have properties in the real world? You really aren't making any sense.

>>10029430
>>10029431
>loopholes, etc.
I think you can have a simplified tax code that is still progressive. Anyway, I'm not advocating that the wealthy pay inordinate amounts.

>>10029453

>The proposition was not that race didn't exist, but that what constitutes a race is arbitrarily defined by society.

So when Dylan Roof chimps out and murders a bunch of innocent people, why should I share the blame? I'm only ARBITRARILY grouped in the same race as him, after all.

>>10029468
>>10029469
how do we define whether people are "evil" or "racist"? by the actions they take in the material world, not by some mental wishy-washery. if race is a social construct, how can a race of people also be evil when races are literally not real?

>>10029476

>I think you can have a simplified tax code that is still progressive

If it were that easy the loopholes would already be closed. Do you think the government likes it when people avoid taxes?

>>10028743
This brainlet considers Mozart and Beethoven to be the peak of music. He's a normie and a pleb.

>>10029488
Then what's the point of advocating a flat tax? You think exceptions and loop-holes won't be built into it over time?

>>10029480
I don't think even you know what you're trying to get at, friend.

>>10029480
You're not only getting off track to avoid the fact that you actually can't come up with a valid argument, but you've actually regressed in your understanding of the conversation. You say:
>if race is a social construct,
But then you immediately redefine it to be something with no overlap with the former definition you provided:
>when races are literally not real?
When you were just arguing one post ago that social constructs cannot have properties because they are made up:
>made up things cannot have properties in the real world
So make up your mind. Is it a social construct, or is it not real? Social construct does not imply not real. It implies 'exists as a social construct,' which you seem to have admitted because you were previously arguing for it not being able to have properties because it was made up. If it was made up then it's real. The shitty image macro said that 'white people are evil' is a contradictory statement to 'race is a social construct,' not 'race is not real.' And you've yet to provide evidence towards those two sentences being contradictory.

File: 1504803630287.jpg (46KB, 640x595px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x595px

>>10029536
why did you reply to my post twice? are you new?

>Social construct does not imply not real.

in this context it does. it means "races are not real; all humans are the same no matter what skin color you have". stop trying to squirm, marxshit. your time here is up.

>>10029490

What do you think is the peak of music then?

>>10029396
It's the hallmark of those who desperately need to believe everyone is equally as irrational as them.

>>10028736
Not real communism. We get it. However, we don't like it, and we won't be having it or trying it your way.

>>10029557
Kendrick Lamar

>>10029345
It's a question of usage. When people say "race is a social construct", it's usually in a scenario where someone raises an argument based on some kind of essentialism; to claim race is a social construct is equivalent to ascertaining its arbitrariness and worthlessness as a tool to classify or characterize groups of people. That notion is evidently contradictory with what's implied by statements like "white people are evil and racist": in this case, race is not only presumed to be an accurate, effective metric which we can group individuals, but also the source of essential traits.

>>10029557
Certainly not the two most famous classical composers LMAO

>>10029557
Savant - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l87Xb9bKjrU

File: 1496812533287.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>tfw bullying marxists into submission
they know their place

>>10029550
>>10029550
>in this context it does. it means "races are not real; all humans are the same no matter what skin color you have".
Well that's a really interesting opinion you have on the definition of a social construct. Good to know all you have are opinions, but even those don't appear to be terribly consistent because you contradicted yourself by arguing for a position you no longer seem to have, which is that 'social construct' implies race is made up rather that simply not existing. Seems like you just redefine your terms whenever it suits you.

>stop trying to squirm, marxshit. your time here is up.
I'm not a liberal. I'm just pointing out your double digit IQ.

>>10029584
Calling it a social construct specifically implies arbitrariness, not necessarily questioning it's worth or accuracy, even if it is brought up alongside arguments that call into question it's worth AS a social construct. The image macro specified that that very specific sentence was a contradiction alongside 'white people are evil', not that an argument against the worth of race was contradicting it. Had it said 'Saying race is not a useful measurement of anything is contradictory to calling white people racist' then you would be right, for sure.
It does not follow that an arbitrary measurement is also necessarily worthless, so simply calling it a social construct doesn't conflict with it. You can accurately expand the sentence "White people are evil" to be "The group of people who are currently meeting the criteria required to be defined by society (or me) as 'white' have a specific shared attribute, that is, being evil," which definitely does not reflect the assumption that 'white people are evil and racist' presumes that race is a useful or effective metric, or that their race is the source of the attribute at all, as any of those presumptions being true or not wouldn't change the validity of the proposition. Rather it only suggests that people who meet an arbitrary criteria have something else in common.

File: average antifa protest.webm (3MB, 740x416px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 740x416px

>>10029761
my webm is you irl comrade

>>10029761
holy shit what a worthless and disgusting post. if I could sum up the modern left in a single 4chan post, it would be this one.

>you contradicted yourself by arguing for a position you no longer seem to have, which is that 'social construct' implies race is made up rather that simply not existing
funny how you don't give a definition of social construct, because you know I'm right

your reply to that other guy is just another slew of pure insipid and meaningless verbal diarrhoea that contradicts itself and stumbles yet again on the definition of "social construct". almost like you're trying to avoid touching on that area of our little discussion.

also
>it's
>can't use apostrophes properly

uneducated lower class marxists are really depressing to engage with.

I sincerely hope you're trolling and not really this much of a sluggard

File: 1492161284368.jpg (100KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 540x540px

Don't you guys tire...of this routine. I can't even stand replying to people of modern politics. I myself was guilty of impersonating them for humorous effect but it has clearly gone too far.

>>10029888
>funny how you don't give a definition of social construct, because you know I'm right
Except of course, I actually did, several times:
>The proposition was not that race didn't exist, but that what constitutes a race is arbitrarily defined by society.
>Calling it a social construct specifically implies arbitrariness
>Social construct does not imply not real.
>"race is a social construct" means that race does not exist in the physical realm, only in our heads.
>Okay.
Notice how my definition did not change suddenly, as yours has:
>"race is a social construct" means that race does not exist in the physical realm
>made up things cannot have properties in the real world you absolute mongoloid (at this point you failed to articulate an argument supporting this, ignored my refutation of such idiocy and instead shifted the topic a bit alongside changing your definition)
>races are literally not real
>"races are not real; all humans are the same no matter what skin color you have"
The mark of pseudoscience is, of course, inconsistency.

>your reply to that other guy is just another slew of pure insipid and meaningless verbal diarrhoea that contradicts itself
Yet you've resorted to an ad hominem instead of actually refuting the 'meaningless verbal diarrhoea that contradicts itself,' presumably because you're incapable of actually finding anything specific in it that is significantly wrong. Speaks for itself really.

>and stumbles yet again on the definition of "social construct". almost like you're trying to avoid touching on that area of our little discussion.
The definition of a social construct is pretty clearly defined, and I have stated it: something arbitrarily defined by society. Your inability to read and understand like an adult != me not defining the term.

>I sincerely hope you're trolling and not really this much of a sluggard
You have presented no real argument at any point. You have not even specifically addressed 99% of any points presented, instead preferring to just single out sentences with epic one liners and redefine your terms when you get caught out. We aren't even playing the same game, yet you act so pretentiously, as if you've been winning the entire time. I think it's your bedtime.

>>10029988
>>10029988
im not the guy you respond but...

>Saying race is not a useful measurement of anything is contradictory to calling white people racist' then you would be right, for sure.
is just that. ok, if you want the people be this clingy with words.

>Rather it only suggests that people who meet an arbitrary criteria have something else in common.
but the THING is that "arbitrary criteria" totally demise or reduce the notion of whatever supposedly they have in common.
"arbitrary criteria" is not something neutral and clean, if your assumption is arbitrary your conclusion must be arbitrary. if you admit race is arbitrary, whatever you say about race you must admit is arbitrary.
is just that.

File: gWyUwE9.png (70KB, 2024x1432px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 2024x1432px

>>10028736
This has more to do with /lit/ having dunnin kruger and thinking they know better than people with iq nearly 100 points higher than theirs.

>>10029306
Not him, but you do some sort of magical thinking to make sense of the world. You are not a 'hard' atheist/nihilist. E.g. you probably believe yourself to have value, or if your mother died you'd probably be sad

File: 1505339448549.png (226KB, 595x595px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 595x595px

>>10029390
NOT

>>10029380
Not him but
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

>>10029557
Alkaloid

>>10028731
>post-modernism
>no grounds for Truth

Is Scruton pretending that this is a modern epistemological stance?

File: 1493190418042.png (78KB, 506x354px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 506x354px

>>10028743

>>10029306
*At cross-purposes

File: image.jpg (55KB, 1031x783px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1031x783px

>>10028731
Wait... Scruton thinks that postmodernism is skepticism? This is it?

>>10028802
The sheer arrogance in this place is really something else.

Love reading the arrogant /lit/ mediocre undergrads actually trying to convince anyone they know more than Scruton. Faggots, you're nothing and you'll never be anything. You're destined to being wage-slaves because you're not smart enough to be a public intellectual. How do you deal with that? All these people you insist on criticizing are smarter than you and know more than you. Realize that, kiddies.

>>10028731
All the po-mo really fucked with me in college. By the time I was graduating it was unbearable. The newer profs were commie gen-xers, with one exception, and watching the old guard, who still pushed the canon, get slowly pushed out by them and the schools "WOKE" new leadership was the most painful part. I'm not exaggerating the communist stuff either, the readings we were getting were gramski and the self-hating French intellectuals of the 20th century and straight up cultural Marxism. I hate saying the latter but I don't know what else to call it, because breitbart's ranting seemed to be describing what I observed pretty accurately. I only got away with my thesis, a critique of postmodernism, by pretending it was a criticism of "fake news" (please don't ask) and selling it as that to my thesis advisor, who carried around a little book called the "Che Reader."

>>10030739
Are you the guy whonwanted to become just like him in that other thread? lol, how pathetic

>>10029356
That was pretty great.

>>10029249
No, because Marx's criticism of capitalism is and remains solid, while the people behind pomo didn't actively criticize the shit that people claimed it justified when they were alive.

>>10029988
>made up things cannot have properties in the real world you absolute mongoloid (at this point you failed to articulate an argument supporting this)

this is your brain on leftism

>>10030103
if you leftists are so smart, why did you lose the election?

>>10030546
it destroys your argument

>>10029490
Does he really think that? LMAO

>>10029356
>Hurr, Harry Potter bad because socialism and not-Christian

That's basically what this boils down to. Pathetic.

>>10030968
This. Harry Potter is pretty great. Fuck Scruton and Bloom.

>>10030968
bait, you didn't even listen to the vid

>>10030972
Peterson vouches for it

>>10030982
He simplifies it so much it doesn't matter and judges it for not aiding his particular conservative values. He goes into the whole shtick and the book teaching kids to rely on magical thinking instead of humility and rationality in the face of reality, but that's a pretty shitty, value driven criticism all round. He's not wrong to call out the main conflict for being simplistic, but the Harry Potter world works as it does and has more beyond that, including some pretty nifty exploration of slavery and complacency in the face of it.

>>10030721
Scruton is a known fraud and shill.
You wouldn't take anything Johan Hari said seriously either

>>10028743
Scruton is even more of a joke than Peterson, nobody takes him seriously

>>10031099
You are just a fucking worthless, talentless piece of shit. Scruton is a perfectly well-educated gentleman, who has refined his taste for the finest arts that there are. Mozart, Beethoven, Shakespeare, smoke camel and winston cigarettes he has mastered them all. His knowledge is crystalline, his judgement is flawless. Just go back to your fucking room and let the big boys do their job.

File: 1505095063534.gif (930KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 220x165px

>>10031099
>>10031107
hahaha

>>10031111
I'm one of the people you have responded to and I'm a literal fascist

>>10031119
me too comrade communism has never been tried

>>10031110
kek

>>10031099
>>10031107
This. Scruton is a joke. Only brainlets take conservative "thinkers" seriously.

>>10029557
Blackbull and the Cuckboys

>>10031143
There are plenty of great conservative thinkers. The issue is that scruton is a shill who discgraced himself 20 years ago. I made the comparison to the left wing Hari, who was caught plagerizing.

File: scrotum-reader.png (288KB, 420x659px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 420x659px

>>10028731
>Scruton
It's weird how a random typo from a publisher got his name mixed up as Scruton. Doubly surprised this site of all places hasn't picked up on it and corrected it. Here's a corrected cover

>>10031151
>discgraced himself 20 years ago
So did Chomsky but he gets away with it

File: 2I0T3559_88732c.jpg (54KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 620x413px

>>10028731
When did John Hurt start writing under a pseudonym?

>>10031226
Chomsky wrote journalistic reports based on the informations available in the first 2 years of thr conflict: as soon as new informations arised he aknowledged and spread them. After that he painstakingly recorded the evolution of the reportage of the Colombian genocide in Manifscturing Consent.
Scruton is a guy who instead used to shill big tobacco for 5500£ a bang.

>>10031246
>used to shill big tobacco for 5500£ a bang.
Best people to shill for if you ask me. That's their whole setup

>>10031257
Being a big tobacco shill will picture you as a fundamentally immoral piece of shit: he should have sticked with shilling for big meat instead. Now one has any problem with that.

>>10029624
I actually like this region of music. But this one just sounds like the most generic basic shit within this genre. Only thing good is the first and last minute.

>>10031272
*no one

>>10031272
>being a judging Jane
You think claiming neet bucks makes you better than Scruton? Why shouldn't he supplement his income?
And besides, shilling for BAT doesn't actually detract from his thought in any real way, any more than Chomsky's retarded stuff detracts from his linguistics work

>>10030358
How is valuing yourself magical thinking? Obviously I do because I enjoy living. You'll have to define what you mean. If you mean something like human rights, then those were ideas created to ensure society was happier and had less suffering. Tyrannies with no human rights tended to cause far more misery and were a nightmare to live under.

I was sad when my mother died because I loved her, I didn't want her to never enjoy life again, and missed be able to see her ever again. Where is the magical thinking in that

This is a very silly re-definition of religion.

>>10031294
>You think claiming neet bucks makes you better than Scruton?
Not a NEET. God, I wasn't even being judgemental, I was just pointing out how demonized is big tobacco in our society. You get triggered too easily
>Why shouldn't he supplement his income?
Yeah, why shouldn't public intellectuals shill for big tobacco? Let's see if you can manage to find an answer, retard.
>shilling for BAT doesn't actually detract from his thought in any real way
Which was nothing extraordinary to begin with.
>any more than Chomsky's retarded stuff detracts from his linguistics work
Chomsky never shilled. His politics might be fucked up, but he has been an essentially honest person, unlike Scruton, who sold his credibility and his reputation for what should be pocket change (considering that he was a public intellectual of international fame).

>>10031309
>Yeah, why shouldn't public intellectuals shill for big tobacco? Let's see if you can manage to find an answer, retard
Why shouldn't they?

>>10031294
Yeah, actually it does make that person better. Do you understand morality or does it conveniently stop mattering when there's cash to be made? Are you honestly that stupid?

>>10031302
>How is valuing yourself magical thinking? Obviously I do because I enjoy living.

And what are you basing this on? Why should you value your enjoyment? You have no rational or logical basis for doing this, as you can't solve this is/ought gap.
Your beliefs are just as arbitrary as believing in the Ressurection

>>10031273
Now you may ask: What is a good example of music within this "region" of music?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZdsXssFoAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOv6j_Id9Tc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL4KJmMGda8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSTx31dxmgA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAu5l9OschI

>>10030695
>There's no money in philosophy

>>10031216
kok

>>10031344
Lmao because it feels good. It's the most universal fact of consciousness. Humans, and animals more broadly, enjoy pleasure and avoid suffering.

And no, you're making a false equivalency that's akin to saying Scientologists' cosmology is just as legitimate because we don't fully know how the big bang arose, how quantum gravity works, what dark matter is, etc.

>>10031328
You really can't get it, do you? You genuinely can't understand why selling your own word to multinational industries as a public intellectual is wrong? Are you that dense?

File: hume[1].jpg (22KB, 250x341px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x341px

>>10031404
>Lmao because it feels good. It's the most universal fact of consciousness. Humans, and animals more broadly, enjoy pleasure and avoid suffering.

Welcome to big school

>>10031404
utilitarianism does not describe everything.
you people always try so fucking hard to make the world operate under the most basic of principles.
maybe that's why you all hate post-modernism so much because you can't view the world as anything other than A -> B. If that's because you're not capable or you're just afraid of the outcomes, I have no clue.

>>10031407
Chomsky takes money from MIT and indirectly the US government.
Why is taking money from the government in exchange for your views any better than from a corporation

>>10031412
it's a shame that Humean naturalized ethics never took off

>>10031416
Are you trying to conflate tobacco companies with universities?
Holy fucking kek this can't be a real person

>>10031416
I can't understand if you're retarded or if you are just trying to suck Scruton's dick as hard as possible. It may be both.

>>10028802
The speaker is irrelevant, only the meaning of words they are speaking are relevant.

>>10031424
>Are you trying to conflate tobacco companies with universities?
Of course not. Universities are much worse than tobacco companies.

>>10031412
I don't need to be told I ought to value happiness. It's self-evidently desirable to be happy.

What's even the alternative, making your miserable and suffering like some BDSM slave because a book said it's good? Lol.

>>10030558
Are you serious? A /pol/ 'i need so many retarded arguments to copypaste that nobody will want to refute all of them so I automatically win' website full of news articles from tabloids, 'papers' published in open access journals, opinion pieces, books, Chinese research (lol), blogs and in general things completely unrelated to research about diversity among humans? I hope you don't honestly look at that website and see a treasure trove of evidence supporting the idea that traditional races are supported by genetics, because that would be admitting your own scientific illiteracy, and would mean you're someone who prefers to trust blogs and the Daily Mail over actual peer review.

>>10031414
I'm not even arguing about post-modernism. Just responding to the silly claim that everyone is religious. There's no leap of faith in wanting to be happy. It seems it's you who has to twist themselves into a gordian knot to deal with something so basic.

>>10031469
>Scruton's fans

>>10031472
>I don't need to be told I ought to value happiness. It's self-evidently desirable to be happy.
So magical thinking then? You have a priori decided these things without any logic, rationality or evidence. Glad we agree

>>10030358
>you probably believe yourself to have value, or if your mother died you'd probably be sad
these are not rational and conscious things

>>10031488
My point exactly. We all indulge in irrational thought to make sense of the world and our place within it. Some people's irrational thoughts involve Jesus, so just a vague sense of their own value

>>10031494
There is no such thing as a rational thought.

>>10031482
One poisons individuals, the other gleefully destroys civilizations. Anyone that thinks about it seriously will know that the latter is worse.

Is he inSCRUTable, though?

>>10029040
Anon makes a valid point, other anon then brings the ground for all truth into question
Yeah, you should feel insecure about Scruton.

>>10029782
Where is this? Madrid?

>>10031475
>actual peer review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktlmmx8DiXc

>>10032385
Well, that was an embarrassingly shitty video. He actually parrots the 'most psychology studies can't be reproduced' shit, which is absolutely hilarious, and is long debunked:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong/
He says that the origin of the peer review journal system is the US government during the cold war, and it was made up to divvy out research grants, despite the fact that peer review was invented in and used since the 1700's, and was not an American 'practice' at all. So unlike what he says, yes, it has been put through it's paces, about 300 years worth of scrutiny, which has lead to the creation of the technology you are currently using to attempt to undermine peer review and regress us to the dark ages.
At this point I had to turn the twat off, his ad sequiturs, misrepresentation of the meaning of the research and complete ignorance of what he was talking about was too much to handle.
>humans are subject to biases
>papers that are consistent with previous research and earlier observation will be accepted more often than papers that completely conflict with all established knowledge i.e. a paper that says the sky is blue will be accepted more often than one that says the sky is purple with orange and white polka dots (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)
>bad research can sometimes make it into the literature
>somehow this is evidence that peer review is a broken 'clown court' and useless system made up by the gubbermint to make incorrect research an industry (despite the fact that that bad research has lead to countless technologies, which means it is not bad research)
This is conspiritard levels of stupidity. Peer review is not perfect, but no system could ever be. The system improves constantly, with double blind becoming a more popular option in recent years than it was previous. The alternative is getting your research from blogs, whose credentials are whatever they say they are, and whose results are whatever they want them to be.

>>10031484
t. pseud

Happiness being desirable is a posteriori. After you experience the state of happiness you realize it's fuckin awesome and strive to achieve it. There's no magical thinking involved, it's simply the reality of experience.

It's pretty funny how you've contorted yourself into this position where wanting to be happy is the same as subscribing to some played out superstitions.

>>10029002
That isn't relativism though. White people being the world's oppressors is a grand narrative if I've ever seen one. The idea that postmodernism is all these things is just lazy thinking, its based on a need to have a single, archetypal ideological enemy responsible for all the negativity. That narrative isn't based on postmodernism, barely anyone reads that besides old white people. Its based on brown and black peoples resentment that they aren't as successful as white people, and accepted because of white peoples guilt at their own success. Guilt is always a byproduct of success.

>>10031359
If you think this shit is the height of music you have a diseased brain. Shit smearing isn't art.

>>10032852
t. brainlet
There are so many unexamined assumptions in this post. It's obvious you haven't thought about this in any depth.
Basically go away, read some Hume, then come back to talk with the adults

>>10031475
>and would mean you're someone who prefers to trust blogs and the Daily Mail over actual peer review.

I know one of these bozos in real life and they are far far worst than this. He says he 'trusts his instincts' which basically means the moment he comes up with an idea he assumes it is correct.

>>10031332
>Do you understand morality or does it conveniently stop mattering when there's cash to be made?
welcome to the conservative movement

>>10028976
jesus i've never read anything this dumb

>>10033174
Your assumptions are far worse. You've given no justification as to why "rationality" should be an inherent basis of justification over the experience of the self-evidently good. How do you even delineate between logical/rational thought process and other kinds of thought/experience and why ought it to be possible to value system from them without a basic sense of 'goodness' derived from experience?

>>10028743
Whoa, you're right, someone who wrote THAT MANY books can't possibly be an idiot!

>>10033231
>he thinks words don't carry particular connotations
feel free to actually substantiate your moronic opinion anon

>>10032627
Its not quite the way you believe though. I think it was Richard Dawkins who got the internets panties in a bunch about peer review, as though there was some clear dichotomy between it and...God, or something. The reality is by the time a paper is published its often out of dare info anyway. In fast moving fields like bio-tech you're really just going by consensus opinion. Then in humanities peer review becomes an empty idea as long as people can disagree about stuff

>>10033648
That's no reason to toss aside the entire method and rely on blogs, tabloids and 'open access' journals like OpenPsych that are known to conspire against certain viewpoints, pretty much only existing to push a political agenda.
I'm not sure I've ever heard of Dawkins talking about peer review before either, and a quick search brings up nothing.

>>10033174

>Read Hume
>When the is / ought gap was literally invented by brainlets reading him and not Hume himself

>>10028731
This dude is a false flag to make already-idiotic opinions seem even more ridiculous.

>>10028731

Scruton is lightyears beyond Peterson desu senpai

>>10028765


yeah so it's literally the No True Scotsman or No True Bolshevik argument

>>10028825

i agree that if one is to be a relativist, one should at least be an absolutist and proper skeptic about it. hypocrisy disgusts me

>>10031020

Scruton's analysis is spot-on. The idea that one could fix things simply by wishing for their non-existence is central in today's cancerous ideologies.

Also spot-on is Rowling's hypocrisy and / or her unwillingness to admit that the success of HP can be heavily attributed to its British setting. British architecture, British Culture and so on. However, the characters in HP benefit from this culture without Rowling even bothering to show the natural consequences and burdens that come with accepting these advantages. This ties-in directly with the general idea of taking away responsibility and accountability from individuals ; and also the idea that it is acceptable for people to live in western societies and benefit from all its various advantages while carrying none of the burden that one has to carry if he claims the culture as his own.

His criticism is valid because HP is children's literature ; and children's literature is not judged to the same standards as other kind of literature. Considering what a child is, questioning whatever moral lessons a children's book teaches is fair.

The main problem with HP isn't even there though, and it's much more obvious. It's just a mediocre book series ; with mediocre prose and mediocre ideas, far below works like Alice or other children's classics.

Can't believe there are HP apologists among us, go back to that place and stop trying to defend shitty works because a conservative thinker triggers you

>>10028976
>X is bad, otherwise Y wouldn't say X is bad

wow

>>10029009

name a culture that isn't

his point is that western culture *exclusively* is judged as such, and that these (racism and ethnocentris) are considered objectively wrong by an ideology that rejects objectivity

>>10029046

science has refused to advance beyond Humian skepticism. There is no objective reality in science you dolt, only probabilities.

>>10029103

it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of attending university and seeing it for onesself, if you haven't then you weren't looking

>>10029284

that's because you are autistic and your brain is miswired

>>10029306

if you believe that "science" produces "facts" then you adhere to a religion

>>10029345

this is a perfect example of
>a larger part of the western academia would just accept this nonsense and thess blatantly contradicting claims?

>>10029782

I could watch antifa cunts get beaten by police all day ngl

>>10029947

you have no one but yourself to blame for this, anon.

>>10030695

goddamn, I need to become a living meme already fuck

>>10030753

this, when people say "lol I don't see this in universities" I can't tell if they are flat out lying or if they are just so leftist that they take it for granted

>>10029476
>>10029431
>>10029425
>>10029533
>>10029404
>>10029401
>>10029385
>>10029376
taxation is theft

>>10034098
>HP apologists among us

What the fuck am I even supposedly apologizing for? I'm not even a huge fan of HP beyond reading and enjoying them as a kid, and, like I said, while it's fair to criticize them for not having higher ambitions than they do, there's nothing particularly bad about them.Magic in HP is just how the world happens to work in it's case. If alchemy had actually produced gold from lead, then it would have produced actual science, we now reject so many of those ideas simply because they didn't work.

'Socialism', as realized through the modern, bordered nation state and welfare systems, has done a fantastic job of creating actual societies of prosperity the would have otherwise been broken by the mechanisms of capitalism and transformed into something else. To desire more of it as such, given how technology has continued to advance, is only sensible and the exact opposite of "wishful thinking". It is the conservative who wishes that, in a finite world, things would just continue to exist the same and have all the old cultural practices preserved, even if they, by their nature, inevitably produce change. But the kind of magic HP deals with is irrelevant to this.

>>10029345
>no specific 'race' of humans is significantly different genetically from any other to warrant separation into the groups that currently are defined as races
Except that a) there is no clear cut fst value for which a species is polytypic instead of monotypyc and b) there are species with lower fst values that are considered to be polytypic
>actual genetics show a gradation of gene change across the geography of the world
Except differences in genetics aren't always clinal and even if they were, there wouldn't be a point since there are clinal differences between high and low pressure too, does that mean those things don't exist or aren't useful categorizations?

>>10028817
You can't call anyone resident something when you're fresh off the boat from Reddit yourself

>>10028976
Racism does not exist.

>>10032344
Santiago de Compostela, a very comfy city in northwest spain

>>10035132
it does if people think it does

>>10031371
That's "Anti-SJW" meme money anon