Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1489680567823.png (7KB, 194x259px) Image search:
[Google]
7KB, 194x259px
Is there anything more cringe worthy than hearing some critiquer talk about a basic topic in that overly puffed up way they talk about obscure philisophy? It's like they're revealing that they're dumb as fuck.
You see it with economics, sometimes on lit.
>It is clear that the recycling of surplus capital caused by the exploitation of labour trivially proves the necessity of a grand committee to mathematically fix commodity prices immanently for the stability of the system within itself..."
And when Zizek talks about Bill Gates extracting rent. LMAO, no one knows what the fuck he's on about. That is such specious reasonng it barely exists
>>
that the problem with continental philosophers in general
they generally lack the intellectual ability of most analytical philosophers so they "puff" up their language and mix it with obscurity to make themselves look smart
basic dunning-kruger effect
>>
>philisophy
why didn't you spell it out correctly so my filters would catch this thread?
Anyway, i've took some some economy classes and this is a recurrent theme.
They try their best to make sure the average joe doesn't understand economics or politics.
these are complicated subjects, but, they could be easier to understand if they were taught in a less abrasive way
>>
>>9723018
it's not that hard to get actually both "recycling" and "Bill Gates" are instances of modern capitalism outsorcing responsabilty to the individual
- recycling = is useless in the grand sceme of things - won't stop the pollution caused by big buiseness but gives the consumer the feeling of doing something good, which might stop them from facing the real problem/doing something about it. So the 'feel good' and `good consciuos' is already inherent in the act of consuming
- In a similar manner Bill Gates is one of the 8(?) people who own more wealth than half the world population, but through donation people will think this is actually something desirable and won't stand up to the 1% even though they keep getting exploited
TL:DR; I D E O L O G I E (at it's finest)]
>>
>>9723018
I understood half of that greentext, probably took fucking hours to draft
>>
>>9723018
>>It is clear that the recycling of surplus capital caused by the exploitation of labour trivially proves the necessity of a grand committee to mathematically fix commodity prices immanently for the stability of the system within itself..."
tl;dr capitalism is unstable without a command economy, or maybe state capitalism > free market capitalism (unless they mean a board of directors, the executive government, etc.)
You know, it's not that hard to parse, but it's really vague without context.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2