>post modernists unironically believe this

>/pol/
>wikipedia articles
Oh hello there Mr. Pseud Ha! Ha! Ha!

>>9762680
>/pol/

/leftypol/. Apparently you can't read. What are you doing on /lit/ sweet summer child?

>>9762666
>he doesn't know the definition of "law" in science

>>9762666
Satan up to his tricks again

The currently predominant understanding of the ontological status of literature, on those infrequent occasions when this status is considered at all, is one that is fundamentally anti-realist. This attitude is in keeping with wider trends in the sort of post-modern thought that underwrites the theoretical work of the humanities in general – an attitude of dismissal, verging on disgust. Manuel DeLanda, a self-described realist philosopher, aptly describes the prevalent attitude: ‘’for decades admitting that one was a realist was
equivalent to acknowledging [that] one was a child molester.’

The publication, early in 2013, in Critical Inquiry of Alex Galloway’s article, ‘The Poverty of Philosophy: Realism and Post-Fordism,’ set off a mid-sized online kerfuffle, and provides us with a suitable example of the second of the two lines of inquiry mentioned above –challenges to SR in the form of questions of politics and ideology. Near the conclusion of his article, Galloway articulates this question as follows: Do movements like object-oriented philosophy and speculative realism have a politics and, if so, what is it? And, even more important, Malabou’s opening challenge, slightly rephrased: What should we do so that thinking does not purely and simply coincide with the spirit of capitalism? Galloway largely bases his critique of speculative realism on two – somewhat contradictory – premises. First, he equates the ontology of object-oriented philosophy with, strangely, Java and other object-oriented computer programming languages that ‘are themselves the heart and soul of the information economy, which if it is not synonymous with today’s mode of production is certainly intimately intertwined with it.’ Following a somewhat out-of-place explication of Badiou’s work on mathematics, Galloway concludes that that a ‘congruity exists between how Badiou talks about ontology and how capitalism structures its world of business objects’ – how Galloway hopes to account for Badiou’s vocal Maoism here is, of course, unclear. Galloway extends this discussion of Badiou to the work Meillassoux and Harman, implying that the realist ontologies of SR and OOO (defined in the broadest terms) are somehow predisposed to complicity in capitalist hegemony. Second, Galloway attacks SR on the basis of its lack of a sufficiently rigorous ideology. Realism, he writes, is an ‘unaligned politics’ and, thus ‘dangerous.’

https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/348/594

>>9762666
the various paradoxes of logic that nourish positions such as solipsism through a presuppositionalist doctrine show nothing but the flawed aspects of logic and the scope of knowledge extant in the sphere of said logic.
they are paradoxes of the gaps, so to speak.

>>9762666
>all those tabs

You're like a woman

>>9762723
i thought having a bunch of wiki tabs would be funner that the old shtick where i have tabs of tranny porn, "the game", and JIDF as my tabs

>>9762736
>funner
*funnier

>postmodernists
enlightenment thinkers, actually

>>9762715
You're a moron.

>>9762767
Technically he called himself a marxist who also believes in existentialism. Not even sure how that happens, since by supporting solipsism he is denying the Other.

>>9762666
nothing he said was wrong

What's even the argument for decontextualized subjectivism?
>DURR U CAINT REALLY KNO NUFFIN BOUT DUH WURLD
Okay?
But we do ~subjectively~ know that certain things behave consistently, asymptotically approaching 100% consistency. If we term these practically to be objective observations, then even within your flowery super subjective world where you can't trust brain chemicals to tell you they're brain chemicals UH-DOYYYY you still end up with a basic Objective/Subjective dichotomy. You haven't furthered any thought and you haven't even successfully obscured anything.

At least hard materialists can throw out any supposed phenomena if it doesn't fit the facts, and as such is a good tool for calling out bullshit.

>>9762813
He is denying modal logic, everything he said is wrong on a basic level.

>>9762666
nice b8

>>9762817
>What's even the argument for decontextualized subjectivism?

Solipsism, autism, virginity, etc

>>9762813
He speaks of prior experiences and likelihood and then
>There is no reason it shouldn't change tomorrow
By the way, tomorrow he's wrong.

>>9762813
he unironically believes in time and in pain. you either go full retard or you stay at a more reasonable functioning place, middle grounds are for pussies

>>9762691
I think what he is trying to say is that axioms can't be established because they are based on our perceptions, which are limitated to our experience and may even not be real at all

>>9762822
What if logic is an abstraction built by man and is only apparently followed by the Universe?

>>9763292
*limited

>>9762666
>"I can't argue against this, please help me out /lit/"

Read more, fat triggered loser

>>9762736
fuck i lost

File: 1483164606977.jpg (39KB, 401x604px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 401x604px

>>9762666
I've never lost an argument against these types in real life. The first thing you need to do is punch them in the face. They will become positivists extremely quickly and admit that not only do you exist but that you have just transgressed all kinds of ethical truths.

>>9762686
The tabs you fucking retard

>>9762666
Both extremes (in addition to some sort of golden mean position) are silly.

Philosophical positions are not refuted, they are abandoned, fruitfully misread, and/or expanded upon.

>>9762666
Trips of the devil

>>9762666
He's right, you know.

>>9762813
And nothing he said is useful, nothing he said will help reduce unnecessary suffering in the world, nothing he said could be the cornerstone idea of a successful prosperous society.

I know you edgy faggots love to shove your heads up your asses with muh dialectic muh spooks like a rectal ouroboros but if your philosophical presuppositions (or lack thereof) are practically incapable of making life a little less shitty for everyone else when applied to the world theyre fucking worthless.

>>9763738
Just imagine life is better and who it to say it won't be?

>>9763748
This is exactly the kind of response I would expect from a basment dweller who is deadly allergic to personal responsibility.

>>9763738
>>9763738

You should chill. You're starting to sound delusional.

>>9763738
e=mc2 doesn't reduce suffering either faggot

>>9763823
It doesn't even make clear that suffering should be reduced.

>>9763823
Correct, you can not determine how to act in the world just by observing the world.

>>9763817
>holding philosophy to the standard of "it should try to make people suffer less because for 99% of human history philosophers wanted people to suffer less" is delusional

sounds like /lit/

>>9763839
Yep. Delusional.

It's not by dint of your opinions/beliefs/values, honey. It's the fact that you're acting like you're making some sort of last stand.

Get over yourself.

File: smugwillis.png (225KB, 284x318px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 284x318px

>>9763312
>i cant argue against this

me and the entire thread on leftypol was laughing at the obvious /lit/ poster as you can plainly see. All he did the entire argument was repeat this exact same statement ad infinitum. If i told him to look up what modal logic was, he ignored it, if i told him him that he didn't what an axiom was, he ignored it, if I told him he himself was repeating an axiomotic belief that stems from solipsism ( I think therefore I am).

People like this have a stubborn a priori belief system that essentially can be reduced to
>muh spooks
>you aren't even real

>>9763993
>.
is supposed to be ...

>>9763853
>reddit spacing
>"last stand"
>projecting yourself this hard
Not him, but goddamn you are a thick

>>9762841
Oh. Right

>>9763525
>be on leftypol, /tg/ and /pol/
>hurr durr MUH /pol/ack SHILLZ
Apparently you can't read. What are you doing on /lit/ sweet summer child?

>>9762666
Download Vivaldi or an extension. Just get some vertical tabs.

>>9762666
That was a perfect explanation.

>>9763823
without e=mc2, we wouldn't be able to use nuclear energy

>>9764086
(((nuclear energy)))

>>9764056
That was a horrible explanation for anyone who doesn't have extreme autism
>>9763993
This is a good explanation

>>9763833
>punch someone
>observe their pain
>keep punching them
Abstract belief systems can border on the absurd, but too bad /lit/ is too autistic to understand this.

>>9764106
>That was a horrible explanation for anyone who doesn't have extreme autism
Isn't that what OP has? So it was, in fact, perfect.

>>9763738
>a rectal ouroboros
I like this phrase but you're still a utilitarian hedonist idiot.