wtf is wrong with french people

>>9180739
>Lacan
Brilliant, but obscurantist
>Lyotard
Hack
>Foucault and Derrida
They weren't wrong

Stop thinking le evil college kids who distort them somehow discredits them

>>9180739
Foucault was gay
Derrida was an Algierian Jew
Lyotard actually is pretty based if you just read him as an objective analysis of today's world
Lacan I don't know much about but he seems like a hack

The brains of France were fried after the revolution. It took awhile to hit them, but by the 20th century they were pozzed beyond repair.

Montaigne, Descartes, La Brueye, Francois La Rouchefoucald, and Chamfort were all French, remember.

Rousseau was the last worthwhile French philosopher.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (183KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1920x1080px

>>9180739
After the fall of France from world cultural hegemony they decided they had nothing to lose.

If they couldn't compete against the Anglos imaginative universe they'd go Samson and pull the whole fucking temple down. I respect that and there's no going back

>>9180774
are you kidding

>>9180752
Yeah, they did enough to discredit themselves on their own!

File: 1483272743630.png (227KB, 500x671px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 500x671px

they're the reason we're in such a mess today

>>9180790
Is this a /pol/ parody?

>>9180781
Do you really think hacks like Comte, Deleuze, Sartre, de Bouvier, and the four men in OP's pic are deserving of praise?

File: MTE5NDg0MDU0ODk1OTUzNDIz.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>9180790
And there's nothing you can do about it. Its like trying to return to believing in God after Nietzsche

File: 1486337173182.png (5KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 205x246px

>>9180802
>mfw ppl still misread "God is dead"

>>9180807
Look, I understand it wasn't Nietzsche was trying to say, but Nietzsche did NOT believe in a god. He believed the Jews surmounted morality, not God. In this way, Nietzsche was woefully incorrect and showed he was at the very least agnostic.

He's the moral nihilists version of Kierkegaard.

>>9180817
Nietzsche hates Jews. He was like /pol/, would've browsed the board if he were alive today

>>9180831
who know, he might even be among us

>>9180831
Nietzsche didn't explicitly hate the Jews, he just believed they surmounted morality.

He thought that paradigm influence would shift from their religious doctrine to science and then to something else in an increasing speed.

He was wrong, because while a lot of Jews probably do have too much influence, their God was the real God, as espoused by Jesus and the Koran.

>>9180817
that has nothing to do with "trying to return to believing in God after Nietzsche." Stop warping Nietzsche to your own purposes like the Nazis.

>>9180864
Nietzsche was a Nazi, numale libcuck

Try the redpill of truth

>>9180864
I'm not the guy you responded to, believe it or not, but Nietzsche is sophistic. His philosophy, as a result, tends to be esoteric to the utmost degree. It becomes hard to see objective truth, which is his intention, and this goes against God.

I don't think he ever says he dislikes the idea of God, in fact, he may even say he likes. But that's part of the chaos too, because he doesn't really believe in the God, just the idea.

>>9180864
And by the way, all Nazis had a copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra on them.

>>9180870
Imagine being such a loser that you spend your entire life pretending to be a redditor's impression of a /pol/tard on /lit/

You're multiple times more pathetic than the people you're "parodying". You've been doing this day in and day out for over 6 months, it's time to stop.

>>9180870
Go away underageb&

>>9180881
>its a /pol/tard claims every retarded /pol/ user is a shill episode

Both of you need to go back to /r/the_donald

>>9180878
They also breathed air.
Let's ban that shit.

File: 43278947238432.png (157KB, 680x758px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 680x758px

>>9180752
>>Lyotard
>Hack
The good kind though

>>9180881
I'm proud to be redpilled. I stand by my race unlike you, race traitor

>>9180893
Just another libcuck who wants everyone to believe that "le /pol/ is just satire! xD".
We
Are
Serious
And
Here
To
Stay

>>9180861
Your post is interesting but don't put so much effort into replying to an ironic post

>>9180893
You're retarded this guy >>9180870 is clearly just trying to pretend to be an exaggerated /pol/ poster like this guy >>9180902
Real /pol/ posters don't immediately throw out their buzzwords they usually do so after a few posts of meaningless argumenting

It's honestly pathetic why someone would try to constantly post replies in an attempt to resemble /pol/ posters, and I still don't understand why because they're not making it clear if its satire or just weak baiting

>>9180902
What "race" are you? White American isn't a race.

>>9180893
>he thinks actual /pol/acks talk like that
You've never been to /pol/

>>9180917
Fuck you illiterate, you and Donald Dump are going down

>>9180920
>no true /pol/

Is the logical fallacy graph still not the sticky?

File: image.jpg (17KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 225x225px

>>9180920
>is clearly just trying to pretend
>I don't understand why because they're not making it clear

Try the redpill and see undistorted truth

fuck you guys, I was unironically asking what's wrong with french people. their literature is lit, but the philosophy (if you can call it that) is pure cringe. I blame that hack Rousseau, but, you know, french renaissance has sparked the fire

File: 1488435458739.jpg (106KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 500x600px

>>9180739
Nothing? They're magnificent critics and social theorists?

The reason why Peterson is losing his shit today isn't because those fuckers were wrong, it's because they were *right.* Turns out text and difference and psychoanalysis really work, and have real-life consequences. Not always the consequences we like. But since when did philosophy ever do that?

It's always like this. People were salty about Copernicus and Galileo too. And yet it moves.

People will sort this shit out too. Not with more post-structuralism, true. But certainly not by being completely ignorant about it either. Maybe Peterson is on to something. Certainly he's tapped into the zeitgeist. He'd do his argument some favours by not hand-waving away Those Evil Nihilistic Postmodernists and taking the time to engage in their arguments, but whatever. And hell, even if he's wrong, the fact that he attracts the audiences that he does is enough to indicate that some kind of change is on the horizon. Maybe he's the first of a kind, maybe not. But I think that's how it works. They executed Socrates too.

Of course I'm not saying Peterson is Socrates, but,
>what exactly are you saying, fuckface
>goddamnit i'm not saying anything, i'm shitposting like a cranky fuck about french guys
>well thanks for telling us asshole
>tfw

>>9180802
Wrong interpretation, but you're not wrong exactly.

There is truth to the old American saying "You can't come home". Once something is changed it can never be unchanged, for the unchanged thing is by itself different by your altered perspective.

You must realize by then, that there is always going to be a pendulum swing in the confines of traditionalism. As the pendulum swings left, and the generations challenge the norm, so too do their offspring which challenge the virtues espoused by their parents; its natural and inevitable. Because of this, we are to assume that all traditions will eventually be scrutinized by the following generation.

If we accept this conclusion, then we are left with a very simple and very understandable premise, upon which greater understanding of society can be gleamed. It is surmised as this: Traditional values lead to degeneracy. This is the idea driving the narrative of "A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man". Whether you accept this premise as true is up to you. If you do accept this, then you have changed your views in life, or reaffirmed them, thus making it impossible to go back "home".

>>9180959
They are destroying whiteness and masculinity, retard

>>9180739
Baudrillard was the best of that lot, but he never gets mentioned with them. I guess because he's outstanding in his field.

>>9180870
>>9180874
are you for real lol

>>9180878
I'm not sure if I'd call it "sophistic" in at least most cases (though he obviously has no problem with using it for his own purposes), but i'd argue it only goes against OBJECTIFYING God, not Objective Truth itself. Nietzsche does more to clear the ground of all the objectification in the way so that we may have a more authentic relation to Being. This much, at least ("the wasteland"), I do buy about Heidegger's reading of him.

>>9180939
So by your logic, if I were to pretend to be /pol/ in my current post, there would be no argument against it since your magical logical fallacy tells you so?

Ok, cuck numale

Wow feels great being /pol/
And don't respond to me or it's NOT AN ARGUMENT XD


In all seriousness leave this board since not only do you cite logical fallacies as your sole argument, you don't even properly understand them

>>9180939
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

File: image.jpg (23KB, 242x242px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 242x242px

>>9180988
>he thinks there are arguments that could defeat /pol/

/pol/ is always right, cuck.

>>9180985
switch those >>s around, it's pretty obvious who the idiots are

>>9181004
>You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

>>9180939 didn't claim that the argument was wrong because of a fallacy; he only pointed out the fallacy. So the fallacy fallacy doesn't apply to his post.

File: 1405616666596.jpg (18KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 200x200px

>>9181004
>an argument isn't wrong if its wrong

>>9181007
I hide all the threads you post in.

>>9180774
De Maistre was the the last worthwhile French philosopher .... even though he was Savoyan.

>>9181016
He was falsely pointing out a fallacy

If I were to claim that an animal I am pointing to is not a bird, because birds have wings, I am not comitting a fallacy since that is a bird's characteristic

Likewise people who post from /pol/ do not make satires of themselves so people who do make satires of /pol/ are obviously not regular posters

>>9181027
That's my objective, dumb cunt

I only post in threads that are negative towards women, French thought, Jews, Africans, liberals, continental philosophy, postmodernism, homosexuality etc. I want to kill them because I'm hired by Israel to stop all redpill discussion

so do people admit they literally got btfo'd by the french?

>>9181045
Yes, the game was over before it even begun

>>9181035
>falsely pointing out a fallacy

Then the fallacy fallacy, as described in >>9181004 post, still doesn't apply to him.

>>9181044
learn a new trick, dog

>>9180780
Pic related looks like something from a Jehovah's Witness booklet.

>>9180802
>Its like trying to return to believing in God after Nietzsche
so it's like reading Kierkegaard?

>>9181053
I am not ideologically driven, precious spooked fag.

I'm here to collect (You)s and I get upwards of 300 a day. It's an addiction and it fuels me. Your just simply incapable of understanding because your so entrenched in le 4chan ideological board warfare

Cuck

>>9180968
I disagree. I think they're destroying *ignorant* whiteness and masculinity. Which is exactly what they should do.

Great things were done by Europeans in the past. Being white is awesome. Nobody should feel white guilt for the same reason that nobody should feel any kind of guilt because of their skin color. It shouldn't be a thing at all. And if I act like a degenerate slob it would be crazy for me to blame Derrida for this. That's on me to handle.

The fact is that people are just losing their minds these days with guilt and paranoia. Not entirely for bad reasons. Sometimes for good ones. And sure, French philosophy had a lot to do with that. But it also gave us a pretty serious conceptual toolbox for looking at a lot of shit that was right there under the hood that we didn't see before.

And all of those guys are following from the Neetch. Every one of them. Nobody blames Nietzsche for the way things are today.

If we want to dial things back to the 50s or enjoy some kind of awesome future, I agree, it's not going to be through closer attention paid to micro aggressions. But it's also not going to happen via Richard Spencer. Peterson is right: sort yourself out. Which means, to me at least, not blaming Of Grammatology or Discipline and Punish or whatever the fuck else. Our gnarly ancestors suffered worse than we did. The greatest generation grew up in the depression and fought the Second World War. What the fuck have we done?

Sweet fuck all, that's what, except create cool memes. That's not the fault of the French. Someday it will be possible to write a book called A White Person's History of America and for it not to trigger the Huffington Post to the point of orgasm. That's a day I don't expect to see anytime soon, but it's not beyond imagination.

>>9180963
>Traditional values lead to degeneracy. This is the idea driving the narrative of "A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man"

Modernism is acutely aware of the struggle of bringing the past forward, particularly in the modern era, and living day-to-day life. Afterwards it basically becomes the norm. I don't really buy the idea the Joyce is dismissing traditional values, but rather detailing something I think most of us here have seen, which is the struggles of young people to figure out who they are and how they fit in the world and the problems caused by the friction between the paradigm shift that's gradually taken place over the past centuries and past forms of living

>>9180968
looooooooooooooooooooooooooool ppl don't actually buy into that do they?


dude your insecurities are showing. HARD

>>9180874
One can reject objectivity and still believe in God, you nuthead.

>>9180739
They cook with butter and call potatoes "earth's apples"

>>9181081
>I'm here to collect (You)s and I get upwards of 300 a day.

You can do better things with your time, kid. I hope that you find something meaningful one day.

>>9181112
Exactly. Nietszche does religion a lot of service by clearing the ground!

>>9181123
>be grown man
>unironically calling others 'kid' online

You're sad, sweetheart

>>9181128
The only God that is dead due to him is the God of Scholasticism, which is very good.

One cannot believe if they think they are certain.

File: bored zizek.jpg (19KB, 340x227px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 340x227px

>>9181136
Imagine being a grown man and still unironically following Kirkegaard

>>9181104
>insecure
This is a go to term for people with nothing to say. Why exactly is he wrong?

>>9181117
>he doesn't cook his earth apples in butter

You're missing out dude

>>9181184
I'm not, idolization is nonsense. My writing just happens to come from that tradition.

>>9180802
>Its like trying to return to believing in God after Nietzsche
I think slave morality would better go there, Nietzsche is far from incompatible with Deism or theism in general --- belief in God, but differently from how most people believe in him. I.E. belief in God but no objective morals as most people consider it.


Otherwise, you make a good point, most /pol/tards are just trying to stick their heads in the sand, it's the definition of "re"actionary, trying to flee to the past and only capable of "re"acting, not acting.

>>9180780
I think your explanation is ridiculous and yet I enjoy the way you phrased it.

File: gwf33zo.jpg (97KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 750x750px

>>9181099
>the struggles of young people to figure out who they are and how they fit in the world

I think thats true to some extent, but not in some deeper meaning way. They struggle to fit in because its been deemed "cool" to struggle to fit in. The outcast has been much more romanticized than the "normies". Look at the Oscars: They were so keen on exalting a black snowflake this year that they choose a movie by an all black LGBT+ cast and crew as their winner, even though nobody besides those at the Oscar's watched it. This decade is hallmarked by its the glorification of identity crises in young adults.

>the problems caused by the friction between the paradigm shift that's gradually taken place over the past centuries and past forms of living

All paradigm shifts are beget by friction, and yes, I do believe that Joyce was equally as cognizant of it as we are, but thats not what I was trying to allude to. My stated idea is that degeneracy is a symptom of tradition, with tradition being any values held by the majority of the population in either the form of superstition or belief. Rebelling against the norm is an inevitiability, so therefor in the absence of tradition there is nothing to rebel against anymore, thus leading me to conclude that degenarcy and tradition are cyclical.

What this means is that following a period of extreme degeneracy of a traditional system, we are prone to create and adopt a new system of ideals to support the new majority. This is where feminism, post-modernism, and contemporary literature come in. However, they aren't the vogue tradition thats come to replace the old. Nay, its the deconstruction of those ideologies that will lead to a new tradition. But first, feminism and postmodernism must die.

File: s-l300.jpg (53KB, 350x470px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 350x470px

>>9181099
>I don't really buy the idea the Joyce is dismissing traditional values

Literally how

>>9180799
why cant u understand deleuze, anon?

>>9180963
>Traditional values lead to degeneracy.
degeneracy is an inherent potential within the human, a monkey can stick a stick up its butt (if that is degenerate... or jizzum unto his friends banana as a prank); Traditionalism, "religionism" attempted to domesticate, to temper, the wild animal in man.

It is possible degeneracy does and can exist. Is it desirable for it to exist? How much? If no, what can we do about it? Be "culturally", socially, more strict? About purity, cleanliness, grace, health?

>>9181269
What the fuck am I reading

>>9181277
A brain on redpill

File: 1485560841582.jpg (66KB, 593x728px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 593x728px

>>9181269

File: 1sbrJlz.gif (499KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 540x540px

>>9181099
Reread portrait you psued.

>>9180739
Since Voltaire they have been trying to justify hedonism through philosophy; In the process they created socialism and spelled ruin and suffering on the entirety of the 3rd world. I seriously would argue that French intellectuals are responsible for the majority of the woes of the world.

>>9180963
>It is surmised as this: Traditional values lead to degeneracy.
So it actually is exactly the opposite, 'reactionaryism' is a reaction towards the possibilities of degeneracy/degeneration (of that, which has been long time proven to be the necessary foundation and pillars of society/community.

>>9180921
>>9180921
>X isn't a race
Yes it is, dumbass. Races are constructs. Anything can be a race.

>>9180968
>whiteness and masculinity,
only powerless men cling to whiteness and masculinity, since they having nothing for themselves

File: mfw.jpg (8KB, 192x191px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 192x191px

>>9181457
Wow first the Jews were hellbent on destroying the world and now the French? What's next? Fucking Canadians?

>>9181457
Basically this.

>>9182095
>Canadian Intellectuals

>>9181457
>>Since Voltaire they have been trying to justify hedonism through philosophy;
libertarians do this and everybody loves them

>>9180799
More than Rousseau does

>>9180739
In a word, fraternité. In another word, elan

Seriously, fuck anybody who plays France in EUIV. They were fanatics then, and they still are.

>>9181288
IMAGINE

IF...

ALIENS

>>9180968
Whiteness and masculinity are born in the fires of adversity. They are earned, not pampered and protected from wayward Frenchmen.

These philosophers tell you that our present society destroys whiteness and masculinity; that your television is selling you your identity. Is that what white men do these days? For shame, you are only placated by the powers that be.

Can you imagine Julius Caesar sitting in Rome and thinking of the barbarians, "Noooo, go away! You're destroying whiteness and masculinity!"

File: France-hetalia-france-29421165-452-344.png (356KB, 452x344px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 452x344px

>>9180900
Are the French capable of not thinking about sex for even 5 seconds?

I've never seen an ethnic stereotype this true before. It's astonishing.

>>9180959
Peterson as in Jordan Peterson?

Why is this board justifying significant philosophers to the judgment of a meme?

>>9181269
>sexual pleasure is degenerate

You should read more French.

>>9180799
>de Bouvier

File: angry.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>9180831
>>9180870
>>9180878
>>9180902
>>9180917
>>9180941
Do you have any singke clue of how ridiculous you sound like ?
I'm not a fan of their philosophy/point of view but seriously, each one of these four people alone were much more brilliant than we will ever be all together. I mean what the fuck man, who do you think you are ? Are you severely autistic ? Or just that insecure with yourself

File: 9782253045571-uk-300.jpg (10KB, 300x488px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x488px

>>9180774
'Non'

>>9180790
wtf is this shit

The core of liberalism is destroying existing 'structures', i.e institutions.

The church, family, monarchy, nobles, and it goes on.

Thats the big struggle between liberals and conservatives.

File: deleuze-et-guattari.jpg (45KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x400px

>>9180790
Frankly I'm more triggered by Lyotard, Deleuze and Baudrillard are considered "post-structuralist" than the claim post-structuralism was 'leftist'.

File: 2bf64a83f5c54a1fbfc1a60ddfc2bf2a.jpg (274KB, 1436x1079px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1436x1079px

>>9182371
Yep.

I think Peterson matters. The culture war that he is fighting is a semiological deadlock, but it's real. He believes what he's saying and to some degree I do also.

The problem is that there's a gap in there, a missing space to be filled in. Peterson does a lot of hand-waving about postmodern nihilism, but it doesn't seem as though he engages charitably with the intellectual project of the guys he blames for the current academic climate: Derrida, Foucault, Lacan. This compounds the problem, no doubt; those three guys are legitimate beasts and all triple-A, no joke, philosoraptors. Peterson is not on their level.

However...things have changed. If anything, the postmodernist project has been incredibly successful, and now Peterson is feeling suffocated by that. As I think many of his students and followers are as well. To me that is worth paying attention to.

Why is there a redpill movement going on today? Why is Trump in the White House? Why is Steve Bannon one of the most important men in America right now? This didn't happen out of nowhere. This happened as a *reaction:* Zizek is always saying, for example, that the left failed, and that is why Trump is there. And yet that is only one-half of the picture, because in another sense, the left and the thinkers with it have been successful almost beyond measure.

To me at least the point is manifestly not to take sides, but rather to see how these things came to pass. What Peterson is reacting to is this idea of the Universal Subject, the subject of pure ideology. Zizek isn't a meme, and he's saying the same thing. Unlike Z, however, Peterson has no interest in social progress. He's entirely on the mythic side of things.

What I would like to see filled in is that space between his thought and those of the pomo guys he is upset about. Because it doesn't seem as though he's about to do that for himself: he's pretty much set in his ways, and all things poststructural seem to him to point to totalitarianism. To some degree this is being born out in mass culture, though of course, only with the best of intentions. Look at Twitter or Facebook. Look at the highly dubious merits of the anti-Islamophobia bill that passed in Canada. Even Sam Harris has identified this stuff as well.

Once upon a time Baudrillard used to lament the disappearance of the real and its replacement by the virtual. I would say, today, the problem is that the virtual is in and the problem is that you almost can't take a step without trespassing on someone else's sense of virtual identity. This is what Peterson is reacting to. And to pick some of the locks on this mechanism and try to understand the arguments being made really is the task of a philosopher.

(cont'd)

>>9180968
Good riddance

File: 56-209074-yukio-mishima.jpg (24KB, 334x441px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 334x441px

>>9182371

So, though this is very reductive: the poststructuralist guys are really really good at raising *problems* - slippages, gaps, difference, and the rest. And Peterson *thinks* that *he* is really good at finding solutions: the mythic, the archetype, and so on. That those solutions - or when a guy like Harris simply will not deal with what Peterson is saying because they can't come to a universal notion of truth - do not align with the problems is why things go off the rails.

Peterson is cranky, but we have been in this place before. Allan Bloom did it years ago. Shit, even *Nietzsche* did this. Peterson has a whole different set of references and influences that he is bringing to bear on these problems. He's reacting, not in the same way that Trump et al are reacting, but he's got something to say. He may not know what it is. I think that if he had been writing this stuff twenty years ago, he would have just been another guy telling us to live authentically. In one of the other threads there was an anon saying that this is not how psychology is supposed to be taught, that he's a self-help guru and so on, and that shouting Sort Yourself Out is ridiculous. It's not a totally unfair remark to make.

But I think it's evident that the era of Marxist thought is over. Peterson is reacting to that in an unusual way, complaining that it's become nihilistic. What I find interesting about this is that there is this mutual sense of nihilism; a guy like Baudrillard is so fucking nihilistic already, but that comes out of an absolute sense of desperation for him. Now that desperation has sort of been transplanted over and Peterson is now feeling it as something hostile and detrimental to life. His response is to urge people to look for the mythic. It's a kind of Nietzschean response to the poststructuralists, who are themselves all disciples of Nietzsche and following from him. Kind of amazing.

What has been lost is that sense of a centre, the notion of a real, a reference point. Things that probably aren't going to be that point: language, history, capital, the unconscious. And probably not the state either. All of this is the late ferment of Enlightenment liberalism getting transmogrified by Freudo-Marxism into a very wonky and recursive modern culture that doesn't seem to have any sense of where it is or where it is going, and Peterson just seems to be crazy-brave or just crazy-crazy enough to say that the emperor has no clothes. That puts him in a unique position, of neither being on the left, which will argue that the emperor never had any clothes to begin with, or the right, which is shocked and outraged by the emperor's nakedness and thinks he would look better if he was wearing a uniform or a crown. The big universal We has perhaps become too big and universal for anyone to feel properly at home in. So maybe we do need a kind of deep psychic reboot, but as individuals, not as revolutionaries.

Sorry, this post became long and stupid.

>>9181198
Ew no thanks

Olive oil masterrace, you filthy northerner

>>9180790
>tfw no /pol/hack will ever read Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Lyotard
>tfw they won't ever know that, to a certain extent, they're already agreeing with them
>tfw they won't ever know that they were right

>>9181184
This is pretty much what the man you posted does on his book with Millibank

>>9182371
>sexual pleasure is degenerate
That was the first thing that came to my mind when trying to think of an example (of what people refer to as degenerate), what are other things that were meant when that conversation was speaking of degeneracy?

>>9182095
No you have it wrong, the Jews just want to control the world. The French want to destroy it.

>>9183294
/Pol/tard here with a hardon for foucault, Debord, adorno, derrida, Girard etc. Not read lyotard or baud yet, approaching deleuze

>>9183288
>Sorry, this post became long and stupid.
Not true, much appreciated read pal

>>9180752

>le evil college kids

You act like these don't exist. I have gotten in two political/philosophical motivated fist fights in college and both were started by faggot's who worship these fucks. I agree that "they weren't wrong" but c'mon bro. You know that most of the people who like these guys are fucking worthless pieces of shit.

File: Hol Up.jpg (152KB, 972x705px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 972x705px

>>9184033
I'll beat your shit in too fuckwit

>>9184056
I honestly doubt you could.

>>9183998
/pol/tards who become versed in disaffected french writers are best /pol/tards and are potentially not /pol/tards at all but just cool well-rounded peeps

unironic glhf my man

>>9184033

>political/philosophical motivated fist fights

This geniunely made me laugh

Nobody comes close to Derrida in terms of full-of-shit obscurantism

File: 1286588048_202c9b6ceb.jpg (122KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 500x333px

>YFW THE FRENCH PHILOSOPHY IS THINLY-VEILED APOCALYPTARIANISM

>>9183974
Unnatural sexual pleasure is degenerate solely because it's anathema towards society's laws and structures regarding sex. It wasn't too recently that same sex marriage was illegal and sodomy was punishable under the UCMJ.

File: zizekpepe.jpg (47KB, 587x960px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 587x960px

>>9183998
>reading Adorno
nice, have you tried redpilling your fellow /pol/acks yet on how cultural marxism isn't real and the Frankfurter Schule members were actually warning us about the erosion of genuine culture?

>>9180870
and Orwell was a conservative, right?

>Lacan
sucan
>Lyotard
lyoretard
>Foucault
foucoff
>Derrida
derridon't

>>9184256
Can't be bothered, I'm instead waiting for adornofags to truly be redpilled and one day we will all transcend to a better place

>>9184259
He's actually just an incredibly mediocre centrist without little discernible talent and an appeal to teenagers. Never met an Orwell fan who wasn't a window licker tbqh

>>9183998
I can understand Derrida and Girard, but how can one enjoy Debord and Adorno while disagreeing so diametrally to them?

>>9184202
But it has been legal in the past while stuff that is illegal now has also been legal in the past, so where do you draw the line? Jurisprudence is man made.

File: a8a639fab4b1f9994c3b98ab89b98a2a-d49wndj.jpg (319KB, 1280x648px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1280x648px

>>9184375
Not that guy, but: you might find yourself disagreeing with them *now* but later on find that things change. This has happened a couple of times to me. You fall in love with one guy, and because he's the opposite of some other guy, you go, well, that other guy is obviously retarded and my guy is teh coolest. But because - to me at least - all these guys are connected, you wind up reading most of them eventually. And with the big guys, it's almost impossible to read them and *not* be persuaded by them eventually.

>and then wind up a delusional paranoid misanthrope retard unable to distinguish moral virtue from a hot pocket
>*cough* heh heh, i mean, not like that would happen
>anyhoo

God damn, I would so love to have like a semi-regular Intro to X philosopher series of threads on /lit/ where we can get into this stuff. Historical context, influenced by/on, basic core ideas, key texts, etc. Granted, all that is readily available on wikipedia, except that all the books are there on libgen so anons could go a little bit deeper into the subject matter if they wanted to. I'd especially like to look at the post-structural guys and Frankfurt school guys because that's what usually attracts the most hate. And also you can't shitpost up wikipedia or call people cucks, which, let's face it, would be part of the charm of doing some of that here. But ideally it would really be just as basic and accessible as possible without becoming a completely retarded meme-fest.

I can't do this ATM b/c work and moving, but maybe when things settle down a bit I'll revisit this idea.

>yeah, sure you will
>no no i mean it this time
>dude we're talking to ourselves again

>>9180790
>>9183242
>>9183288
Please excuse this post if it seems ignorant as I doubt I have read enough to really comment on it.

But my reflection on the post-structuralists has lead me to believe that we should really look to the platonic ideas of forms for what they are searching for freedom from.

Structuralists who originally intended to view the world systematically and with concept to the structure of reality to determine meaning in existence did so off the platonic idea of the form.

What post-structuralists like Derrida really did was attempt to break everything down to the purest form and ridiculous its own ridiculousness or admire it in most abstract context as if to drill to something more pure. it is to take thought to the extremes of essence.

But how can on find the purest form of a tree without respect to its soil, to the weather, to the rain and the seasons? To abstract endlessly, to constantly deconstruct everything to render it ridiculous has proven the greatest tool for nihilists but it is ultimately entirely destructive.

The only way people seem to see a solution to this is through psychological analysis, to construct the world of meaning through the intuition as demonstrated by the brain. But this is a fundamentally flawed approach which attempts to dig for the wellspring of pure essence that can never be found.

I am not sure this is the answer to the problem, but I think attempting to constantly challenge reality and cut away at it to find some unseen truth can really work within philosophy at this point. Especially since most of philosophy since Nietzsche has been about tearing down, destroying and attacking society by various intellectual methods.

Honestly, i think the fundamental flaw with Western philosophy is that we think too much and look so extensively for logical consistence that we find nothing is consistent. We found flaws within our own inherited religion of Christianity so we chucked it aside with ridicule. Then we turned to art, existence, meaning and exhausted everything in pursuit of consistence, coherence and rationality only to find it fruitless. The smile of reason has become the blank face of despair.

However, I think peterson is focused on the right direction. The way to give meaning to existence is through fables, myths, legends and tales. They give the meaning of being and enable one to gain a sense of the world and its tragedy. It is to create meaning for people, not to tear it down.

The great irony of this is that we pursued this logical and consistent world view in the belief that it would grant us total autonomy of the mind, only to find it destroyed all meaning.

>>9184630
ridicule its own ridiculousness*

>>9184630
can't really work.*
fuck i am tired.

File: happy_lacanian.jpg (34KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x276px

>>9183242
>>9183288

Finally, an intelligent response. Thank you.

> The big universal We has perhaps become too big and universal for anyone to feel properly at home in.
> So maybe we do need a kind of deep psychic reboot, but as individuals, not as revolutionaries

I feel this is going to be the main philosophical project of today's Left: How do be universal yet also account for the individual? Past revolutions (French Revolution, Bolsheviks, etc.) have been done under this idea of universal "sameness" and yet we haven't gotten anywhere; their universalist revolutions made big grand claims and ideals but forgot to account that not every single person could fit into their definition of what it is to be universal.

I think back to Levinas's quote: "The principal task … consists in thinking of the Other-in-the-Same (l’Autre dans le Même) without thinking of the Other (l’Autre) as another Same (Même).” Maybe we need to start seeing each other as equals because we are different, not because we are "equal".

I just wonder what (if I could call it that way) a Levinasian notion of society would look like.

>>9184630
Good post man, I agree with a lot of this.

File: Ordinary_But_Strange.jpg (202KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 800x534px

https://youtu.be/aDRgMUoEvcg

This was uploaded today.

STEM major here.
Do Prof's in non-STEM field always use swearwords like "god damn", "moron", etc. in public lectures and hearings like that?

I think around 28 he explains history and post-modernism

File: JQW5L3f.jpg (147KB, 540x471px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 540x471px

>>9184490
>and then wind up a delusional paranoid misanthrope retard unable to distinguish moral virtue from a hot pocket
>*cough* heh heh, i mean, not like that would happen
>anyhoo

When reading intellectuals I often fear that I'm just nodding along, instead of forming my own opinion on things.
The worst case is somehow finding myself agreeing with people with contradicting views.
I feel really guilty for this, especially after having read Kant's definition of enlightenment.

>>9184679
Ha, he goes full berserk at 00:31

>>9184630
I was just debating with my dad last night about like 70% of what you cover in this post, anon. Well done.

The idea I was trying to describe to him (I wasn't very articulate because I've only come up with this on my own and haven't read anything on it) was the notion that you have to accept the arbitrary in order to keep happiness, pleasure, and order. Thinkers like Stirner who identified the absurdity of social constructs, and nihilists and post-modernists who abstracted the very natures of language, being, thought, consciousness until they seemed absurd were all correct in their observations, but the conclusion that the absurd and arbitrary should be abolished is misguided and dangerous.

You need to accept the arbitrary structures, hierarchies, definitions, languages, and 'spooks' and reap their benefits or else everything falls apart and the war of all against all that Hobbes wrote about will be the only thing left.

Can anyone share their thoughts on this? Help clarifying this idea would be greatly appreciated

File: 348045581-quote-1-jiro.jpg (110KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 650x650px

>>9184650
I have a few thoughts about this.

One is the individual and technology. Getting people to work doing things that matter to them. There is a rising tide of technology coming that is not only making people feel obsolete as individuals, but also turning social environments into places where business lives and people make do with whatever is left. Homo Sapiens Entropus Maximus, Consumer Man, is a bad bet for survival. The revolt is not against the oppressor, but against the need *for there to be an oppressor in order to act.* This isn't Ferngully or Avatar. This is us being nurtured by and totally dependent on planetary industrial processes that, now that we have created them, do not give a fuck about us.

Peterson's returning attention back to the subject - wonky, vulnerable, internally dissonant. He wants *competent* people, *skilled* people. I agree. We need anthropotechnics: skilled, functional, practicing, artist-acrobats who do stuff because it inherently makes sense to them and not just for the market. Granted, that is a necessity; it may be necessary to embrace Capitalist Realism and not to be, in Nick Land's memorable phrase, a transcendental miserabilist.

Human entropy feeds the machine-desire system that regulates all of this. Baudrillard had a line about this too: society as having hit the artificial life-support phase, where the machine regulates your breathing for you. This is what we are struggling with: semiotically massaged into total inertia and total dependence. Made doubly harder for the fact that that journey is probably an infinite one, with no pot of utopian social-justice gold at the end of it. Capital is infinitely fungible, more free even than its spenders. It's a zero-G world like that.

So I like the idea of skilled training. A lot. Not only because it is technologically in demand, but maybe also because it puts people on equal footing. With less pomo-shuffling, What Did He Meme By This. More sincerity. More practice. Because I think those things lead to empathy.

>Maybe we need to start seeing each other as equals because we are different, not because we are "equal".
Mos def this also. *Genuine* respect for differences means real respect for second-order differences, not Banana Republic horseshit: you're brown, I'm yellow, but we all like Coke. This was pure neoliberal cynicism. The modern left refuses this idea every time.

I think a lot of political LARPing is basically simulation of what people really need in their lives: meaning. So politics is showing something of what people want, but I think that the political theatre itself is not the way to do it. It may come from something like a life, a trajectory, a horizon, a developmental possibility space. Politics may not have to be the ultimate horizon of meaning.

Just my fuckhead thoughts. I'm cheating on studying to post this, which makes me a hypocrite as well as a blowhard, but hey. I love this place.

>>9184708
You say "think and the spook yourself", adopt an ideology with which you think you'll end up with the best life.
Well that's exactly what those running to the far-right are doing right now.

>>9180739
The problem with the French is that they prefer astonishing falsehoods to boring truths.

>>9184809
This is just speculation, but I think the reason these cultural/ideal movements have manifested and grown from the far right is entirely because liberal modernity has so absorbed liberal, soft marxist, post-structuralist and post-modernist ideas that genuine alternative beliefs could only manifest outside that world in the extreme/far right and religious fundamentalism.

But to say that they are merely adapting ideology is an utterly cynical and ridiculous position in and of itself. It is to pretend you are some critic above and beyond what exists, who can stand on high with ridicule to dispel all nonsense.

But the reality of life is that very few people can rise above the nihilist nature that has been left by the destruction of post-modern ideas. People have been left alienated, bereaved and silenced by these ideas. The very failure of these ideas is why the extreme/far right (which i must say I support to be fair) is rising to fight.

At the root of it, contemporary political liberalism built itself on the extremely unstable ground of economic prosperity to legitimize its beliefs. But they can no longer promise prosperity and find themselves without ground to stand on.

>>9184809
I believe that the happy society will be the one that adapts the thought process of post-structuralism, egoism, nihilism, etc., but does not adapt the conclusion that what is arbitrary/spooky/abstract is the enemy. To believe that spooks should be avoided at all costs is just another form of imposing an oppressive dogma upon yourself. Yes, all things can be abstracted into absurdity and then criticized as such, but that is an amateurish way of exploring the world.

What I believe is best to accept the absurdity of hierarchy, borders, law, property, morality, and sort of social contract at all, but maintain and stick to the ones that provide the most pleasure to the populace, even if instant gratification has to be sacrificed for long-term stability and happiness. Ironically, the populace with simultaneously become a body of actors, and the most honest people to live.

Those running to the far right are succumbing to the same pitfall as the nihilists. They see a flawed system and therefor distance themselves as far as they can from it, even at the cost of rational decision-making

Those who would ever say "don't you know that's what a leftist would say?" or "don't you know that's what a right-winger would say?" have effectively committed philosophical suicide. They've replaced the substance of a believe with the word used to describe the belief and attack that word instead

>>9184861
Holy moly I made a good deal of spelling errors here. My apologies, I'm typing in a dark room with no back-lit keyboard

File: Cnoidal_wave.jpg (122KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1024x768px

>>9184846
>It is to pretend you are some critic above and beyond what exists, who can stand on high with ridicule to dispel all nonsense.
I didn't want to imply that. I, too, am eating from the trashcan all the time.

I'm a physics PhD in a high paying tech job in Germany and I see the rape rate going up in the news. So I'm trying to figure out where to sit on, and what to say to whom to make this country stay good (not go down the path it seems to be going).
I also bang a philosophy master who literally writes on Derrida. Sure everybody votes left in those circles, but she's also a thinker and sees problems and doesn't just ignore what's happening. So I can't by into Petersons rants either, I'm sure those frenchies have their good parts. The problem I have with them - and I had the problem already 3 years ago before shit went down, is that personality cult and being intriguing goes over usefulness. I'm at the point where I think philosophy at uni should do something for the people.

>>9184800
>but hey. I love this place.
We love you too anon

>>9184879
>literally writes on Derrida

This is some next-level shitposting right here.

>>9180799
t. pseud

Lacan did nothing wrong.

>>9184879
No offence, but as a neo-European who knows the alienation of inheriting an identity from a continent which he has never seen, Europe is a graveyard.

To me, Europe is extremely tired and it is reflective in your extreme bureaucracy as well as the inability to fight being invaded by your historic enemies.

Philosophy does nothing for the people because philosophy isn't for the masses. It is for the intellectual and higher classes, so they can filter that downwards to the masses.

Think of the medieval priest who was looked to by the peasant and knight alike. You wouldn't understand the Latin, unless you were grammer school educated. But you look to the priest and the priest looked upwards, to things greater than himself. He believed in something greater than himself, harmonizing and humanizing the complexities of existence to the flock he tended.

But these thinkers are merely destructive, they only seem to destroy and provide nothing for the masses at all.

Girardfag?

File: me IRL.jpg (57KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x450px

>>9184916
'sup

>>9184942
I wish I popped in this thread earlier, but I assumed it would be just /pol/-tier shitposting. You're a breath of fresh air man.

>>9184809
Isn't that what most people do though? Billionaire investors, Silicon Valley tech companies, and transnational corporations have had no qualms about adopting and promoting the post-nation-state ideology of multiculturalism and open borders because it aligns quite well with their own interests of economic-growth-at-all-costs..

File: bro-fist.png.625x385_q100.png (10KB, 616x385px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 616x385px

>>9184944
Cheers fella, back at you. Honestly tho it's crazy how much this place has grown on me. I'm gearing up for a rather major change of residence/occupation at the moment which *should* limit my /lit/ time (unless I want to be wickedly underprepared at my next job, which I do not want) but I'd really like to make something cool and share it here with anons at some point. There's a kind of a small leap I would like to make from Loudly Declaiming My Own Opinions and into actually creating some kind of environment where, you know, other people can do more than just read my blog-length shitposts. Maybe at some point that can move to a sexy Wordpress site. Oh yeah. Hittin' the big time.

My ideal would be a kind of a cool & relaxed setting where anons can hang out and we can study the big guys of philosophy together and have cool conversations like this and share ideas and stuff. Academic philosophy is probably a closed door for me but clearly I am incapable of doing much else with my life except thinking about this shit, so I figure I might as well share the madness or do something constructive with it.

>because it is madness, glorious glorious gallic madness

So I'm going to work on that, or at least keep that possibility open in the back of my mind during the next couple of months. But in the meantime tho, e/lit/e gentlesir, pic related.

File: Nietzsche.gif (1MB, 1274x955px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1274x955px

>>9184679

It's less because of the field and more based on what sort of person your teacher is. I have had STEM teachers who were more profane than the most abstract liberal arts teachers.

>>9184708

I think you're a bit mistaken on what nihilists and possibly post-modernists want to do. Yes they want to "take down" social constructs but (correct me if I'm wrong), their destruction isn't an end to itself (though, it appears "pop academia" is trying to make that to be the case).

Nihilists like Nietzsche in his Gay Science didn't "like" the destruction of meaning and social construct; he actually found it very frightening. Nevertheless, their destruction is needed for society to ever progress––you can't have a culture that has the norms of its past incarnations because it will stagnate. That's where the whole idea of the Nietzschean Ubermensch overpowering the "weak" and "sheep" comes from. Nihilism is only a temporary stage for us to become, as Nietzsche would put it, "who we are".

>>9184800

Thanks for reply, anon. Agree with everything you said.

>One is the individual and technology. Getting people to work doing things that matter to them.

I agree with this. In addition, I think there also need to be some sort of political guarantees and "rights" to set the baseline for Levinas's maxim. For instance, liberal Lockean rights say stuff like "right to pursue property" as a universal right and then liberal society is based off that notion (of course, with a lot of problems). A society based on Levinas's maxim, I personally think, would be based on something like universal basic income, right to work, universal citizenship and so on.

>Mos def this also. *Genuine* respect for differences means real respect for second-order differences, not Banana Republic horseshit: you're brown, I'm yellow, but we all like Coke. This was pure neoliberal cynicism. The modern left refuses this idea every time.

Agreed 100%. I think this many of the "avant garde" leftist academia is trying to put out, like Zizek. Unfortunately, when he says such things, they get labeled as racist by the orthodoxy. Quite a shame, really.

>>9185015
I didn't mean to make it sound like early nihilists like Nietzsche wanted to abolish social constructs, but that is undoubtedly a common line of though in nu-nihilists and the like

>>9183288
>>What has been lost is that sense of a centre, the notion of a real, a reference point. Things that probably aren't going to be that point: language, history, capital, the unconscious. And probably not the state either.

This is Lacan's master signifier, worth looking into.

File: 1422403721224.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>9185015
All good. FWIW, Jiro's own insanely-determined work ethic does have some faults, of course. Sometimes it kind of *is* worth questioning your job (for example, if it's strangling enemies of the state). But.

Levinas is a good place to start. I was thinking about him quite a lot in 2015 when the migrant crisis broke out, was kind of oscillating between him and Heidegger. But then I thought, no, of course, how can anyone disagree with Levinas? That was when I read that (rather darkly hilarious) story about him referring to the Chinese as 'the yellow peril.' Stuff like this really brings out the flavor of modern philosophy. Nobody's without their flaws. But yeah, generally speaking, EL seems like a cool guy. I haven't read T&I yet, may read Derrida first. Some anon brought up Cool Memories in another thread and I've been seduced by Baudrillard.

>and not seduced by fucking work you hopeless shitheel
aaaarrgh

>Unfortunately, when he says such things, they get labeled as racist by the orthodoxy. Quite a shame, really.
Ayup. This is the worst parts of all, the tyranny of leftist good intentions devouring themselves, speakers getting shouted down to protect free speech, &c, &c. And every time Bannon/Trump sees this they just build the walls a little higher.

I posted the Zizek + Harman debate yesterday, it's aight. GH didn't have enough time to talk and Z kind of took over the show. Some of the coolest philosophy is, I think, really being done by the accelerationist guys, those ultra-miserable dudes at Urbanomic and so on. The dark side of Marxism.

I think the danger is that beyond a certain horizon all of that stuff can simply become indistinguishable from literature, from a kind of highly stylized journal-writing exercise, totally divorced from reality. Fun to contemplate, but while you're contemplating it the robot arms learn an interesting new trick.

>>9185089
True, good point.

>>9184033
>political/philosophical motivated fist fights in college
I wish that would be a thing.

>>9185177
Someone post the russian guy who stabbed his friend over an argument on Kant

The reason 'modernism' failed and resulted in the rise of post-modern theory is because it could not be used adequately to account for contemporary developments. That is, no one could build on the theory to make it relevant to its times.

The same can't be said of postmodernism -- and what >>9183242 says is true -- it has been incredibly successful. But this is where we have to separate Marxism from postmodernism from leftism, because to conflate them would be inadequate too.

Peterson attacks postmodernism as being Marxist; I've heard him say that all the postmodernists are Marxist. It's kind of true, but Marxism is separate from postmodernism. Maybe all postmodernists are Marxist, okay, but not all Marxists are postmodernists. Not all leftists are postmodernists or Marxists either.

If anything can be said to have failed it's the left-leaning 'liberals' (to say nothing of classical liberalism to which Marxism belongs, I'm pretty sure) that, if we look at theory, can't really be called Marxist or postmodernist. (Neo-)liberalism, globalisation, forced integration, cycling of coloured people through white supremacist systems and institutions, 'This is what a feminist looks like' t-shirts made in offshore sweat shops, comprise the capitalist co-option of ideas from the left. And we've seen the result, and how people are sick of it.

A response to this hypocrisy and duplicity is the rise of Trump. The problem is that this 'response' is the one conflating Marxism, postmodernism, leftism. But Hillary's failure to get elected produced a similar result from the left which can't be ignored; those who see such a system as a failure and have become more radicalised as a result. We've seen this before, of course -- the battle over the failure of capitalism, but that is not something we need to go into now.

So we have Marxists and the alt-right both rejecting complacent leftism, which shows that they are separate -- that they identify the same problem that too was inadequate as 'modernism' was seen to be 50 years ago.

And postmodernism is still as relevant as it was then because the society that allows it still exists. Arguably it has since the Renaissance. The only way that postmodernism would ever fail is if that society fails and is supplanted by, or sublated into, something else, so that it is no longer a relevant critique of our society.

>>9184202
>>9184390
Ok well now I am wondering what is considered Degenerate, that is not sexual?

Excessive partying.
Playing video games instead of looking at classical art.
Interracial dating.

All I could come up with

>>9184630
Then we turned to art, existence, meaning and exhausted everything in pursuit of consistence, coherence and rationality only to find it fruitless.

How is civilization fruitless? What is the point, what were they trying to get at? Whats the purpose? What did they not know? What was missing? What did they not understand?

>>9184630
>The great irony of this is that we pursued this logical and consistent world view in the belief that it would grant us total autonomy of the mind, only to find it destroyed all meaning.
There has always been meaning and understanding and life has always been good (and in ways bad) and glorious and worthy. It is just that new people are always born, so always have to 'learn' this for themselves each time. And yeah, it could be that 'the vacuum' is reachable, and then these people are just like dogs digging in the garden, in the empty aether.

>>9184708
King: Listen peasents... I know this whole 'I am the divine royal monarch god king emperor with absolute power over yall, give me taxes or die you shitty serfs' thing is a bit arbitrary and can be reduced ad absurdum... but there are just some arbitrary things we must keep and accept to keep the order :^)

Now somewhere between what you said, and this extreme example, there is the battle between and of each individual and each collection of individuals to create their desired world.

It is all about value judgements, it is all about desires, it is all about stabilities and longevities and goodnesses and healthnesses and wills to powers

>>9185276
Your example was the leader addressing the people, I am speaking of the people talking amongst themselves. It is the role of the populace to decide amongst themselves or, preferably, elect a special few to decide what social constructs are best kept to better the society

Every individual should be acting in self-interest, but they should be acting so through the tool that is the state/society/culture etc.

>>9185294
>It is the role of the populace to decide amongst themselves or, preferably, elect a special few to decide what social constructs are best kept to better the society

Not the tripfag (obviously), but isn't this what we are doing right now? The leaders we elected for the past 35-40 years deemed economic growth, capitalism, mass immigration and then multiculturalism and globalization to be what our important social constructs are, and it clearly isn't working.

>>9185331
But the populace and our leaders are unconsciously sustaining social constructs that really only serve other social constructs. There is an undeniable level of blindness in the political system.

Be it the residue of a highly religious and pious past society, or misguided ideologies tainting decision-making for the sake of apparent moralities and ego-stroking

>>9185249
>There has always been meaning and understanding
How so?

>>9184375
/Pol/ also hates jazz and TV, M8, the embracement of kek/the Reich is just a form of structuring a new system, because deconstructing everything leads nowhere. Nietzsche was so close to his goal but collapsed around a horse. For us the horse is a raging tiger, and donning our frog masks we shall ride it to the stars

>>9184909
Don't say "neo European" when you're either a burger, a kiwi or a shitposter. I'm gonna go with the latter

>>9185375
>There has always been meaning and understanding
>How so?
Let me add: 'since around the beginning of civilization'

We are now a far way from that beginning, and now the 'deconstructionists' you were talking about say "since the beginning of civilization, and all the way onwards, actions have continously taken place and been built on top of each other, that have "not been absolutely true, and/or good"? "lets deconstruct the totality of information and concepts and foundations of history up till and through now, to attempt to determine and understand, what is absolutely true and good?"

What was/is the goal? The way you people are talking about postmodernism etc. its like you think its more than some kids writing in their diary? Its a way of making art, its a club, its like bird watching or stamp collecting? What is it? What is its goal and point? What is and should be being attempted?

It perceived social and economic and political problems in the world, and said "how can we solve these", and it was birthed from the camp that said "well... marxism would solve that..."..."ok.... so thats over.... thats the only way we can solve it.... but.... everyone and/or many do not want to do that.... sooo....... I guess we will just keep complaining about all the problems and keep not solving them?"

And then so it turns into a commodity itself, a spectacle itself, a fashion, an identity, a crew/clique.

Philosophy and politics become 'works of art in a museum', that are wheeled out onto the tv every day and night, and shown and taught in universities that people pay to witness, like someone would go to a museum to see ancient greek pottery, or riffles used in the civil war.

They saw early on that as long as capitalism existed, 'they hardly would', their thoughts and ideas hardly would matter, and this is why some of pol lumps them in with communists, because as long as capitalism exists, these overarching missions and desires to 'change the world for the better', or whatever it is these people we are talking about want to do, do not matter, unless 'changing the world for the better' involves provable monetary profit.

French philosophers supported communism way into the 1950s, ashamed after the Secret Speech, they didn't want to admit their cumplicity in Stalin's crimes, so they just took refugee in postmodernist obscurancy instead.

>>9185706
Postmodernism was a mistake that will never go away.

>>9181457
The thing about France is that they invent all this shit but don't apply it on themselves.

Louis Auguste Blanqui, George Sorel, Arthur de Gobineau, Auguste Comte, Michel Foucault, Le Corbusier, etc... their ideas were very influential outside France, they influenced Russian revolutionary politics, Brazilian judicial system, Latin American anti-clericalism and Indian modern architecture. All shit. But French people themselves didn't apply it the way foreigners did.

I'd say that like plagues, French had immunity to their own ideas, which foreigners who were only exposed to them as prestigious imports didn't have.

>>9181457
The neoliberal policies America coerced third world countries to adopt have been many times more harmful to these countries than has socialism.

>>9185728
How do you account for the French Revolution in this theory?

>>9185687
>you were talking
I'm not that guy posting those blocks of text, though.

>>9185771
Then why is Chile a better place to live than Venezuela?

>>9185794
Because its mucher whiter, why is this a question

>>9185794
The Chavistas didn't build Venezuela from the ground up. It was a shithole when they took power from a century of CIA stooges rendering it a Banana Republic

>>9185825
Actually, Venezuela has been governed since 1958 by democratic socialists. Romulo Bittencourt did nothing to persecute communists in universities in the 1960s, he even let an entire Cuban trained guerrilla live in the Central University of Caracas, During the 1970s, the first presidency of Carlos Andres Perez was very similar to Chávez.

Calling everything before Chávez "CIA stooges" just reveals your stupidity about Venezuelan and Latin American history.

>>9185794
why are there homeless people in america?

>>9185868
Mostly mental illness.

>>9185794
What number of people would you estimate live better lives in Chile and Venezuela than what number of Americans?
And how would you quantify and qualify what 'live better' means? (notice I asked how would you)

>>9185893
Wiping your ass with toilet paper after you shit is living better.

>>9185977
Ok so if (theoretically, close to) everyone in Chile and Venezuela, could wipe their ass with toilet paper, they would have equal standard/quality of living as Americans?

>>9185857
>democratic socialists

Oh wow

In Venezuela its a massive issue that people have to que for food
In Colombia kids can't afford food

Really makes you think

>>9186101
>Colombia kids can't afford food
Who keeps having these kids who cant afford to feed them? Whos fault is this?

Imagine being so dull and vacuous that you happily accepted conclusions about philosophy that you read from an internet meme

File: grosslyincandescent.jpg (168KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1280x720px

>>9183288
Your entire post is completely judgmental, with no connection to non-judged perception. You do not describe what is, you describe your judgement of a subject. If you do attempt to describe, you do not back it up with evidence from reality. What you say becomes reality because you say it. The sky is red because you say the sky is red.

>Peterson matters.
>The culture war that he is fighting is a semiological deadlock, but it's real.
> He believes
>The problem is that there's a gap in there
>This compounds the problem
> those three guys are legitimate beasts and all triple-A, no joke, philosoraptors. Peterson is not on their level.
>However...things have changed.
>If anything, the postmodernist project has been incredibly successful, and now Peterson is feeling suffocated by that.

And so on through the entire posts. No quotes, no references, no specifics.

No connection to reality at all, no arguments, no substance.

What kind of abstract fantasy land do you reside in? Do you have any connection to reality at all?

I cannot take your post as an accurate description of reality, for there is no reality in your post.

Please attach yourself and your ideas to reality. I find them fascinating, and would be happy to see you get out of your abstract mind bubble.

>>9186101
Then why don't Colombian kids cross the border into Venezuela to queue for food, the way Venezuelans cross the border to buy food in Colombia or Brazil?

Check mate, commie.

>>9184630
>What post-structuralists like Derrida really did was attempt to break everything down to the purest form and ridiculous its own ridiculousness or admire it in most abstract context as if to drill to something more pure. it is to take thought to the extremes of essence.

That is practically the opposite of what he did.

>>9184650
Correcting "individual" to "difference", this is exactly what the post-structuralists tried to do.

But you let TV personalities like Harold Bloom and Jordan Peterson characterize them for you instead of reading them or even going to class and listening to people who have

File: the vinegar tasters.jpg (85KB, 311x415px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 311x415px

>>9186510
Thanks for the response. I'm not going to say your criticism is unfair, even unwarranted. It's always helpful to learn how one is perceived. Certainly there are parts of what you've said that I agree with. Let me address some of them.

First, w/regards to the stuff you've greentexted: many of these things simply seem obvious and not worth belabouring. For example:

>Peterson matters.
He does. In the media, on podcasts, on /lit/. He's a guy right now. How many Peterson threads are active right now? Three? Even this thread isn't a Peterson thread but we're talking about him.
>The problem is that there's a gap
There is. It's the gap between his criticisms of postmodernity and that legacy. It's detrimental to how he's received.
>Things have changed.
They have. Postmodernity isn't as sexy or as radical as it used to be. Peterson's not sexy either, but he's a challenge for that kind of thought.
>Peterson is feeling suffocated
This is true. He is. He talks about it all the time.

Right? And so on. So I'm not going into enormous detail about these things because they seem to me more or less obvious. Even to the point of banality. So my preferred thing is, generally, to see what might be agreed on and go from there.

This is not an argument against specificity. I think it would be a legitimately good idea to get into the nuances of Peterson's thought vis-a-vis the poststructuralists (or Zizek). I indicated as much in those posts. Maybe I'll do it myself one of these days.

>The sky is red because you say the sky is red.
This is different, though. Plainly I'm not saying the sky is red. The equivalent to that would be for me to say, yes, Derrida was a hack. Or, no, Peterson's just a meme. Things are always more complicated than this. And the truth doesn't require me to say it. I'm just trying to articulate where I'm on this stuff. It's not meant to be taken as gospel truth.

>What kind of abstract fantasy land do you reside in?
This is a rhetorical question. Let's say it's a pretty abstract one.

>Do you have any connection to reality at all?
See above. It's there. But I tend to hold the reins fairly loosely.

>I cannot take your post as an accurate description of reality, for there is no reality in your post.
If you've got reality on tap I'll be happy to read about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hysterical relativist. I don't think it's 100% socially constructed. But I do think that we do live in a world where that is held to be the prevailing wisdom - for better and for worse - and that requires a fairly light touch. There's a difference there. What I'm interested in are the commonalities, less so than the differences.

>Please attach yourself and your ideas to reality. I find them fascinating, and would be happy to see you get out of your abstract mind bubble.
Well, there's something we agree on, anyways!

>>9186694
>He does. In the media, on podcasts, on /lit/.
>implying any of those things matter

>>9181083


Good oust

File: 4a6fcb559d1a3b24a9821e577f1ccd7d.jpg (115KB, 675x675px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 675x675px

>>9186705
They do matter. Of course they matter. Media is hugely important. Our world is created by it in ever more recursive ways. Peterson is a culture-war lightning rod, and that culture war is opening up some very large and very deep cracks beneath the ground of the society we live in. That stuff isn't going away. Those things are only going to get bigger. We're going to see some interesting times.

Neoliberalism and globalization are presently reaping the whirlwind sown by postmodernity. This is not to demonize those writers, though: I *like* reading about postmodernity. Reading that stuff gave me the fucked-up sensibilities that I have today. That is the prism through which I view the world. So, in fairness, if you ask someone who has pointlessly and unprofitably spent some amount of time dwelling on this stuff, of course that person is going to say this stuff matters. Does it have to matter to you? Maybe not. But it is interesting as all hell.

>implying /lit/ doesn't matter
How dare you. Pistols at dawn.

>>9186731
Cheers anon.

File: 1442663520125.jpg (82KB, 630x540px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 630x540px

>>9183282
But if you destroy white masculinity, the result is not feminist utopia or matriarchy. The result is brown and black men pick up all the girls.

If you think white masculinity is bad, wait until you see Arab masculinity, or Brazilian masculinity.

>>9186790
Shit, they welcome to white girls.

>>9186760
Honest question, when was the last time you actually opened a book?

muh french and muh structures and oppression

germany should've fucking killed all of you

>>9184033
>fist fights
you've never been in one, faggot. and you didn't graduate either

File: 9780860915003-Cool-Memories-24c0a14e861c2840b7c90dc0d6230dab.jpg (60KB, 510x518px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 510x518px

>>9186812
This morning, pic related. I've had to spend time with less interesting job-related stuff recently, so I haven't been reading the guys I actually do enjoy reading as much as I would like.

File: fraternity dueling.jpg (100KB, 571x903px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 571x903px

>>9184033

I honestly wish we could settle arguments like that. Maybe Trump will bring back dueling.

>>9186055
Arguably better as the chance of being shot would be lower

>>9185223
Eating junk food, abandoning tradition (by doing things like wear modern clothes like t-shirts)

>>9184127
post a pic faggot

>>9180739

French revolution -> destruction of unified world vision -> substitution with relativistic and secular democratic world vision -> reality and truth are absolutistic forms of 'government' of the mind -> everything is a social construct as a result of a 'vote' of the community on what is real or not.

Read Roberto Calasso - Ruin of Kasch.

>>9187255
Good

Why am I even on this board?

>>9186833
It doesn't show

>>9180739
http://quillette.com/2017/03/02/how-french-intellectuals-lost-their-faith/

Whitey will return stronger and cleverer than ever.

File: image.jpg (116KB, 640x551px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 640x551px

>>9187836
I know that. Baudrillard was fucking magnificent. He was vastly more interesting than me. In terms of philosophers to read for pleasure, he's right up there at the top. Jean Baudrillard belongs to a long line of French arch-commentators on human vanity. He is a fucking deity when it comes to criticism.

Let me tell you why I'm here. I don't post here because I think I'm so interesting or smart. Perhaps it seems that way. I'll take responsibility for that. I do it partly because I want to get Blowed Up Real Good. I don't want to be right, I want to have a cool and mutually interesting engagement with ideas. That's the honest truth. It doesn't happen at work for me.

All I can tell you is that I enjoy thinking and talking about ideas. Sometimes a cool conversation takes place. Sometimes not. Sometimes I learn something. Sometimes I get told I sound like an obnoxious cunt. I actually don't even mind. I *am* an obnoxious cunt.

But you know what? It's all valuable. I'm just as happy either way. In the end, it all helps you become a better thinker so that you don't sink to the floor of the ocean.

>but anon, you have sunk to the floor of the ocean
>this is true. fortunately, there does seem to be wi-fi down here
>so, shitposting yourself up from the abyss?
>yeah, pretty much

File: Solaire-004.jpg (266KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 500x500px

>>9186694
Thanks m8.

I'm trying to get a solid methodology on how to approach truth, reality, ideas, etc. and I get "triggered" when I see someone say an "is" description of reality that is unsubstantiated. If it's in the realm of opinion and discovery, it's all good.

Truth statements of reality need to be approached much differently than opinion, and I still haven't figured out the exact methodology.
"4chan is a shithole" is much different than "I think 4chan is a shithole." I think the incorrect approach to opinion vs fact can cause massive disasters, hence my apprehension to ones who don't make the distinction.

I also have a bias against post-modernists or subjectivists and such, even though I have not read them or understand them, so approaching the subject is emotionally and defensively charged.

If you share the good things the post-modernists have to offer without manipulation, I thank you for your service. Who knows, the problem might be me.

File: wallpaper-961194.jpg (367KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1600x1200px

>>9188003
All good my man. I think pic related is how I see the universe, maybe how the inside of my own head works, where there's a little steel ball called 'I' that bounces around and lights things up and occasionally gutters out. The fun of abstraction! So I am not a guy to be taken too seriously.

>I get "triggered" when I see someone say an "is" description of reality that is unsubstantiated. If it's in the realm of opinion and discovery, it's all good.
Yessir. This is how I feel also. I used to think that people knew what they were talking about when they said, Get Real. I've learned since then that most of the time when I hear this I'm about to hear some Good Common Sense too. That's always good times. I just had to read a whole lot of French guys to actually realize I wasn't the only one who felt triggered when that happened. Turns out that may have been a fairly large chunk of human history.

98.7% of what I am likely to write is, just as you have said, opinion and discovery.

>Truth statements of reality need to be approached much differently than opinion, and I still haven't figured out the exact methodology.
Yup. Me neither. My gut feeling is, that's why it's good to have conversations. Could be that it's just basically tool & concept comparison exchange, with an emphasis on trying to learn how not to paint yourself into corners. For me at least.

>I also have a bias against post-modernists or subjectivists and such, even though I have not read them or understand them, so approaching the subject is emotionally and defensively charged.
Yeah. At a certain point, I started learning to trust my intuitions about this stuff, but there's a danger in over-reliance on intuition, the butterflies in your stomach. You can become paranoid (or just really fucking objectionable). It helps if you have a head with some processing power as well.

>tfw when my brain has the equivalent processing power of a disused raspberry pi

>If you share the good things the post-modernists have to offer without manipulation, I thank you for your service. Who knows, the problem might be me.
I've actually been thinking about this, that I'd like to write a bunch of little introductions to the pomo guys I like precisely to keep my own opinions to a minimum. And also as stress-tests, in a way. I would like to put them on /lit/ at some point, or maybe on a blog. Untested opinions aren't really worth all that much. Antifragility and that.

One thing I've been thinking about recently is this idea of mimetics and co-construction. Most of the mysticism and stuff that I like says, Don't Get Involved. But beyond a certain horizon you have to get involved, you have to say things (and, importantly, *mean* them). It's why my attitude to most of this stuff is pretty cautious, because I think that meaning is intersubjective *but* that intersubjectivity as an ideology in and of itself is completely silly. It's better to work things out, I think, by being somewhere in the middle.

>>9188003
>"4chan is a shithole" is much different than "I think 4chan is a shithole." I think the incorrect approach to opinion vs fact can cause massive disasters, hence my apprehension to ones who don't make the distinction.

The difference between the two statements is lesser than you think: both of them reduce or determine the subject '4chan' with the content 'shithole', so you can never think about '4chan' without 'shithole' fron now on, regardless of whether is true or not. Statements alter reality instead of just describing it.

>>9188003
>"4chan is a shithole" is much different than "I think 4chan is a shithole."
lol

>>9188615
>so you can never think about '4chan' without 'shithole' fron now on, regardless of whether is true or not. Statements alter reality instead of just describing it.
This is wrong, though. It's possible to just discard an irrelevant or untrue statement.

>>9188678
It really is not, cognitively speaking, even your true statement will be defined and construed having at its starting point the realization that 4chan is not shithole. You can't unknown this. Every true sentence has to have a false one underlying it.

>>9184390

And in the past, there were societies that were not nearly as productive as ours is now. We are currently living in one of the most free, productive human civilizations of all time, and to suggest that the way to make it better is to go back to a more animalistic time is assinine.

>>9180790
>they're the reason we're in such a mess today
Lol you're fucking dumb http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/

Foucault is not a communist. His ontology is analogous to a free market economy.

>>9188891
this. lots of retards on this board falling for memes.

>>9188697
4chan is a shithole
4chan is not a shithole

Are two polar opposite extremes (that require agreeing on the deffiniton of shithole); that are bridged by time and space and matter function of relatively infinite dynamism

File: 198384.png (13KB, 171x127px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 171x127px

>>9188615
>Statements alter reality instead of just describing it.

>>9188891
>His ontology is analogous to a free market economy

This is an utterly meaningless statement

>>9189605
Nick Land?

>>9189605
this (You) is well-earned

>>9189605
>>Statements alter reality instead of just describing it.
>my reality was just altered by reading this

>>9183242
>I would say, today, the problem is that the virtual is in and the problem is that you almost can't take a step without trespassing on someone else's sense of virtual identity.
This is a great observation.

>>9181083
>Nobody blames Nietzsche for the way things are today.
speak for yourself

>>9189613
>>His ontology is analogous to a free market economy

>This is an utterly meaningless statement
Well for someone who hasn't read Foucault I suppose it's less meaningful. It's okay you'll eventually come to know, or not.

>>9190255
I have read Foucault and I'm very familiar with the ontology from which you'd come to make this statement. Its meaningless because its ridiculous to think making a metaphor out of his ontology should have any implications to his actual political affiliations.

If you want to play this asshole game I think you've a freshman tier understanding of Foucault if you think the matter of his ideology affiliation is something to give a shit about either way

>>9189256

kys desu

File: image.jpg (55KB, 960x225px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 960x225px

>>9184685
Idk man. I think it's okay to just nod along and learn, despite what that crusty old bastard Schopenhauer says. FWIW. Hope you find someone you enjoy reading soon.

>>9189740
Cheers fella

>>9189934
Yeah, good point.

>>9180831
This is false.
Nietzsche said that antisemitic people were failed abortions.

>>9185728
>The thing about France is that they invent all this shit but don't apply it on themselves.

interesting you mention Foucault in this light when in The Archaeology of Knowledge he addresses this thoroughly, admitting that under his system of thought, he too is swallowed up by the field of discourse

>>9190289
Commandment 11: Thou who offers a kys, with not an argument, must kts

>>9190427
>Nietzsche said that antisemitic people were failed abortions.
Which is a great compliment, calling them very tough, strong, and fated by God to be borne

>>9184685
>I often fear that I'm just nodding along.
I've wondered about this before as well. After reflecting on it for some time, it is necessary to nod along with the intellectual. You are, nevertheless, entertaining the idea, but that does not mean you are at the same time incorporating it into your cannon of 'personal axioms.' You don't need to blindly accept what these intellectuals are saying, so just take a step back and make an attempt to understand how their idea works. At that point, ask yourself if you are willing to accept, deny, or pass on the proposition.

I would say to pass in almost every case because your life doesn't change that much when you do so.

File: 1328999468487.png (115KB, 318x282px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 318x282px

>>9180790

>ywn line these hacks up and machine gun then down

feels bad lad

>>9180790
>people who believe 'cultural marxism' is an existing thing don't understand that marxism is modernist and not post-modern

>>9191747
If CM doesn't exist, then explain the widespread destruction of Western culture, tradition, values that has systematically gone through every non-East European democracy here.

Go on..

>>9191772
Post-modernism is diametrically opposed to Marxism. Post-modernism says all truth is ultimately relative and orthodox marxism says that the material reality of the relations of production and worker exploitation are ontologically true. Also, stop watching videos by the golden one and David Aurrini and try to acquire some actual knowledge.

>>9191792
>stop watching videos by the golden one and David Aurrini and try to acquire some actual knowledge.
I haven't watched them and I've read close to 2k books.

So what you are insisting on is that ideas can't evolve and be appropriated?

>>9191792
>Post-modernism is diametrically opposed to Marxism.
They just repurposed Marxist critical methods. Saying they're opposed is ia bit of a stretch.

>>9191799
That's not what I'm saying, there is such a thing as 'post-marxism'. What I'm saying is that the post-modernism the CM-tinfoils are referring to has nothing whatsoever to do with marxism, post, orthodox or otherwise. The extreme identity politics that these people refer to only divide the working class so it would actually be harmful to COMMUNIST WORLD DOMINATION™
rather than benificial.

File: Specters_of_Marx,_French_edition.jpg (6KB, 201x300px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 201x300px

>>9191831
>What I'm saying is that the post-modernism the CM-tinfoils are referring to has nothing whatsoever to do with marxism
Yes, postmodernism has nothing to do with Marxism. Absolutely no relationship whatsoever.

>>9191846
Not what I said. I was talking about the post-modernism that people who believe in CM referred to: watering down of 'traditional values', cultural relativism, identity politics, gender relativism (or whatever it is called)

>>9191853
Those attitudes certainly derive from the theories put forth by people like Derrida, even if they have been vulgarized to such a great extent. It's a little much to claim they're in no way related.

>>9183998
damn thi adorno guy is a nice read

>>9191831
There are nations/borders. They have laws. A quantity of citizens (a quantity of which have lived there for some time; a quantity of whichs ancestors helped construct and maintain and defend such) exists within the borders, some of these nations have protocols which allow X amount of immigrants over Y amount of time for Z styles of reasons. They share a common currency, the self regulating force is capitalism.

The only thing that can be meant by 'cultural marxism', is an attempt to, diss and per, uade, the minds of citizens, to think this way or that way, about the laws of their nation and the natures thereof. And to a degree, what one might or should like to do with ones capital.

Part of this CM decrying, appears to be, aesthetic, which certainly is interesting, a part of this appears to be a matter of taste. The only quick example that comes to mind, is, (this potential vision of their dystopia), imagine if all architecture made over 200 years ago, was leveled (in the future), in exchange for homogenous concrete squares, the only type of building across the whole world was just bland concrete squares, and there were only 10 possible types of clothing one could acquire, the decryers might actually prefer this, if the ultimatum was that, or every other female had a nose ring and blue hair.

Promiscuous sex (std, unwanted pregnancies), race mixing, party culture, nihilism, littering (materially, and culturally), 'these minorities view points are just as valid as everyone elses, so if you ciritize them you lose your job and are kicked out of the Commune of America (lumped under "law, written and unwritten"), just a few pol points I can think of.

>>9191831
2/2

I know my response may have nothing to do with what you said, but I just read a few of your and that anons back and forth and sparked these thoughts in relation.

The thing is, there is only Law and Capitalism. So the decryers of this or that, who say marxism noooo! are really saying 'I dont like this possibility of capitalism!, that "life styles, and commodities" can be pushed and advertised on the youth; but no... this is all so sloppy and messy, because above it all, there are some clear cut sensible points from the polsters, but there is a heck of a lot of distractions (coming from the benefiters) and red herrings and straw men, and smoke and mirrors, and so everyone is split on who and what the enemy even is, what is even wanted, what can be wanted, for the ... what then "collectively.." most desirable way for the Nation to be? And then because these problems appear to be in niche nests in other nations, it becomes, lets look at the world and discuss what is going on with it, and what we can potential say to be is wrong?

The thing is, there is only Law and Capitalism... ("and culture!!!!"...."and if what you call "culture" is yeah potentially profitable for me... but also... A, B, C, D, E .....etc. which you call "not, or bad, or evil, or wrong, or degenerate, or marxist" culture, is profitable for me... than who is really right? There is only Law and Capitalism... it would appear I am, as the hidden hand is patting me on the back, the other removing endless aces from up my sleeve, the other, stroking my massive dong.