>Full disclosure: the first time i read Nietzsche i felt

Scaruffi is just a contrarian desperately seeking attention.

>>9690774

no i think he's an actual aspie.

Why is he so right about everything?

>>9690782
>think
http://www.scaruffi.com/friends/

He's not good on philosophy (not that Nietzsche is the quintessential philosopher), but he is an expert on AI and reads a shit ton about everything related to it.

Continental philosophy is hard to read. That's part of the mystique and glamour of it, but if you just want information or ideas, it's a turn-off. You can see though he makes a good effort at trying to read pretty much everyone, such as Heidegger which has a history with AI due to Dreyfus. He just doesn't get much out of it.

That doesn't mean he wouldn't agree with things Nietzsche said if put in a more down to earth manner.

>>9691167
What's "aspie" about it? You're probably underage. That was common back before the Internet.

>>9691143
He doesn't seem to get tired like everyone else. He probably reads more books in an average year than /lit/ does collectively. I'm on 20 or so, he's probably on at least 200 by now.

>>9691167
It's so charmingly Web 1.0.

>>9691167
>Alita's legs

I'm jealous tee-bee-eych.

>>9690770
>Full disclosure: the first time i read Nietzsche i felt that his books were just a ridiculous collection of nonsense, written in poor German, and largely based on an embarrassing degree of ignorance about anthropology, sociology, art and science; and i haven't changed my mind since then
What a fucking idiot. I don't particularly like Nietzsche and don't think he had many particularity valuable insights that weren't already said by somebody better however it's undeniable his prose is amazing.

It's without a doubt the primary reason for his longevity.

Tolstoy said the same thing.

>>9691313
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra is unreadable." - Borges

>>9691334
>>9691337
Don't forget Bloom.

>>9691313
>don't think he had many particularity valuable insights that weren't already said by somebody better

Like who?

File: being and time.jpg (26KB, 335x499px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 335x499px

I don't know if this book had anything to say or it was merely a giant bluff, but i know that it doesn't prove anything. Heidegger provides no proof whatsoever for what he claims. Even if he is saying something, he doesn't prove it. So it becomes a little pointless to try to figure out what he said.

To me Heidegger's convoluted and unscientific style seems to have more in common with psychiatrists than philosophers. I shudder at his grotesquely naive analyses of existence, fear, anxiety, the uncanny, conscience and death.

If you pick up this book at a library or at a second-hand bookshop, you will notice that only the first few pages have annotations and bear signs of having actually being turned. Virtually nobody had ever read this book to the end. But it is routinely listed as a milestone of philosophy. I personally think it represents a milestone of everything that gives philosophers a bad reputation: unscientific, incomprehensible, incompetent, and, ultimately, just plain silly.

Be suspicious of any philosopher who hailed this as a great book. Heidegger stated that Sartre had misunderstood most of his ideas, and that's the biggest compliment ever paid to Sartre.
Then again any summary, written in ordinary language, of this book constitutes a misunderstanding of his "ideas", because those "ideas" depend entirely on being written in a convoluted and unscientific language.

>>9691240

Running your eyes over hundreds of pages isn't the same thing as reading. Even if he 'read' 2,000 books a year it would mean nothing at all, as he obviously can't comprehend what he puts in front of himself.

>>9691167

>having friends is autism

Huh?

>>9691167
What's aspie about this? If he were an assburger he wouldn't have friends, but he has like 50 friends so he's far from an aspie.

What does Scaruffi actually do for a living? I'm curious.

>>9690770
Pretty unrelated, but what does /lit/ think of Scaruffi's infamous analysis of the Beatles?

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

>>9692692
>>9692629

You clearly are ignorant about autism, right? Your notion of autism/asperger's probably derives entirely from 4chan "insults". Having friends, and being autistic, are not mutually exclusive things.

What is autistic about that page is the overly specific and seemingly unnecessary categorization and ordering of his friends and acquaintances.

>>9690770
The only thing i agree with him on is The Beatles, to some extent.

>>9691783
>can't into literature
I wonder what he has to say about Lacan.

I bought a copy of A History of Rock and Dance Music and I don't regret it. His critique of the standard historiography of rock and dance music, and pop music in general, is completely sound, even if you disagree with his opinions on particular artists.

>>9690770

Brainlet test: (+) Positive. (Sensitivity 100%, Specificity 100%).

>>9690770
>I think the century that followed had little use for his philosophy
>20th century
>no use for nihilism
HAHAHAHA. Who is this guy?

What philosophers DOES Scaruffi like?

File: image.jpg (39KB, 300x296px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 300x296px

>>9693936
>Nietszche is nihilistic

>>9691783
Why do so many believe that science can prove anything, or that proof is important or valuable, or that anything ought to be subservient to science or proof?

Science works through a third-party to 'prove' anything it claims to prove.

>>9691313
His prose is cringe tier

>>9693940
The beatles

>>9693708
How are you supposed to take him seriously when he writes stuff like this?

>>9694061
The fact that

>>9691942
He seems to comprehend a lot more than most people. It takes a critical mind to recognize that the Beatles are actually shit when the entire world is telling you they're amazing.

>>9693703
He's a semi-retired expert on Artificial Intelligence. His views on the subject are pretty sobering. There's loads of it you can read on his site for free. He's written plenty of pieces shitting on pop-scientists who act like we're a couple of decades away from singularity. He believes that machines are still actually quite dumb, and that we've fooled ourselves because all that's happened is that we've gotten better at giving them instructions.

>>9694074
t. Paul McCartney

>>9694125
His analysis of the Beatles is absolutely ridiculous. He never once analyses the actual music, prefering to talk about three things:

1) The Beatles weren't left-wing enough;
2) The Beatles were mostly derivative of other bands and artists;
and 3) their songs are 2 minutes long.

None of those points is a valid reason for aesthetic rejection of an artist. Mozart was very much pro-establishment, and he hated Voltaire. Bach was mostly derivative from artists like Vivaldi and Buxtehude, so he didn't really innovate - so much so that the following period (Haydn-Mozart classicism) shows little influence of his. And, finally, Cole Porter's songs are also 2 minutes long.

I don't really listen to The Beatles all that much anymore, but their talent is undeniable, specially if you put their songs in the voice of someone who can actually sing, such as Joan Baez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDHLNVGvpNs

>>9694175
To be fair you haven't talked about the music either. It's a hard thing to do.

>>9691313
do you speak german?

>>9693958
retard

>>9694181
Why should I? That was not my goal. My goal was to refute his main points by citing counterexamples.

>>9694198
Scaruffi doesn't explicitly call their politics a flaw in the music, he's attacking their image. They were totally manufactured frauds on that front, nobody can disagree I'm sure. And as for the music, he's also right to say that other bands and artists we're always leading the charge, only for the Beatles to come along doing the same thing a bit later and be hailed as masters for it.

http://www.scaruffi.com/fiction/bestuk.html
>John Barth (USA, 1930): "The Sotweed Factory" (1960) +
What did he mean by this?

>>9694499

>The best novels of all times
>Yann Martel (Canada, 1963): "Life of Pi" (2002)
>Zadie Smith (Britain, 1975): "White Teeth" (2000)
>David Mitchell (Britain, 1969): "Cloud Atlas" (2004)

Is he listing every book he's ever read on this "best novels of all times" list?

>>9694514
kek

>>9694514
>Puts Ishiguro
>Doesn't put Kawabata

The fact that so many books name Nietzsche as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" philosopher only tells you how far philosophy is from becoming a serious study.

How did he read so many books, listen to so many albums etc.?
How did he have the time?

>>9695022
You know that Scaruffi and Pynchon are the same person, don't you?

>>9695022
He doesn't, he just looks up the majority opinion and then writes the opposite.

>>9695057
>

>>9695064
You really think someone would go that far with lying? Personally, I'd feel bad for lying so much about stuff I've read, listened etc.

>>9695022

dude he's like 60 years old

he's not some 20-something 4chan STEMfag

he had had a ton of time to read

Nietzsche and The Beatles are toilet-tier.

>>9694514

It's literally just a list of books he remembers liking

The fact that every fact is an interpretation (not true by the way)

>>9691334
He also never actually read him.

>>9694206
It's not about who does it first. It's about who does it better.

>>9696398

I have a mathematical background and I can't help applying Logic. If rule X applies to the Beatles, then it also applies to everybody else, and viceversa. You can't tell me that the Beatles are great because X, but someone else is not as great even though X applies to him as well (eg, the Beatles are great because they were the first to use the sitar in a pop song, but the Tokens are not great even though they were the first to use an electronic instrument in a pop song). Most stars are credited with "skills" that turn out to be ubiquitous (their fans don't know that those skills are ubiquitous simply because they don't know the lesser publicized musicians who have the same skills). As far as I am concerned, those stars are as good as (basically) everybody else. On the other hand, lesser known artists frequently exhibit more talent and introduce more innovations than the stars. As a mathematician, I draw the logical conclusions.

>>9696488
is this pasta?

>>9696398
>implying the beatles did anything better than anybody

>>9696488
this is less logic and more autism

doh think i just got pasta'd:(

>>9697368
the genius of the beatles was the wall of sound production. its easy to say you ccan play their songs so it must be easy shit but listen to populsr music pre-beatles, its like kids nnursery rhymes

>>9695021
nobody who seriously studies philosophy believes that.

Nietzsche was a cold bucket of water tossed on a discipline that had spent most of the past thousand years masturbating, nothing new but utterly necessary for the progression of the discipline.

>>9697396
how is most of the beatles not nursery rhymes and utterly simplistic chords and melodies. their contemporaries were way more musical, like jimi hendrix, the doors, cream, etc.

>>9697396
You know they didn't come up with that right? That was Phil Specter. He was the pop-music genius of the era. And if complexity is a measure of quality plenty of the beatles contemporaries shit on them.